NKJV translation error?

Tim, you still don't get it. Paul did not invent the Old Testament, and neither should you.

The O.T. text says one thing, and Paul includes all the promises to make a theological point.

You have Paul rewriting Scripture.

 

timothy 1769 said:

Read carefully

Alright, here's what you said:

If you had meant that there was merely a translation error in Genesis, you could have said that.

Instead, you said that the NKJV "denies the inspiration" of a book of the Bible. You ascribed a motive to the translators.

So for the last time: Is that an accusation you can prove with facts?

Grow a backbone and prove your claims. Or don't make them.

 

Brother Ransom,

I think for me to say any more would not serve any useful purpose. My position already been stated, hopefully with adequate clarity.

May our great God and the Lord Jesus Christ bless you with peace and grace beyond measure.

Regards,
timothy 1769

 

Your the one that said "The KJV apparently believes..."

Freudian slip perhaps?

 

Yes. But is it really the position you want to have associated with you?

Making false charges and evading requests for proof doesn't seem to be something you would want.

 

The word in question is sperma, which in this context, means "offspring". It's gramatically singular, but referrs to a plural group. There's no "error" here in either translation. It's simply the splitting of hair. This is simply one of those areas where a word-for-word translation from Greek to English is problematic. In English, the "seed" context is also a singular word that referrs to a plural group, but does not carry the exact translational weight as sperma. Words like "offspring" and "decendants" are more accurate, but also have singular/plural issues.

 

Originally posted by Scott J:
Your the one that said "The KJV apparently believes..."

I certainly did. It's also irrelevant, but making such an issue out of it does allow you show how wrong I can be in such details, which I guess must be important to you. Did you look closely at the post I responded to? None of us seem to have any problem understanding it even though the same anthropomorphic error was made there as well.

Freudian slip perhaps?

Some good advice I once received:

"Making false charges ... doesn't seem to be something you would want."

"...is it really the position you want to have associated with you?"

[ December 04, 2003, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]

 

timothy 1769 said:

I think for me to say any more would not serve any useful purpose. My position already been stated, hopefully with adequate clarity.

I agree. Your refusal to provide evidence for your false accusations against the translators of the NKJV speaks volumes against you.

 

Scott,

I'm sorry for that last post, what a stupid thing for me to say. I don't think I'm spiritually mature enough to handle this forum. I do love you, my brothers, even though I don't do such a great job showing it. I ask you to please forgive my juvenile antics.

Regards,
Tim

 

Christ4Kildare said:

Would you agree then that the RSV was correct in translating Isaiah 7v14 as a "young maiden?"

I would. Isaiah is speaking literally and most immediately of a child born as a sign to the current king - a sign that most probably is fulfilled in the birth of his own son to his wife. The text later says that Mrs. Isaiah conceived in the usual fashion.

This birth is a type of Christ's. However, it is not the one that Isaiah is literally writing about.

 

Please quote my false accusation against them, thanks.

 

timothy 1769 said:

Please quote my false accusation against them, thanks.

[banging head against desk] Were you born this dense, or did it come with years of practice?

You slandered the translators by accusing them of denying the inspiration of Galatians, or had you forgotten?

 

You can't produce a quote, simply because I haven't accused them of denying the inspiration of Galatians. In fact, I gave my opinion that they almost certainly do believe in the inspiration of Galatians.

You want to take what I said about the translation as an accusation against the translators. Your wanting it doesn't make it so.

 

Christ4Kildare said:

I disagree with you, but with your consistency there I can "agree to disagree" since you hold to a consistent principle.

I try to be consistent, but I dispute whether that is what we're looking at here at all.

"Young woman" fits Isaiah 7:14, translationally and contextually. There was another Hebrew word for "virgin" that could have been used here, but was not. (Interestingly, the Greek word for "virgin" was used here in the Septuagint, which Matthew quotes under inspiration, so the conundrum wraps itself up quite nicely.)

Unfortunately, no one has yet posted the Hebrew in Genesis to see whether the NKJV's translation here is as good as it can be. (The discussion of the Greek of Galatians above is beside the point.) The situation with Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew would be parallel if the best translation in Genesis was in fact "descendants" and not "seed," but Paul's commentary was based on the Septuagint.

 

timothy 1769 said:

You want to take what I said about the translation as an accusation against the translators. Your wanting it doesn't make it so.

Do you think I am an idiot?

Translations don't have motives. Translators do. Saying that the "translation" denies the inspiration of Galatians while supposedly saying the "translators" actually do, is meaningless and contradictory hogwash.

Stop playing your stupid games. You made a baseless accusation. Be a man and withdraw it instead of trying to pretend it isn't so.

 

Great, so it shouldn't be hard for you to quote the baseless accusation. Please do so.

ps - of course I don't think you're an idiot.

 

Brother Ransom,

Here's what I originally said:

"The problem is with the NKJV translation of Genesis, not Galatians. The NKJV translation apparently denies the inspiration of Galatians, since it flatly contradicts it."

I said what the problem here is - the translations of Genesis. Then I identified the problem - the text apparently denies the inspiration of Galatians by contradicting it. This is a real problem, no matter what the translators personally believe. My opinion, which I have stated several times, is that they almost certainly do believe in the inspiration of Galatians.

I hope this makes the issue clear. I simply have not done what you accuse me of.