When the NKJV departs from the TR

As with all discussions of "deviations" from the underlying text, listing a number without listing the number of chances provides subjective rather than objective evidence. Next, deviations that do not alter the message are what I call nits and of not much significance unless collectively it demonstrates the practice of unnecessary substitution. Translators should be sworn to translate what it says, not what they think it means, at least the ones making an effort at a literal translation.

 

Actually, "communication" is not understood, but translates logos in Matt. 5:7, and is perfectly legitimate.

 

They translated logos as "communication." This is legitimate because logos has a very wide range of meaning.

 

Rather than translating within the loosest range possible, i.e. legitimate, it is appropriate to compare translation versions based on what seems the most literal. A dynamic translation, changing the word meanings as necessary to translate the translators understanding of the "thought" is legitimate but not literal.

In Matthew 5:37, logos is translated as "communication" by the KJV and the NKJV. This is simply a dynamic translation rather than a literal one. YLT has it let your word be Yea....
The NASB translates it as "statement." Over versions have "what you say."

The KJV usually translates logos as "word" over 200 times, and so this example simply illustrates a lack of concordance with the usual and most frequent Greek to English translation. Some might say the deviation was driven by context, but the KJV also translates logos as "saying" about 50 times, and that would fit the context even better than communication which is apparently only used one or two times in the KJV.

 

You need to check your more recent lexicons. BAGD has "wedding hall" for one meaning of gamos, as do the Friberg's Analytical Lexicon and Louw-Nida (which I'm not fond of).

 

"Communication" is not a dynamic translation of logos by any means, but a perfectly legitimate literal one. Stop trying to pretend you know Greek. It really casts you in a bad light.

Question: Since you don't know Greek, am I right in assuming that you don't have any lexicons, and also cannot compare Greek usage other than the NT? If this be so, how in the ever-loving, cotton-picking blue-eyed world (that's a quote from the immortal Pogo) can you sit there at your keyboard and actually try to tell us how logos should be translated? That's totally ridiculous.

I came about my Greek knowledge the hard way: many credit hours in college and seminary, learning two Japanese textbooks of Greek to teach to my students in Tokyo and Hokkaido, translating several books of the Greek NT into English and the whole NT into Japanese, reading through various grammars. It takes many hundreds of hours to learn a language properly. So how can you pretend to know Greek when you don't? Come on, try to humble yourself and learn instead of pontificating as if you knew the language.

 

Be careful JoJ, telling Van that he doesn't know Greek (or Hebrew) is an assault on his character. Since it is honestly the truth, we don't need to be bothered with such details.

 

According to my NIV Exhaustive concordance, "logos" appears in the Greek text 331 times, and the NIV does not translate it about 15 times. Now word, words, say and saying are used about 180 times. Message, account, teaching and speech are also used numerous times adding to a total of about 50 more. Then a whole bunch of additional words, over 3 dozen, are used to blur the message.

This is particularly interesting when studying a verse (Matthew 5:37) which says we should be clear, saying yes or no, and not adding to it, i.e. waffling, and turning logos into a vague concept which includes, no kidding, eloquence.

 

Hi John of Japan, please stop addressing my qualifications and character to disparage my positions. Your constant use of this logical fallacy demeans your reputation as a seeker of truth.

Of course I have access to lexicons, the Blue Letter Bible site for example. And I have my exhaustive concordance of the NIV. Plus both hard copy and on line interlinears.

Why is "communication" dynamic. Again, lets agree or disagree on what I mean when I use this word. My yes is yes or no, I do not waffle and embellish the meaning.

I as said in my post, a dynamic translation translates the thought and no necessarily the literal word meanings. Here, Matthew 5:37 the idea is what we say should be black and white, yes or no, and not vague leaving weasel room. So "communication" captures the thought. But logos means what is said, words and sayings and the content thereof, ie. statement or message. I like the HCSB version, let your word yes be yes, no be no....
Says the same thing yet is more literal and concordant.

 

I see I missed one of your actual points, John of Japan. Yes you are right in assuming I do not compare usages of Greek words except from scripture, so for Greek from the New Testament. And I certainly agree that a professional translator would need to evaluate all the usages found in the language. I am well aware of the non scriptural references that appear in Thayers, to support a meaning of the Greek word under study.

I place more importance on the scriptural usages, because that is the text I am interested in. So there you have it, Sir.

 

Now lets see if John of Japan actually can study word meanings?

How many different Greek words does the NIV translate into the English word "word(s)."

Basically two, rhema and logos. What is distinctively different in the meaning such that Matthew would use rhema rather than logos or vice versa.

Now I want insight and not insult.

 

I'm not John of Japan, but his criticism of you isn't a logical fallacy. (Frankly two thirds of the stuff people around here claim is a logical fallacy isn't actual so but anyways)

You are making very specific criticisms about the nature of translations and the impact of the language used in contemporary translations. Yet you don't know the original languages. Your position is highly assailable since you are attempting expert levels claims without any requisite expert level knowledge.

It's like this guy I know who loves to gripe about the legal system and gives out "free legal advice" to people. Yet he doesn't have a law degree and most of his observations are wrong. He has been cited several times by legal authorities because of the dangerous council he gives to people. He believes that he is absolutely correct, yet all of his observations are based on an inability to understand the foundations of the law.