Genesis

[Rippon]

This is related to my Translating Translations thread. The NKJV is a big improvement over the KJV,but it lags behind in its form of English. So I will start a series of threads on some comparisions between the KJV and a more contemporary version. Let's see. Which one shall I use to compare with the KJV?... That's right,my trusty NIV! I think all of the objective folks among you will notice the superior clarity of the NIV versus the KJV in the following snips.

I'll stick with the Old Testament where there are not as many textual issues to deal with. There are some;but not nearly as many as with the NT.

4:23
K -- I have slain a man to my wounding
N -- I have killed a man for wounding me

14:16
K -- his brother Lot
N -- his relative Lot

17:18
K -- might live before thee!
N -- might live under your blessing!

20:16
K -- thus she was reproved
N -- you are completely vindicated

24:61
K -- her damsels
N -- her attendants

25:16
K -- these are their names,by their towns,and by their castles,twelve princes according to their nations
N -- these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps

25:28
K -- venison
N -- wild game

26:8
K -- Isaac was sporting with Rebecca
N -- Isaac caressing his wife

26:31
K -- they rose up betimes in the morning
N -- Early the next morning

29:12
K -- Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother
N -- He had told Rachel that he was a relative of her father

30:3
K -- she shall bear upon my knees
N -- she can bear children for me

31:38
K -- have not cast their young
N -- have not miscarried

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The main problem is the textual issue of the underlying Hebrew/Greek texts.

Luke 6:1 (KJV) And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

Luke 6:1 (NIV) One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels.the next portion is from Revision Revised pg 73-74:

The following is from Dean Burgon's book "Revision Revised"

"It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has disappeared from codices א b l. The reader may not be displeased to listen to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:—

“I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,”—(the words are Jerome's in a letter to Nepotianus),—“to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke's expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, literally the ‘second-first sabbath.’ ‘I will tell you all about it in church,’ he replied. ‘The congregation shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do not.’” But “eleganter lusit,” says Jerome180. The point of the joke was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [a.d. 360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].

Ambrose181 of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult [pg 074] expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius182 of Cyprus [370] does the same;—and so, Isidorus183 [400] called “Pelusiota” after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius184 also volunteers remarks on the word [a.d. 400?].—It is further explained in the Paschal Chronicle,185—and by Chrysostom186 [370] at Antioch.—“Sabbatum secundo-primum” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to its place in the Gospel. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in every codex extant except א b l, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got omitted from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have established itself universally, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept proclivi scriptioni præstat ardua. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.187 It got excised, however, here and there from manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from [pg 075] the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke's famous “second-first Sabbath” has been thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Sorry I didn't realize this was only for Genesis.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

This is related to my Translating Translations thread. The NKJV is a big improvement over the KJV,but it lags behind in its form of English. So I will start a series of threads on some comparisions between the KJV and a more contemporary version. Let's see. Which one shall I use to compare with the KJV?... That's right,my trusty NIV! I think all of the objective folks among you will notice the superior clarity of the NIV versus the KJV in the following snips.

I'll stick with the Old Testament where there are not as many textual issues to deal with. There are some;but not nearly as many as with the NT.

4:23
K -- I have slain a man to my wounding
N -- I have killed a man for wounding me

14:16
K -- his brother Lot
N -- his relative Lot

17:18
K -- might live before thee!
N -- might live under your blessing!

20:16
K -- thus she was reproved
N -- you are completely vindicated

24:61
K -- her damsels
N -- her attendants

25:16
K -- these are their names,by their towns,and by their castles,twelve princes according to their nations
N -- these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps

25:28
K -- venison
N -- wild game

26:8
K -- Isaac was sporting with Rebecca
N -- Isaac caressing his wife

26:31
K -- they rose up betimes in the morning
N -- Early the next morning

29:12
K -- Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother
N -- He had told Rachel that he was a relative of her father

30:3
K -- she shall bear upon my knees
N -- she can bear children for me

31:38
K -- have not cast their young
N -- have not miscarried

Also in 17:18 "blessing" is not found in the Hebrew text.

To place the word blessing it so add an interpretation.

 

[Rippon]

Jordon,you didn't read my OP. I said these threads will not concern textual issues. That's largely in the domain of the New Testament. I am dealing with Old Testament renderings. Honor the OP. If you want to discuss NT issues open your own thread on the subject. Don't clog this one up please.

 

[Rippon]

Also in 17:18 "blessing" is not found in the Hebrew text.

To place the word blessing it so add an interpretation.

In the NET Note it says:Or "live with your blessing."

 

[Rippon]

Sorry I didn't realize this was only for Genesis.

Then remove your post #2 and put it in another thread. It is out of place here.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Is it English, or English?

On of the problems when dealing with the KJV - and revisions - is not so much the initial translation from the original languages to English, but in the translation of English (17th Century) to English 21st Century).

I think that is your point here; or am I laboring under a misapprehension?

The wording of the KJV made perfect sense to the readers of the day. Much like the plays of Shakespeare lose a lot of their humor and wit to modern audiences who simply don't understand what the words mean (in context).

For instance, in 'modern' English (all within my living memory) is something very good 'hot' or 'cool'? Or is it 'bad'? I talk with younger people - college age and slightly above - who have no idea of what a 'beatnik' might be.

I suppose I'm considered 'liberal' by some - a howling joke to all my unsaved friends who consider me a 'Bible thumper' of the first water - I believe God's message is to people of all ages and all eras, and it is not God's intent for people to learn obsolete language (17th Century English for example) to hear God's will for their life.

 

[Rippon]

The wording of the KJV made perfect sense to the readers of the day.

Granted the people of that time understood it more than folks do today. However it was deliberately made to sound somewhat archaic. No one ever spoke the kind of language that the KJV uses --even with the updates of Paris and Blayney.

 

[saturneptune]

........................