When the NKJV departs from the TR

Why is communication not a "literal" vice dynamic translation of logos? We know that one of the meanings of communication is "the message transmitted" and since "logos" means "message" we have a perfect overlap, "literal" overlap. The issue is communication has a range of meanings, such as the message received, which has nothing to do with this verse.
So a different English word, ie sayings, teachings, message, statement, does not as greatly afford a miscomunication. So these words are more literal. That is why I said communication is dynamic.

 

I see that I posted a falsehood when I said both the KJV and NKJV use communication. My bad. The KJV uses communication but the NKJV simply says let your yes be yes... omiting "logos." But "let your yes be yes" certainly conveys the thought of the TR text and so is a more dynamic translation than the KJV in Matthew 5:37. Additionally, communication is a more dynamic translation of logos than word or saying or message as previously posted.

 

If we eschew using word for rhema, we might use utterance. And in the cases where we use utterance to translate logos, we might use saying or message or another of the basic meanings of logos.

Lets look at a few:

Matthew 4:4 it would read, by every utterance that proceeds from the mouth of God.

But you might object, does that not introduce a deviation with Deuteronomy 8:3. Not really!

Matthew 12:36; it would read every careless utterance that people speak...

Matthew 26:75; it would read and he remembered the utterance that Jesus had said....

The actual issue to address is not that the NKJV does not follow the TR as closely as the KJV, because it does, but that neither adheres to the underlying text as closely as it should and we have the technology today to fix it in a New York minute.

Thus by making a minor change the translators could establish a more concordant translation.

 

Okay, I was mixed up. You're right. Sorry about that.

Which brings me to say though, that I really think the NKJV translators should have translated logos, and that it's hard to swallow that it is understood in their rendering. I think this one is a legitimate complaint of KJV advocates.

 

Every day in every way I'm learning more about Van. :BangHead:

 

I would address your qualifications if you had any. You don't in either Greek or translation studies. As for your character, I haven't mentioned it at all, but I am developing a clear picture of it.

You see now, the Blue Letter Bible site doesn't have a lexicon. It only lists what words translated what original words. And a concordance is not a lexicon. So you've convinced me that you don't have a lexicon and don't know how to use one.

You are wrong about what a dynamic translation is. According to Eugene Nida, the inventor of the dynamic equivalence theory, for a translation to be dynamic it must produce the equivalent response from a modern reader as it did from the original readers.

Unfortunately for your idea, communication is a clear inference from the very wide range of meaning of the word logos, and therefore a literal translation. Please look the word up in an actual lexicon and maybe you'll see that.

 

Happy to help!

 

Oh please, this is silly. Mr. Kodama, my first year Greek student, could tell you that those two words are the two basic ones meaning "word" in Greek. So of course they are translated "word" in the NIV--and every other English translation.

As to Matthew's usage, he only used rhma six times, but he used logos 30 times. But if I go down your road as to why Matthew used one or the other it will derail the thread, and so I'll stop here.

 

Ah, John of Japan, I see you cannot compare and contrast Rhema and Logos, but rather claim they should be used interchangable. Well, I think they have different meanings, as used in the NT.

I see you do not know how to use the Blue Letter Site. Search for a verse, say Matthew 4:4. Click on the "C" in the boxes on the right. Scroll down to rhema and click on the number in the middle column. Viola, both Stongs and Thayers Lexicon entries are right there.

Now as for Matthew's use of Rhema, all the usages can be translated using English words not used to translate logos.

Matt 4:4 change word to utterance
Matthew 5:11 change say to utter
Matthew 12:36 change word to utterance
Matthew 18:16 change word to charge
Matthew 26:75 change word to utterance
Matthew 27:14 change word to charge

Thus the distinctive meaning of Rhema as used by Matthew of something spoken or said about another person, or what the person said is preserved concordantly. No need to obliterate the underlying Greek.

 

You are a real piece of work! I do not claim that they should be used interchangeabley, and don't think that. And I certainly can compare the two, but I refuse to because it's rude to derail the thread.

Thanks for the tip. I guess I didn't check far enough--the site had nothing I don't have in multiple software packages. But FYI, both Strong's and Thayer's are over 100 years old and very, very out of date. I never use them, and anyone who does will be misled over and over.

 

Thanks John of Japan for admitting your charge that I did not have access to lexicons was false.

Did you say they could be used interchangably? You say you did not.

However you did say "those two words are the two basic ones meaning "word" in Greek." And then said you would not address why one rather than the other was used. What conclusion would you draw?

And as expected when you found out two of the lexicons I used, you disparaged them as if they were worthless. Go figure.

Basically John of Japan, I am still waiting for you to say something about the distinctives of rhema and logos. I have presented my understanding of rhema. Was I near the mark?

 

Start a separate thread on rhma and logos and I will answer you there.

I'm only going to say this once more: I will not derail this thread. It's rude and disrespectful to the person who started the thread.

Concerning my disparaging remarks about Strong's and Thayer's, go back and look on this forum and you will find where I reviewed many different Greek lexicons, and in the process clearly told why these two carry no authority among Greek teachers and scholars nowadays. This is not new news. And by the way, here I am a Greek teacher and translator, and here you are, having admitted you don't know Greek. And rather than asking okay, what is a good lexicon, you are complaining because I told you the ones you mentioned aren't good. Go figure!

 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/?letter=r

How about the NAS lexicon found at the above link, which has been updated as late as 1999.

As far as derailing the thread. You are the one discussing my qualifications and character, ie. Van is a piece of work.

I am discussing how the NKJV and the KJV depart from the underlying text in that they do not stick with the basic meaning and distinctions of the underlying Greek.

Rhema and logos certainly are germane to the topic. Why not present something useful to the discussion rather than assertions that have been demonstrated to be false and inaccurate.

 

It claims to be "based on Thayers." It's not based on Thayer's, it is Thayer's.

 

Every, i.e all sources I have found on line, says the BDag is the gold standard of lexicons, but I have not been able to find it free on line, it is for sale only it appears. So the best I can do is look at Thayers, edited to match the NAS words, and Strong's. To say these do not provide adequate insight into the meaning of most words seems a tad judgmental. Yes, perhaps 300 or so words are significantly different in BDaG, but out of 6068 or so, it seems pretty useful to me.

 

If Rhema basically concerns itself with stuff said by a person or about a person, why is it translated into so many English words. Lack of scholarship of the part of those with BDAG lexicons on their bookshelf or software program.

Why not use 4 or so English words in all 68 places in the text, rather than about 20? My answer is a lack of scholarship. It would seem the translators have made the perfect the enemy of the good. Thus they provide words with shades of meaning they "see" in the context, rather than stick with the basic meaning of the word. If we add remark (remarks) and "what was said" to the mix, I think every usage is covered.

 

John is correct. Any attempts from this point on to derail the thread to suit an agenda will be deleted. If they are repeated infraction points will be issued.

 

However amusing this is to read there's a point where it becomes pointless.

Proposing an idea about translating while admitting that one knows little about the subject is fine and dandy.

But when a scholar and professional translator comments that the idea doesn't hold water, it is time to begin to learn from him.

Van, you've proven yourself obstinate and unteachable in these recent posts.

On-line lexicons are a tool, but only for novices, beginners;
they provide only a glimse into the meaning of the word in its original form.

Advanced lexicons and word study books can't even provide the depth of understanding that someone familiar with the language can.

Even the KJV translators, in its preface, defend the idea that that a single original-language word can carry many shades of meaning.

Time to move on Van, learn from the expert.

Rob