Perfect Transation/Copy

[Winman]

Purely subjective opinion.

And that is your subjective opinion. Before when I demonstrated with proof that John 7:8 can easily be misconstrued as it is worded in the MVs, you said that was my opinion also. But I showed concrete proof that some people indeed believe the scriptures are saying Jesus was a liar as it is worded in the MVs.

You deny reality, as though there is no such thing as misleading language.

 

[Rippon]

No, I do not like the NKJV regardless if it is based on the TR. It may be, but more often than not is translated like the MVs which I believe affects doctrine in many verses.

The NKJ is primarily based on the TR. It doesn't go the way of the MV's in that respect.

What doctrine is affected when a version doesn't follow the TR? Was the KJV at fault when it departed from the TR at times?

Matt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I guess that you would appreciate the NIV here when it is rendered :"and narrow the road".

Being saved is not difficult, one must simply trust on Jesus for salvation. But it is narrow, a man can only come to the Father by Jesus Christ.

Doesn't the word 'difficult' have the same connotation as 'narrow' in the force of this passage?

The NKJV is translated like many of the MVs and gives a different understanding than the KJV in this verse.

Different words - yes. Different meaning --no.

The KJV is not the standard for determining if another version is faithful to the originals.

 

[Rippon]

More Examples Follow From Comfort's Book ...

New Testament Text And Translation Commentary.

Luke 2:22

TR Wh NU : their purification

Variant 3 : her purification -- KJV,NKJ

Luke 4:17

TR NU : having unrolled the book

Variant/WH : having opened the book -- KJV,NKJ etc.

Luke 18:11

TR NU : the Pharisee standing by himself [or, taking his stand] prayed these things
Variant 1/WH : the Pharisee stood and prayed these things with [or,to] himself -- KJV,NKJ etc.

Luke 23:42

WH NU : remember me when you come into your kingdom --KJV,NKJ etc.

Variant 1/TR : remember me,Lord, when you come in [or,with] your kingdom

 

[Winman]

No, the words difficult and narrow do not carry the same meaning in this verse.

The word difficult in my opinion is used to support Catholic doctrine that a man is saved through works. If a man must perform works to get to heaven, that is a difficult task indeed.

The word narrow means restricted. Jesus said no man comes to the Father but by him. It is not difficult to believe on Christ, but there is no other way to be saved other than Christ, so it is very limited and restricted.

 

[Winman]

As was pointed out before, 2 Cor 2:17 is rendered like many MVs in the NKJV. In my opinion this gives a very different meaning to this verse.

KJV-

2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

NKJV-

2 Cor 2:For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ.

Peddling does not carry the same meaning as corrupt, especially to modern man. Most people today would get the impression they were selling the scriptures like a peddler. You could sell the accurate word of God, companies do that all over the world, and there is nothing wrong with that, they should be paid for the materials and their labor to print these Bibles.

But corrupt means to alter or change God's word so that it is no more accurate or truthful.

The NKJV uses the word peddling here that many of the MVs use. It gives a very different meaning, especially to the modern reader.

 

[Mexdeaf]

And that is your subjective opinion. Before when I demonstrated with proof that John 7:8 can easily be misconstrued as it is worded in the MVs, you said that was my opinion also. But I showed concrete proof that some people indeed believe the scriptures are saying Jesus was a liar as it is worded in the MVs.

You deny reality, as though there is no such thing as misleading language.

No, it is a FACT that 'narrow' and 'difficult' come from the SAME Greek word, and that the difference exists purely in your subjective opinion. That is not my opinion, it is FACT. Put on your long pants and deal with it.

 

[Rippon]

No, the words difficult and narrow do not carry the same meaning in this verse.

Silly boy.

The word difficult in my opinion is used to support Catholic doctrine that a man is saved through works. If a man must perform works to get to heaven, that is a difficult task indeed.

For you to draw that conclusion is absurd.

The word narrow means restricted. Jesus said no man comes to the Father but by him.

If the way to Him is fraught with difficulty -- what's the problem you're having? Do you think that the NKJV denies that no one can come to the Father but by Jesus? If so, you are being dishonest.

From Tyndale's translation. (Older is better,right? That new-fangled KJV is different from the Tyndale. The former must be wrong

Snips follow:

Mark 10:23 : what a hard thing it is ...
Mark 19:23 : it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven
Luke 18:24 : with what difficulty shall they that have riches ...

 

[Winman]

Silly boy.

Wow, the logic of your argument astounds me. You must be correct.

For you to draw that conclusion is absurd.

Another profound argument. Now I know you must be correct.

From Tyndale's translation. (Older is better,right? That new-fangled KJV is different from the Tyndale. The former must be wrong

Why does older have to be better or correct? Were there corrupted versions of scripture in the early centuries after Christ? The Sinaiticus was old, but it was obvious to all it was full of errors. You know that.

Let me give you an analogy. Lets say you are digging a huge hole and you dig up a 1954 Oldsmobile 88. You dig a little more and find a 1965 Ford Mustang. Now, you say, this Oldsmobile must have evolved from Henry Ford's 1908 Model T because it is older, it is closer in age to the Ford Model T. The '65 Mustang cannot have evolved from the Model T, because it is quite unlike the Oldsmobile, and it came much later as well.

This is a very poor analogy, but the Mustang evolved from Ford's designs, not the Oldsmobile.

 

[Amy.G]

Silly boy.



For you to draw that conclusion is absurd.



If the way to Him is fraught with difficulty -- what's the problem you're having? Do you think that the NKJV denies that no one can come to the Father but by Jesus? If so, you are being dishonest.

From Tyndale's translation. (Older is better,right? That new-fangled KJV is different from the Tyndale. The former must be wrong

Snips follow:

Mark 10:23 : what a hard thing it is ...
Mark 19:23 : it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven
Luke 18:24 : with what difficulty shall they that have riches ...

Why are you trying to show that the Tyndale is different from the KJV by comparing different verses?

Tyndale
Matthew 7:14 But strayte is the gate and narowe ys the waye which leadeth vnto lyfe: and feawe there be that fynde it.

KJV
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


They are the same.

 

[Winman]

Why are you trying to show that the Tyndale is different from the KJV by comparing different verses?

Tyndale
Matthew 7:14 But strayte is the gate and narowe ys the waye which leadeth vnto lyfe: and feawe there be that fynde it.

KJV
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


They are the same.

Because Amy, they consider spelling changes that evolved over time as English spelling was standardized a change. But they don't consider changing the word "corrupt" in the KJV 2 Cor 2:17 to "peddling" in the MVs a change at all. :tongue3:

 

[HankD]

Because Amy, they consider spelling changes that evolved over time as English spelling was standardized a change. But they don't consider changing the word "corrupt" in the KJV 2 Cor 2:17 to "peddling" in the MVs a change at all. :tongue3:

You have just proven the KJV translators statement:

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

To add to the irony, the 1611 KJV First Edition (in case someone has not already made reference to it as I haven't taken the time to wade through this whole dunnybrook of verbiage) has a marginal note attached to the word corrupt in 2 Corinthians 2:17 by the KJV translators which states:

Or, deale deceitfully with

corrupt:

Strong's 2585 kaphleu,w

kapeleuo {kap-ale-yoo'-o}​

Meaning:
1) to be a retailer, to peddle 2) to make money by selling anything 2a) to get sordid gain by dealing in anything, to do a thing for base gain 2b) to trade in the word of God 2b1) to try to get base gain by teaching divine truth 2c) to corrupt, to adulterate 2c1) peddlers were in the habit of adulterating their commodities for the sake of gain​

So in this case even the 1611 KJV "inerrant" translators offered a subjective alternative as well as Strong who (in his primary definition) disagrees with both choices made the KJV translators and appears to offer an explanation as to their decision.

HankD​

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here we go off track again with word choice in translation. I still have not seen an instance where the NKJV was any less faithful the the TR than the KJV was.

The point is, while some claim that they support the text and not the translation, it is the translation that matters, not the text. For the NKJV was translated from the same body of texts as the KJV.

Unless posters here are eminently qualified Greek scholars their preference in the translation of the same Greek text is only a biased opinion based on their predetermined choice of a particular translation. In other words, 'I like the KJV so it must be the right one no matter what the underlying text says.'

BTW, if you look at the marginal note of the KJV translators in 2 Corinthians 2v17 you read this comment for the word 'corrupt' - 'Or, deals deceitfully with.' Sounds like these guys recognised that the 17th century version of 'peddle' was an acceptable alternative.

 

[Winman]

BTW, if you look at the marginal note of the KJV translators in 2 Corinthians 2v17 you read this comment for the word 'corrupt' - 'Or, deals deceitfully with.' Sounds like these guys recognised that the 17th century version of 'peddle' was an acceptable alternative.

Saying a person has corrupted the word of God and saying they have dealt deceitfully with it are very similar. Saying someone is peddling the word would not give most modern men this same understanding.

Honestly, if I were reading this rendering of "peddling" for the first time, I would get the impression they were selling the scriptures for gain, not because they were sincerely interested in men's souls.

Now, that would be a deceitful use of the scriptures for sure, but that is not the same meaning I get with the word corrupt. The word corrupt causes me to believe they are tampering with God's word, changing it or altering it to give a false understanding, as when the serpent tempted Eve by adding one word to scripture that absolutely gave a different understanding.

I am not just saying this because it supports my argument, that is the difference I would perceive between the words "corrupt" and "peddling".

A person could peddle or sell accurate versions of scripture. So, it does not give me the same understanding personally.

I am being sincere here, you can take it or leave it.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Honestly, if I were reading this rendering of "peddling" for the first time, I would get the impression they were selling the scriptures for gain, not because they were sincerely interested in men's souls.

Now, that would be a deceitful use of the scriptures for sure, but that is not the same meaning I get with the word corrupt. The word corrupt causes me to believe they are tampering with God's word, changing it or altering it to give a false understanding, as when the serpent tempted Eve by adding one word to scripture that absolutely gave a different understanding.

I am not just saying this because it supports my argument, that is the difference I would perceive between the words "corrupt" and "peddling".

A person could peddle or sell accurate versions of scripture. So, it does not give me the same understanding personally.

I am being sincere here, you can take it or leave it.

I'll leave it, and you, with these words-

When it comes to the Scriptures, it's not all about you or your understanding. Thankfully.

 

[HankD]

Saying a person has corrupted the word of God and saying they have dealt deceitfully with it are very similar.

But not the same, in fact, to some it makes quite a difference especially since the Koine word itself has a primary difference from "corrupt" which the KJV translators chose.

You see, you are doing exactly what those who choose an MV rendering do. When there is a question as to the meaning of the text, then as the AV translators recommend, find alternative translations to make your own choice and in fact they themsleves gave you one in the little known of margin of the pristine AV First Edition.

A deceitful car saleman would perhaps lie to me about the previous owner (a little old lady from Pasadena) but one who adulterates the product would be a salesman who (i.e.) pours outmeal in the automatic transmission to make it shift more smoothly.

In any event as C4K has said the choice of the English meanings of the same original language text word is sometimes subjective and especially (in the words of the KJV translators): where the text is not so clear .

The primary historical meaning of the koine word is not "corrupt" but "one who engages in retail trade".

It carries with it a similar nuance of a "used car saleman" (my apologies to those who are honest and hardworking salesmen of used cars).

From Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; Volume III pgs 603-605.

HankD

 

[Winman]

But not the same, in fact, to some it makes quite a difference especially since the Koine word itself has a primary difference from "corrupt" which the KJV translators chose.

You see, you are doing exactly what those who choose an MV rendering do. When there is a question as to the meaning of the text, then as the AV translators recommend, find alternative translations to make your own choice and in fact they themsleves gave you one in the little known of margin of the pristine AV First Edition.

A deceitful car saleman would perhaps lie to me about the previous owner (a little old lady from Pasadena) but one who adulterates the product would be a salesman who (i.e.) pours outmeal in the automatic transmission to make it shift more smoothly.

In any event as C4K has said the choice of the English meanings of the same original language text word is sometimes subjective and especially (in the words of the KJV translators): where the text is not so clear .

The primary historical meaning of the koine word is not "corrupt" but "one who engages in retail trade".

It carries with it a similar nuance of a "used car saleman" (my apologies to those who are honest and hardworking salesmen of used cars).

From Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament; Volume III pgs 603-605.

HankD

I think I agree with everything you said there. Now, in my opinion the KJV gives a superior translation over the NKJV and the MVs in this particular verse.

I do not disagree that every translator must be careful to select the translation that gives the exact meaning of a verse. I do not believe it impossible as some claim that a translation cannot be accurate. I will even agree that a person sometimes has to dig into history and such to understand scripture. For example, when Jesus said Paul was kicking against the "pricks", I had no idea what that meant at first. So, I had to dig out a concordance or bible dictionary to fully understand this word.

But that is not a problem for me, we are told to study the scriptures. Sometimes you have to learn about ancient culture to fully understand the scriptures. You are correct a translation cannot always fully explain some things, but that is not because the translation is not accurate, it is because culture has changed so much from ancient times. A person would need to study the ancient culture to understand no matter which words were chosen for a translation.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I do not believe it impossible as some claim that a translation cannot be accurate.

Who would say it is impossible to accurately translate God's word? I contend that it is not only possible at one point in each language's entire history, but it can be done again and again as languages change and develop.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Who would say it is impossible to accurately translate God's word? I contend that it is not only possible at one point in each language's entire history, but it can be done again and again as languages change and develop.

I suppose that Winman is referring to me. On a different thread he made the comment:

Originally Posted by Winman
I disagree with this, I believe a translation can give the full and exact meaning.



To which I (perhaps unwisely) replied:

Anyone who has done translation work of any kind knows that this is untrue. It is an absolute impossibility. ALL TRANSLATIONS are a compromise. It is inherent in language.

I still hold to that- but my mind is open to change.

 

[HankD]

I think I agree with everything you said there. Now, in my opinion the KJV gives a superior translation over the NKJV and the MVs in this particular verse.

I do not disagree that every translator must be careful to select the translation that gives the exact meaning of a verse. I do not believe it impossible as some claim that a translation cannot be accurate. I will even agree that a person sometimes has to dig into history and such to understand scripture. For example, when Jesus said Paul was kicking against the "pricks", I had no idea what that meant at first. So, I had to dig out a concordance or bible dictionary to fully understand this word.

But that is not a problem for me, we are told to study the scriptures. Sometimes you have to learn about ancient culture to fully understand the scriptures. You are correct a translation cannot always fully explain some things, but that is not because the translation is not accurate, it is because culture has changed so much from ancient times. A person would need to study the ancient culture to understand no matter which words were chosen for a translation.

We do agree.

Except in this passage Paul because of the context and the choice of the word "kapeleuo" is (IMO) saying that he is no "slick wiley" salesman or "peddlar" of the gospel looking for a commission.

That is, he is not preaching the gospel out of contention, greed or any other motive than his very next statement "but as of sincerity

but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ".​

You see the historical primary meaning of the word "salesman" fits the context better than the present day "corrupt". "Peddlar" adds the nuance of an emotional disconnect from the product. He could be selling dictionaries if he were simply a "salesman".

That's my take from the original kapeleuo.

However, 400 years ago in 17th century Britain it is possible that the word "corrupt" in the given context could have carried that very nuance of NKJV today of "peddlar" (unlikely but possible).
i.e. a salesman looking for a commission might buy an inferior product and pass it off as "superior quality" to widen his profit margin.
Not that he himself "corrupts" the product but that he just doesn't really care about the product quality as long as he makes his money.

HankD

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I suppose that Winman is referring to me. On a different thread he made the comment:

Originally Posted by Winman
I disagree with this, I believe a translation can give the full and exact meaning.



To which I (perhaps unwisely) replied:

Anyone who has done translation work of any kind knows that this is untrue. It is an absolute impossibility. ALL TRANSLATIONS are a compromise. It is inherent in language.

I still hold to that- but my mind is open to change.

But he has changed the qualification now - from 'full and exact' to 'accurate.'

Would you agree that a translation can accurately reproduce God's word?