NKJV: a tempestuous head wind arose
KJV: arose against it a tempestuous wind
against it a wind = head wind
Nice try, but I'm not buying it.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are you not satisfied with .....?
- Thread starter Askjo
- Start date
- Status
NKJV: a tempestuous head wind arose
KJV: arose against it a tempestuous wind
against it a wind = head wind
Nice try, but I'm not buying it.
I don't see it either, but then, I can't read Greek. Sounds like it was translated from the same manuscript(s) though.
KJV: But not long after
NKJV: But not long after
KJV: tempestuous wind
NKJV: tempestuous...wind
KJV: called Eurocydon
NKJV: called Eurocydon
KJV: arose
NKJV: arose
KJV against it
NKJV head
KJV: there arose against it a tempestuous wind
NKJV: a tempestuous head wind arose
"head wind" is the same as a wind "against it"
So again, no deviation from the TR.
Also, this is not even a textual variant. You need to supply something that is a textual difference and not translational if you are going to make a claim they left the TR.
It could be that the NKJV translators considered that the ship is the referent of it . A head wind, by definition, blows against the course of a moving object, so a head wind would be blowing against it. So there is really no change.
There is in fact a textual variant in this verse; the TR and MT call the wind a Euroclydon; Alexandrinus calls it a Euraquilo. So both the KJV and the NKJV agree against the CT.
You'd think that Will Kinney would try to serve up better examples than these.
There is in fact a textual variant in this verse; the TR and MT call the wind a Euroclydon; Alexandrinus calls it a Euraquilo. So both the KJV and the NKJV agree against the CT.
You'd think that Will Kinney would try to serve up better examples than these.
No, they are different.
The translation for head wind in Greek is αντίθετος άνεμος
Sorry, this Greek words did not match with TR.
there are not other Greek words. There is not textual variant here. This cannot be an example. The CT says the exact same thing. Yes, they are different TRANSLATIONS, not textual difference. head wind is a find translation of the words here. It equals a wind against.
0 for 3
let me give you a hint. you need to find somewhere the NKJV doesn't agree with the TR, not where there is a translational difference. so it needs to match the CT in the case of your example, which you haven't been able to do that yet.
Please show me where "head" is in TR.
"Head" is most likely not there but the translation of wind coming at you IS "headwind". It's actually a single word - not two words. In the Greek, they may not say "headwind" since that's an English term but instead may say something else like forewind or something. Just because "head" is not in the Greek doesn't mean it's a wrong translation. For example, show me where "meet" is in the TR in Genesis 2:18.
Genesis is in Hebrew Masoretic text, not TR.
ROTFL - DUH!! I knew that but I claim stupidity from a week of VBS refreshments, feeding 800 people a day.
But it still shows that the English translation isn't always exactly word-for-word as the original language. So "head" might not be there but it's a correct translation for our English language.
It's not literal, word for word here, but the KJV does this many times. Head wind is wind against it. Means the same thing. You don't always do a 1 to 1 ratio of words when translating. It's not a textual variant. (the NA27, UBS4th, MT, and TR all agree).
So, as I said, you are 0 for 3. You need to show me a textual variant where the NKJV went away from the TR.
annsni said:
you know what annsni means.
They are not TR.
No, but they agree with it.
I know. My point, which you missed, was that they ALL agree. There is NO textual variant.
So, you are 0 for 3. Any actual examples?
on, and neither is MT the TR
Also preachers. Or preachers also. Are they not verb?
No plm. See my previous posts.
ηκουον δε ταυτα παντα και οι φαρισαιοι φιλαργυροι υπαρχοντες και εξεμυκτηριζον αυτον
The Greek text said, also the Pharisees.
VS
ηκουον δε ταυτα παντα και οι φαρισαιοι φιλαργυροι υπαρχοντες και εξεμυκτηριζον αυτον
The Greek text said, Heard now things all also the Pharisees…..
kai is closer to the Pharisees.
Rule? Well, I translate from ASL to English.
1. the word order from one language to another doesn't always stay the same. In fact, many times is different.
2. Irrelevant anyway as there is a textual variant here and the NKJV goes with the TR. The word "also" isn't in the CT, but it is in the TR and the NKJV has it.
again, I'm asking for a place where the NKJV ignores the TR and goes with a CT reading(MT would work too).
Askjo,
Here it is simple:
You try argue different two things-
1- That NKJV use different words than TR- use words from CT.
2. That NKJV use different English words or word order than KJV.
One not same as other. If NKJV not agree word for word with KJV, no problem- it is translation difference, not different Greek text.
JBH say- show us a place where NKJV different from KJV because of different Greek text. That what you say first time. Prove it.
Here it is simple:
You try argue different two things-
1- That NKJV use different words than TR- use words from CT.
2. That NKJV use different English words or word order than KJV.
One not same as other. If NKJV not agree word for word with KJV, no problem- it is translation difference, not different Greek text.
JBH say- show us a place where NKJV different from KJV because of different Greek text. That what you say first time. Prove it.
I do not talk about the CT. I talked about the TR where the NKJV left.
All TR and CT agree on John 10:6 where the NKJV translators did not translate from the Greek to English. -- The word for word translation is the problem here !!!
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status