Welcome to SeekGod.ca Forum
Sign in Create Account
Not a member yet? Why not sign up today and start meeting our community.

Translational Inconsistencies

Rose of Shushan

Marathon Poster


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.





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.




(This post was last modified: 08-12-2013, 09:50 AM by Craig.)

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



(This post was last modified: 08-12-2013, 03:11 PM by Lois.)

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)




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




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



Junior Member

(This post was last modified: 04-17-2014, 09:04 PM by One4TheWord.)

(12-22-2008, 01:15 PM)Nomad Man Wrote: I am in complete agreement that there are translations out there that do not remain faithful to the original text, but is this limited to Messianic and Hebrew Roots translations alone? How about the KJV, the RSV, the ASV, etc.?

KJV Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Using a simple concordance and dictionary we find that the Hebrew word behind the word "heart" in the above verse is לב (lev). Can we then assume that whenever we see the word "heart" in the KJV it is the Hebrew word לב (lev)? Let's check.

KJV Psalm 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God; Yea, thy law is within my heart.

Is the Hebrew behind the word "heart" here לב (lev)? Not at all, actually its the word מעה (me'ah). Me'ah means "the gut."

KJV Exodus 23:9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

So, is this the Hebrew word lev or me'ah? Neither, it's the word נפש (nephesh) which means "person" or "being" (but often translated as soul).

KJV Jeremiah 9:8 Their tongue is as an arrow shot out; it speaketh deceit: one speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart he layeth his wait.

By now you have probably guessed it, the Hebrew behind the word "heart" here is not lev, me'ah or nephesh. Actually it is קרב (qerev) which means "the inside."

We have now see that the KJV has translated many different Hebrew words of different meanings with the same English word "heart" (the same is true for all other translations such as the RSV, ASV, NIV, etc). So, how does the KJV translate the word "lev?" Do they consistently translate it as "heart?" In each of the passages below, the underlined words are the KJV translations of the Hebrew word "lev."

KJV Genesis 31:20 And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled.

KJV Exodus 9:21 And he that regarded not the word of the LORD left his servants and his cattle in the field.

KJV Numbers 16:28 And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

KJV Job 36:5 Behold, God is mighty, and despiseth not any: He is mighty in strength of wisdom.

KJV Psalm 83:5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:

KJV Proverbs 19:8 He that getteth wisdom loveth his own soul: He that keepeth understanding shall find good.

My question to those who wish to do serious studies of the Bible is, "How can you seriously study the Bible from a translation, when the translators are never consistent on how they translate the original texts?" Are you sure that the translation you are reading is accurate? If you were doing a study on the word "heart" from a translation only, would your results of that study be accurate to the original text?

These are the questions I asked myself many years. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me was the Hebrew word נפש (nephesh) which the KJV translates as; soul, life, person, mind, heart, creature, body, dead, desire, man, appetite, lust, thing, self, beast, pleasure, ghost, breath and will.

Nomad Man

Hello Nomad Man

Here is where I would start. First let me tell you I am not qualified to translate the Bible although I do own a Strong’s Concordance. So I am not going to point out words that seem to be better than what the translators used. Here is why, and hopefully this will help.

If we are to learn about the KJV and how it was written, we should hear from and about the translators themselves. I think it only fair that they should get to speak to us first. Unfortunately the Translators notes to the reader have been omitted for the last two hundred years. (I was told two hundred years by a pastor and did not confirm it was removed for that long, but they are removed.) You can still find the notes online and there are a few American publishers that include it. I have seen these Bibles but do not recall who published it.
Did you know the words in italics are not in the received text? The Translators filled them in to make it readable in English. I mention this because you put the whole text in italics which in fact modifies the KJV intention.
I find most of the modern critics of the KJV to be strange considering where the translators come from. You might not realize that they lived in a very unique time where many children were taught the ancient languages. If you went to a college in that time English was not the language spoken for instruction. Erasmus tough at Oxford and did not even speak English. Instruction was in classical Greek or Latin. Classical languages were a prerequisite to getting into the university for any college of study. Contrast that with the modern scholar who lonely leaned about those languages in college. Did you know that the translators of modern bibles do not even “speak” Greek? That’s right they claim to only read and write Greek for the most part. I find that strange too. Can you really master a language that you cannot speak? Did the Ancient Greeks go about with tablets because they did not speak? Hmm, I wonder about the qualifications of modern translators.
Of the 54 original King James Translators many of them were also experts in ancient languages other than Greek and Latin. I think most were fluent in Aramaic and some knew ancient Syrian as well.
The Translators were mostly older men in 1604 when the started the 1611 KJV. That means they lived through some of the bitterest conflicts of England’s fight to free itself from Rome. Unlike the modern scholars that sit comfortably in well-paying jobs, the King James Translators came from families that paid for their faith and sometimes with their lives.

Hope this helps a little.

I mentioned “received text” in my reply. By that I mean the Textus Receptus as opposed to the so called “better manuscripts” referred to in modern translations. That is another topic and we can come round to that some time. If you take a look at what the “better manuscripts” you will learn they are all Catholic perversions.

When we read the source of modern translators we hear some common terms they like to use to knock down the JKV and, by the why, all other versions in other languages prior to about 1900.

That term is “better manuscripts”.

For bonus points can anyone name what the “better manuscripts” are actually called?


Junior Member

(This post was last modified: 04-18-2014, 01:02 PM by Vic.)

Questions for the KJV Critics

Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the
KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect

Questions for the KJV Critics
2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

Questions for the KJV Critics

Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority
in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us
where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced
your terminology ("the Greek text says ... the originals say ... a
better rendering would be .... " etc.)?

Let's not for get my personal favorite "better manuscripts".

Questions for the KJV Critics

Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why
do you refer to it as "God's word"?

Questions for the KJV Critics

Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest
Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that
the KJV was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

Questions for the KJV Critics

Assuming you believe in the degeneration of man,
rather than evolution, why is it that you believe education
has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to
translate God's word today than in 1611?

Questions for the KJV Critics




Reading this thread was like over-indulging on junk food.




First of all, Nomad Man aka Jeff Benner only stayed for a day or so. He teaches and believes that the Hebrew used to translate Bibles is all messed up. Because he likes to teach that a Hebrew word cannot have more than one meaning.

Therefore if we say Man---it can only mean one man---never mankind etc.

And yes it's quite the thread. The issue about various versions is actually discussed in other threads.


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.


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Welcome To SeekGod.ca Discussion Forums!

SeekGod.ca Forum is under the umbrella of the SeekGod.ca website. It is a privately owned forum and website and not part of any organization. It is also a Christian Apologetics Forum, but all are welcome to join and participate in the Discussions, regardless of background or beliefs. Please enter as guests into our home. We hope each will be encouraged and edified.

Theme © iAndrew 2015 - Forum Software Powered by MyBB ©2002-2015