NKJV translation error?

No problems whatsoever.

 

Dr. Bob,

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.

 

Originally posted by Ransom:
Someone else's first post to thread started off by saying "D-u-u-h-h, maybe the NKJV guys don't think Paul's words were inspired."

Ransom thinks I'm stupid.

Oh well, I AM stupid

 

Sure, I hope so too. I said the translation denied the inspiration of Galations, not the translators. I personally suspect that they were well aware of the issue (anyone who has read the Bible a few times would be), but they preferred to follow their worldly, pseudo-scientific translation principles and thereby ignored the correct sense provided directly via the Holy Ghost in the new testament.

This would be an example of exalting man's wisdom above God's, an attitude regrettably common in the modern versions movement.

 

1. It doesn't deny inspiration. It is not incorrect either. You are just reading your interpretation into the text and determining that it is an error. Just because you don't understand theology, doesn't make the version wrong.

2. The NKJV followed the same translation process as the KJV. They are both "formal equivalence". Nice try, but if you are going to attack something, at least try to be factual.

3. This would be yet another attempt at those who don't know trying to convince people there are errors in God's word.

Try to follow this:

God told Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land. God also told Abraham that through one particular descendant, the nations would be blessed.

Paul reasons that the promise to the many descendants is only valid through the blessings that come from the one particular descendant. Thus, salvation (found in Abraham's greatest son) would be primary and the other blessings would follow.

 

There is no real problem IMO.

The KJV committees took several hundred years to make their corrections and even continuing because many of us see the NKJV as a major modernizing revision to the 1853 adjustment (I believe all that they did in this revision is to add paragraphing, I may be wrong).

Give the NKJV revisioning body a chance.

Another fact: someone complained about the “myriad” differences amongst the MVs as compared to the much smaller closed system of KJV “errors”. This is a result of the divergence of the Byzantine and Alexandrian families of original language texts over 1700 years as opposed to the KJV closed system of English texts of 400 years and that after the advent of the printing press.

HankD

 

1. It doesn't deny inspiration. It is not incorrect either.

It contradicts Galations. Either Genesis, Galations, or the NKJV translations of these texts are incorrect. Take your pick.

You are just reading your interpretation into the text and determining that it is an error.

Sorry, no. I'm just reading what the text literally says and noting the contradiction.

Just because you don't understand theology, doesn't make the version wrong.

I am quite ignorant, and that certainly includes theology. Luckily this issue doesn't involve theology, just the plain meaning of English words and belief in God's NT revelation.

2. The NKJV followed the same translation process as the KJV. They are both "formal equivalence". Nice try, but if you are going to attack something, at least try to be factual.

Here's a difference:
The KJV apparently believes in using the New Testament revelation to help translate the Old, especially when the NT explicitly tells us what a verse means. Apparently the NKJV comittee does not.

3. This would be yet another attempt at those who don't know trying to convince people there are errors in God's word.

Yes, my ignorance is vast. But my understanding of simple English words is pretty good!

Try to follow this:

I'll try.

God told Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land. God also told Abraham that through one particular descendant, the nations would be blessed.

Paul reasons that the promise to the many descendants is only valid through the blessings that come from the one particular descendant. Thus, salvation (found in Abraham's greatest son) would be primary and the other blessings would follow.

Well, what Paul actually said was: Ga 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Makes me glad to not share your superior knowledge, since it seems to keep you from recognizing what Paul actually said.

So, given what we know from Galations 3:16, the promises were made to Abraham and his seed (Christ). So everywhere in the OT where the NKJV replaces "seed" (which can refer to Christ) with "descendents" (which can't), where promises are made to Abraham and his seed, are examples of incorrect translation and a contradiction of the NT revelation.

 

Wow, I can't believe this is necessary.

Those who are have been redeemed by Christ will share in the benefits of all that Christ has.

You still miss the point.

The promises to the many (descendants) are only realized if they are redeemed by Abraham's greatest son.

Paul is arguing who the actual promises apply to. Christ first. Then, those to whom he has redeemed. The many only share in them because of Christ.

Paul is making a theological point here.

Further, the job of the translators is to translate what God actually said. To have the arrogance to interpret it and then call that God's word is what the NIV committee did. You are actually advocating the same thing. Nice job. I guess KJVO theology is more and more subjective and random than ever.

 

timothy 1769 said:

The NKJV translation apparently denies the inspiration of Galatians, since it flatly contradicts it.

Do you have any evidence of this, or are you just blowing hot KJV-only air?

 

Originally posted by Daniel David:
Further, the job of the translators is to translate what God actually said.

Yes - seed - singular - referring to Christ. Not descendents - plural, which cannot refer to Christ. Please read what Paul actually says and believe it.

To have the arrogance to interpret it and then call that God's word is what the NIV committee did. You are actually advocating the same thing. Nice job.

I advocate interpreting "seed" as well, "seed", singular, referring to Christ, as Paul teaches. The NKJV in Genesis erroneously insists on interpreting it as "descendents", plural, which cannot refer to Christ. What part of this isn't clear?

 

See the post above. "seed", singular in the KJV, is replace by "descendents", plural in the NKJV translation of Genesis. The problem is that "descendents", plural, cannot refer to Christ, but "seed", singular, can and does. We know this by what Paul teaches in Galatians.

Ga 3:16
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

 

Genesis 12:7, according to the strongs uses this word that was translated "seed":

Zera

These are the various meanings:

1. a sowing
2. seed
3. semen virile
4. offspring, descendants, posterity, children
of moral quality
5. a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
6. sowing time (by meton)

Now, in Genesis 12, God made SIX promises to Abraham.

In Galatians 3, Paul is stating that the promises were to Abraham and his Seed, namely Christ. It is that promise that overrules the others. Other promises must come through this one promise.

Now, Abraham's descendants will inherit the land. Again, you lack of understanding is what is causing your confusion.

 

timothy 1769 said:

See the post above. "seed", singular in the KJV, is replace by "descendents", plural in the NKJV translation of Genesis.

Duh, yes, I understand your objection to the text. I want to know whether you can support your attack on the translators' views on inspiration, or whether you are just another KJV-only windbag throwing out false accusations.

 

Does anyone know whether the word translated as "seed" or "descendents" in Genesis is plural, singular, or ambiguous?

If it is anything but distinctively plural then "descendents" is a poor translation choice.

The "KJV" doesn't "believe" anything. It is inanimate.

If you are talking about the translators then perhaps we should start discussing texts where the KJV translators did not allow NT revelation to determine OT wording.

BTW, what you apparently are endorsing above is the notion that translators (KJV or otherwise) are justified in interpretting scripture without notice and calling it a translation.

 

The NASB translates it as descendants also.

 

Read carefully, in this case (the post you responeded to), I spoke of what the translation demonstrates, not what the translators believe. Even so, I have a hard time believing they weren't aware of the issue, since that would pretty much make them incompetent. Like I said, anyone that's been through the Bible a few times would be aware of this issue. If this is so, two logical possibilities remain: they believed what Paul said about the verses, but ignored it since some other man-made translation principle took precedence, or they ignored it because they didn't believe Paul. Do you see another possibility? I personally think they almost certainly believed Paul, but in this case valued some man-made secular translation principle more than the truth. IMO that approach makes for a lousy translation.

 

Originally posted by Scott J:
The "KJV" doesn't "believe" anything. It is inanimate.

Thanks for clarifying that for everyone.