Featured How is the KJV a Bible translation in any different sense than the NKJV is?

Granted, that is one way of looking at it.

Still, what about word-for-word carry-over? I realize that in languages there is a certain amount of "dynamic equivalency" in all of them, because not every language has direct words for each word in another...but to make that bad a translation with the same Greek words? I don't think so, and it's because I have seen the TR versus the USB / Nestle-Aland, and seen it in the different revisions. The TR hasn't changed, while the other has changed some 27 times, depending on whether it is USB or Nestle-Aland.

Manuscripts are what scholars have used to develop the two major Greek texts with, and if a certain set of them is used in preference over others, then a different reading will occur in the translations, depending on which Greek text is used by the translation committees.



May God bless you sir.

 

Here is the TR and the Wescott and Hort text in Philippians 2:6

(Greek NT TR+) ος G3739 R-NSM  εν G1722PREP  μορφη G3444 N-DSF  θεου G2316 N-GSM  υπαρχων G5225 V-PAP-NSM  ουχ G3756PRT-N  αρπαγμον G725 N-ASM  ηγησατο G2233 V-ADI-3S  το G3588 T-ASN  ειναι G1510 V-PAN  ισα G2470 A-NPN  θεω G2316 N-DSM 

(Greek NT WH+) ος G3739 R-NSM  εν G1722PREP  μορφη G3444 N-DSF  θεου G2316 N-GSM  υπαρχων G5225 V-PAP-NSM  ουχ G3756PRT-N  αρπαγμον G725 N-ASM  ηγησατο G2233 V-ADI-3S  το G3588 T-ASN  ειναι G1510 V-PAN  ισα G2470 A-NPN  θεω G2316 N-DSM 

As you can see, they are identical.
Different source texts are only one of the problems and reasons why I reject modern translations.

 

Ok....but when does the textual criticism and the differing translations stop, and we get down to being able to point at something and say, "Thus saith the Lord"? and it be consistent?

My preference for the AV isn't based on readability...it's based on what I believe to be accuracy, a 250 year period where no one messed with it, and the fact that it reads almost the same as the ones that came before it. I can point to it, and say, "that is God's word in the English."

Many people can't, and I feel bad for them.

Do I think the "KJV" is "inspired"? No. Do I think that it reflects the original inspiration?

YES.

Why? Because of two things...preservation and highly-accurate translation for its time.
I think that God has providentially preserved His words in my language in the AV...for Spanish speakers, the Reina-Valera 1602, for French, the Louis Segond, in German...perhaps Luther's Bible ( with reservations ) and in other languages the TR basis for them.

With that, I will end my comments, gentlefolk, because this subject invariably ends in a draw, no matter which way it goes, IMO.



May God bless you all.

 

os

One more post, I suppose:

Where did you get that first line? It doesn't look like the TR.

Try this one:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/phi2.pdf



Now I'll look it up somewhere else:

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ <----- TR from here: https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/textus_receptus/philippians/phps02.htm

ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, <----- WH from here : http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testament/philippians/2.html#6

Very interesting.

I'll have to look at this again. Looks to me like a translation error in this passage, when NASB is compared to the KJV.

I agree, sir.

 

It is the TR available on E-Sword, I believe it is Stephanus TR.

 

There are some variations, but none that I see in verse 6:

5 τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ,
6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,
7 ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος: καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος
8 ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.
Greek Bible, based on Nestle-Aland 26th edition and United Bible Societies, 3rd edition

5 τουτο γαρ φρονεισθω εν υμιν ο και εν χριστω ιησου
6 ος εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ουχ αρπαγμον ηγησατο το ειναι ισα θεω
7 αλλ εαυτον εκενωσεν μορφην δουλου λαβων εν ομοιωματι ανθρωπων γενομενος
8 και σχηματι ευρεθεις ως ανθρωπος εταπεινωσεν εαυτον γενομενος υπηκοος μεχρι θανατου θανατου δε σταυρου
Stephanos-1550

5 Τοῦτο γὰρ φρονείσθω ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ,
6 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ,
7 ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος,
8 καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ.
Greek New Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, 1904

 

This is hogwash. You cannot possibly compare the differences between the editions of the KJV to the differences between the KJV and the NKJV. Can you actually demonstrate with percentages and numbers that the differences are greater between the different KJV editions than between the KJV and the NKJV. Spelling changes and printing errors do not count BTW.

 

The point of how the Nas renders that passage would be that though Jesus was Himself very God of very God, he allowed Himself to become a man and dwell among us, to be a servant of God all the way to the Cross. It is describing his Humilitiy..

 

I see no real areas where either one compromises the christian faith and doctrines though!

 

You misunderstand the Nas rendering, as it is stating that while Jesus was very God, he was willing to humble Himself and become a man and dwell among us, and to be obedient to even the death upon the Cross!

 

T

The main english rendering of that passage would be the humility of Jesus, so while he was very God, he was still willingly to give up the glory of heaven, and to become a Human, and to suffer and die on the Cross. I think the Nas got it right here!

 

The purpose of any of the alterings in the newer CT though would be an attempt to get it closer to the originals though, and the truth is, that there are still no areas of major doctrines affected, regardless if we use the TR/MT/CT texts!

 

Yes, that's what I keep hearing from the scholars that insist on churning out translations every ( on average ) 5 years from the turn of the last century until now, IMO. I'm not saying you support them or that you are just like them, but they make similar statements in their attempts at "getting closer to the original words of Scripture". Have they? Or are they just spinning their wheels? At some point they're going to have to admit they either cannot, or that what we have is sufficient. But there is something else I see at work in all this...

Question:

Have you ever heard the term, " it's like selling razor blades"?

I've done a fair bit of looking at Gillette's business model over the last century, and it's amazing how many adverts and different ways they came up with, just to appeal to a man's desire to shave his face. As I see it, there's a lot of money to be had stringing us poor Christians along, trying to convince us that we can never know the pure words of God for sure, and then introducing the "newest, best" translation onto the scene for the upcoming Christmas season...or some such marketing technique. I'm not trying to mock, I'm very serious.

Another example:
Micro$oft wants you to upgrade your PC with a new "Windows" operating system every 3 years, and, in my opinion, they try very hard to keep us PC users interested in their upgrades...but I haven't found anything better, at least markedly, than Win7 in the past 30 years...I won't get into the details of the things they've been discovered trying to implement in their attempts to convince users to migrate to the next version. It literally would fill pages.


Where was I going with all this?:

" And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." ( 2 Peter 2:2-3 )

To me, most of the publishers keep trying to dress things up in different "clothes", and to get us to spend our money on what was already completed 4 centuries ago ( minus revisions for spelling and a few words that have fallen out of use, perhaps ). There are only a few Bible societies today whose non-profit goal is to distribute the word of God...but there are at least 7 major publishing houses that are in the money to sell Christian books...and lots of them. I won't even list them because many of you reading this could name them off the top of your head...one starts with a "Z", another with a "Th" and "N", and still another with a "B".

Let's change tack for a minute...

Want an example of a current translation that has progressed from "old" to new" without much of anything really changing? Check out the RSV to NRSV to ESV evolution...I found it very interesting.
Then there's the NIV, NIV 2000, TNIV, and probably yet another one that I'm not aware of.

My point? "Christian publishing" is big business, and the "Christian bookstores" and online sales are full of all kinds of merchandise that's made to appeal to the believer...when all we really need is a Bible.



To address your statement of no major doctrines being affected, I showed you a passage further back that seems to cast major doubt on the deity of Jesus Christ...and that's only one. There are problems with many translations when compared to the KJV, and they number in the dozens, to start with.

Now, what I'm interested to know, is that since this is true:

" But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. " ( Matthew 4:4 )

Why would I want to see anything affected...not one "jot", not one "tittle"?.
It's all important to me,and if God's word is inspired ( and I know that it is ) then I want as much of it as I can get. The thing is, I believe that I already have it.



May God bless you sir.

 

Truth

 

There are tooo many modsern english translation, true, but the simple truth is that scholars who are involved in the CT actually believe that they are getting back to the originals each time better when revised.

again,m what would be the critical differences between the TR/MT/CT that would cause any real differences in doctrines?

 

The modern translations have been greatly used by the lord though!