Post Reply 
Translational Inconsistencies
03-24-2010, 03:03 PM
Post: #51
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
Mark I use the NKJV as my "book" bible for use at home and KJV as my PC version.
I personally believe it is a sound translation and is based largely on the KJV and thus Textus Receptus.And compared to many of the versions out there it does tend to stick more accurately to what the word actually means and not instead change the meaning to enable the reader to better understand what the word was trying to convey.Id much rather have literal accuracy than paraphrases to supposedly help me better understand what was meant.

That being said there are in some places where the changes made have altered the meaning slightly, for example

Mat 20:20 ThenG5119 cameG4334 to himG846 theG3588 motherG3384 of Zebedee'sG2199 childrenG5207 withG3326 herG848 sons,G5207 worshippingG4352 him, andG2532 desiringG154 a certain thingG5100 ofG3844 him.G846
The NKJV reads

Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Him with her sons,kneeling down and asking something from him.(NKJV)

The changing here occurs in the translation of the word proskuneo

Thayer Definition:
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, especially the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
3a1) to the Jewish high priests
3a2) to God
3a3) to Christ
3a4) to heavenly beings
3a5) to demons
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4314 and a probable derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand)

To me kneeling down doesnt accurately express what the word proskunoe intends and I much preferred the KJV translation.
This is one of the things Im wary of when reading the bible so I am aware that there are shortcomings to it but its something that doesn't really make much of a difference to me when reading the Bible for my own use.
If I really need to be clear about what a verse means because I find myself caught in controversy surrounding it I would then compare the verse with the KJV and in case of Tanak would check the hebrew and reliable lexicons or in case of the NT check the greek and also reliable lexicons.

One useful feature of the NKJV is that it does list manuscript variations in the margins so if youre dealing with a controversial verse you don't need to find another bible to look it up.The information is given in the margins.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-24-2010, 04:22 PM
Post: #52
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
THis is from my Bible comparison charts article:
Topical Bible Version Comparison Charts

Quote:Update: 2007>Please note that a few people have stated the following:

"The argument against corrupted text is one that is very close to my heart. I have heard the argument that NKJV is based on Westcott and Hort or the NU as it is also called and I have seen no evidence of this. They do list it in the side reference, as well as being the first to include the Majority Text readings. While this may be distracting, it does not label either as the "best" or the "oldest". "

Another wrote: "...if you read the introduction the NT is actually translated from the TR (like the KJV) while the footnotes indicate NA readings, as well as Byzantine readings. This way people who read this or that Bible are able to see why they're different (for differences which are caused by the underlying text used). ..."

Quote:According to the Preface and information from NKJV and Thomas Nelson, Inc.:

The NKJV revisers followed the essentially literal method of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV Preface calls "complete equivalence." Regarding the Old Testament>The Masoretes preserved the Scriptures for five hundred years in a form known as the Masoretic Text. The Masoretes, led by the family of ben Asher continued the legacy of the earlier scribes. The ben Asher text, by the twelfth century, was the only recognized form of the Hebrew Scriptures. The 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica, while also sourcing the Daniel Bomberg edition of 1524-25, were used as well as The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate for the Old Testament.

The King James New Testament was based on the Textus receptus which was first published in 1516, was also called the Received Text. "In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament."

Regarding contemporary translations, most have relied on a few manuscripts found in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These translations have depended on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which are older. The Greek translation of these manuscripts, including related papyri, is what the Alexandrian Text are based upon. Since the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in many points, some are rejecting them as a sound source.

Most new versions and and contemporary translators have followed "a Critical Text"," which depends heavily upon the Alexandrian type of text." However, many have begun to abandon the Critical Text in favor of the Majority Text." The NKJB sourced both the Critical and Majority texts and showed the variations in the footnotes. According to the publisher, "fully eighty-five percent" of the NT text is the same as the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian and the Majority Texts. The footnotes state the differing passages and also appear to objectively state the source of the variations. They note the variations as coming from NU-Text, meaning from the Alexandrian or Egyptian text, sourced from the Critical Text. That was published by the United Bible Society and known as the Nestle-Aland Greek NT (26th edition). The M-Text shows variations from the Majority or traditional text.

In other words, the NKJB sourced all available manuscripts and while trying to adhere to the original meanings of the KJB, it provided variations which should be noted and evaluated based on the source of the variations. > end update

You can look in the comparison charts also for comparison of NKJV.


3John 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2013 09:50 AM by Craig.)
Post: #53
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
United Bible Society

Ya know what I've noticed about ANYTHING 'christian' denoted by the word 'united'?

It's generally two heresies (or more) uniting.

The 'united' 'bible' society is no different.

The UBS has no absolute authority cuz they make themselves out to be the absolute authority!

Actually they are quite guilty of violating BOTH verse 18 and 19 of Revelation chapter 22.

The NKJV is approximately 50% Masoretic and TR text, the rest is the usual modern perversion trash! (and its translators are also quite guilty of the verse 18 & 19 violations)

Truth mixed with lies and errors, does that sound like a definition of God's Holy Word?

Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read
Isaiah 34:16 KJB
(Bible critics note: read is never defined as criticize)

Thomas Nelson, Inc.: "...Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament."

If Thomas Nelson, et al, cannot see the differences between the TR and the Alexandrian text they are certainly without understanding.

The DIFFERENCES are made very clear, here, when set side by side

Bible Versions: Topical Comparison Charts

And things that are different are not the same, are they?

Let's let Mr Webster weigh in on this matter...

wanting in understanding

a definition of...

Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English Language

STUPID, a. [L., to be stupefied, properly to stop. See Stop.]

1. Very dull; insensible; senseless; wanting in understanding; heavy; sluggish.

...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 03:10 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2013 03:11 PM by Lois.)
Post: #54
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
Hi Craig,

Well said when you said,
Quote:Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read
Isaiah 34:16 KJB
(Bible critics note: read is never defined as criticize)
It seems that everyone has turned into a Bible critic these days as well as linguists. There seems to always be something that was mistranslated and people to teach us all about it, usually people that don't even know the languages that were involved but they can tell ya all about why such and such word is mistranslated. Smilies-34791

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.(2John 1:9)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 06:31 PM
Post: #55
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
Biblical Scholar credentials = none
Seminary School credentials = none
Then WHAT are my Bible qualifications?

My Teacher Wrote itSmiley-face-thumb

...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-29-2013, 05:02 PM
Post: #56
RE: Translational Inconsistencies
The King James is the only version of the English Bible that is uncorrupted as all of the recent modern Bibles use the corrupt Alexandrian texts where as the King James uses the Vulgate tests from Antioch. The catholic church even tried to destroy Christians Bibles and kill them but they kept writing it and the Vulgate ended up spreading around the world and those preserved texts were later used for the KJV.

The pope even made it illegal to own a Bible in the dark ages and nobody could read it for themselves. They had to go to the catholic church and listen to the pope to find out what was in the Bible. And then there is their other books... about purgatory trying to add to Gods word and adding to Gods Word is exactly what these new versions have done.

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
-Matthew 6:9-13

Most church-going people are familiar with the Lord's Prayer. However, the new-age versions of the Bible have removed very important parts of this prayer.

Most modern versions remove "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

Again, when someone translates from corrupt pagan manuscripts, the lordship, divinity, and authority of Jesus Christ and His Gospel will be slowly removed. For example, the virgin birth is an important prophecy in the birth of the Messiah, but the new-age versions seek to remove the virgin birth:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
-Matthew 1:25

In the Bible, "begat" means the father brought forth the son through the woman. Many sons have been adopted or taken in by a family, but to begat a son means he came from the father. Some new-age versions seek to remove the begotten Son of God:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
-Luke 1:28

The Word of God is removed from Luke 4:4:
(KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
(NIV) "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone.'"

Jesus Christ is removed from Ephesians 3:14:
(KJV) For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
(RSV) For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,

Christ also removed from 1 Timothy 2:7:
(KJV) (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;)

(ASV) (I speak the truth, I lie not)

Christ's blood is removed from Colossians 1:14:
(KJV) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(NIV) in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Belief in Christ is removed from John 6:47:
(KJV) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

(NASB) ...he who believes has eternal life.

Christ's Salvation is removed from Luke 9:56:
(KJV) For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

(ESV) And they went on to another village.

Another HUGE one is concerning the morning star!

I Jesus... I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

-Revelation 22:16

Jesus Christ is the morning star, according to His own words. Lucifer, on the other hand, is the son of the morning.

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!

-Isaiah 14:12

But look at these new age version.

(NIV) "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star,"
(NASB) "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning,"
(GNB) "King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven!"
(NEB) "Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn!
[footnote: 'a name for the morning star']"

So is is Jesus the morning Star or satan? And how can these new versions the the PRESERVED Word of God is they all contradict the KJV and each other? satan is the author of confusion and all these new versions are confusing.

Does God not say that He will preserve His word and that His Word will NOT pass away?

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
-Revelations 22:18-19
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)