NKJV vs NIV and NASB
"H"
Why does the NKJV treat Ishmael and Esau in Genesis more favorably than the
NIV and NASB.
The harshest words that the NKJV uses towards Ishmael is in Genesis 16:12 in
which it states that Ishmael will be a wild man and his hand will be against
everyman and everyman's hand against him.
However, it also states that he will dwell in the presence of his brethren.
In the NIV, it states he will be a Wild Donkey of a man and he will live in
hostility towards all his brothers. In the NASB, it states he will be a
wild donkey and he will live to the east of his brothers.
In Genesis 17:20, it states (in all versions) that Ishmael will be the
father of twelve rulers and he will be a great Nation.
In Genesis 25:18 of the NKJV, it does not say Ishmael's line will live in
hostility toward all their brothers like it states in the NIV, or that he
settled in defiance of all his relatives like it states in the NASB.
In Genesis 27:39-40 of the NKJV, Esau gets a favorable blessing from his
father. The blessing states that Esau's "dwelling shall be of the fatness
of the earth and of the dew of heaven above."
In the NIV, the blessing states Esau's "dwelling will be away from the
earth's richness and away from the dew of heaven above." The NASB is
similar to the NIV in this verse.
These differences seem to be a little more than just superficial. I am
under the impression that the NKJV is regarded more highly than the others
when it comes to accuracy in translation. Are there any scholars or
knowledgeable people who can shed some light on these differences?
--
"H"
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://www.enteract.com/~bible for details about this group. )))
Bob
Have you also looked at some of the Jewish translations? Sometimes, they are
very good at getting a meaning across.
Bob.
Matthew Johnson
In article <9v2oie$em6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, bobrh...@cs.comnojunk says...
>
>
>
>Have you also looked at some of the Jewish translations? Sometimes, they are
>very good at getting a meaning across.
As you say, sometimes, they are. I was particularly impressed, for example, by
the JPS translation of Proverbs: the choice of 'dullard' to translate 'KSYL' was
a stroke of genius.
But they must be used with caution. On any of the passages regarding Christ,
they let their own anti-Christian prejudices over-rule any other consideration.
So, for example, they allow their own theological prejudices to dictate the
translation of Isaiah 7:14 and all of Isaiah chapter 52.
Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Ed Form
X-News-Software: Ameol2
X-URL: http://www.ameol.com
Message-Id: <memo.2001121...@ed.form.ntlworld.com>
In article <9uulst$shr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, h...@home.com () wrote:
> Why does the NKJV treat Ishmael and Esau in Genesis more favorably than
> the NIV and NASB.
>
> The harshest words that the NKJV uses towards Ishmael is in Genesis
> 16:12 in which it states that Ishmael will be a wild man and his hand
> will be against everyman and everyman's hand against him.
>
> However, it also states that he will dwell in the presence of his
> brethren.
>
> In the NIV, it states he will be a Wild Donkey of a man and he will
> live in hostility towards all his brothers. In the NASB, it states he
> will be a wild donkey and he will live to the east of his brothers.
The modern versions [NKJV being only a modern speech rewrite of an old
version] are more accurate here. The word 'pereh' means 'a wild ass.' A
quick comparison of about 20 versions shows the majority using phrases
like 'wild ass of a man.'
The NASB use of 'to the east' is not without precedent. Among the Hebrews
the phrasing used here had a number of uses. It actually says 'in the face
of his kinfolk' and, when used of God, for example, the phrase 'in the
face of...' is rendered 'in the presence of...' The same phrase is used to
mean 'in the east...' because the Hebrews assumed that the east, the
direction of the sunrise, was the face, and the west, the direction of the
sunset, was the back [See Brown Driver Briggs 818 b]. The same phrase
could also mean 'opposed to his kinfolk...' like it does in Genesis
10:9...
He was a mighty hunter before the LORD:
wherefore it is said,
Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
It's the same word as before [panyim = face], but in this verse it means
Nimrod was a mighty hunter as an act of defiance to God - like the modern
expression 'in your face...'
There is no doubt that Genesis 16:12 indicates that Ishmael and his
descent would be solitary folk who would avoid society and would be
avoided by society. The last phrase of the verse is normally interpreted
as referring to their communal-tent lifestyle, but it could certainly mean
that they would avoid contact with those who are notionally their kin, and
it might mean they would locate themselves off to the east of their kin.
> In Genesis 17:20, it states (in all versions) that Ishmael will be the
> father of twelve rulers and he will be a great Nation.
>
> In Genesis 25:18 of the NKJV, it does not say Ishmael's line will live
> in hostility toward all their brothers like it states in the NIV, or
> that he settled in defiance of all his relatives like it states in the
> NASB.
The verb given here as 'died' actually means 'fell' and a lot of
commentators have agreed that it probably means 'set up abode.' The idea
that he died 'in the presence' of his kinfolk doesn't make any sense in
the context - it's a redundancy for a start, since most people die with
their family round them.
> In Genesis 27:39-40 of the NKJV, Esau gets a favorable blessing from his
> father. The blessing states that Esau's "dwelling shall be of the
> fatness of the earth and of the dew of heaven above."
>
> In the NIV, the blessing states Esau's "dwelling will be away from the
> earth's richness and away from the dew of heaven above." The NASB is
> similar to the NIV in this verse.
This is Leopold's Exposition of Genesis commenting on this very point...
At this point prophetic utterance came upon Isaac and he
foretold what the distinctive lot and fortunes of his son
Esau would be. It is not said that he blessed him, for
this is not a blessing but a prophecy. Nor could it rightly
be called a curse. But the inferior lot of Esau is made very
apparent by this word. Misunderstanding has arisen from the
fact that in point of form both blessings use the preposition
"from" (min), especially in the two phrases "from the dew"
and "from the fertile places." If the min of source
(B D B p.579 b) be assumed for both cases (so Luther and
A. V.), then we are confronted by the impossible situation
that, whereas Isaac had insisted that Jacob’s blessing must
stand, distinct from what Esau may attain to, in the end
Isaac reverses his decision and gives Esau a blessing almost
as good as Jacob’s, and so Esau would have lost little, only
the pre-eminence. Consequently, modern commentators, positive
and negative, are practically unanimous in construing the
preposition in the case that applies to Esau as a
"min separative" (B D B p. 578 a): "away from the fertile
places—away from the dew." With this interpretation agrees
the predominant impression conveyed by the land of Edom. In
spite of fertile spots it is mostly very bleak, rocky and
barren, allowing scant opportunities of cultivation,
especially the western part, of which travellers have claimed
that they have seen no region to equal it for barrenness.
> These differences seem to be a little more than just superficial. I am
> under the impression that the NKJV is regarded more highly than the
> others when it comes to accuracy in translation. Are there any scholars
> or knowledgeable people who can shed some light on these differences?
The NKJV is certainly not a more accurate translation than the NIV or NASB
in any real sense - all three have a raft of problems. But, inasmuch as
the NKJV rests on the KJV it is automatically not a particularly accurate
translation because the KJV isn't. The NIV is often distinctly better,
although its powerful doctrinal bias makes it highly questionable in
places, but where a passage is not strongly concerned with doctrine, the
NIV is excellent. Incidentally, The NKJV's claim to be the KJV, with
archaic language replaced with modern forms, isn't even true. Quite a
number of passages have been distinctly altered to better support
trinitarian ideas. Like everything else to do with reading Scripture,
comparison of several versions, and careful consideration of the context
is always the best way.
Ed Form
AHumes57
Need to get a 1611 King James Bible...All these other so called Man made bibles
are of man.......There is only one true Bible and that is the 1611 King James
Bible.
Note: Is God today still changeing the words around in the bible......I don`t
think So.....
Now to answer your question ( Why Does the NKJV treat Ishmael and Esau in
Genesis more farorably than the NiV and NASB) ?
These Man Made Bible change the wording around so people can understand the
bible better......IF God wanted the wording changed so we could understand his
word better he would have wrote it like that long ago when he finished the
bible. These NKJV,NIV,NASB.......is not all the true word of God do to the
changing of wording by man.
If you really want to understand God`s word then get a 1611 King James Bible
and as God Said......Study To Show Thyself Unto Thee........
Beowulf
"Salvé :)
AHUME57
< Need to get a 1611 King James Bible...All these other so called Man made
bibles
are of man.......There is only one true Bible and that is the 1611 King
James
Bible.
Note: Is God today still changeing the words around in the bible......I
don`t
think So.....
Now to answer your question ( Why Does the NKJV treat Ishmael and Esau in
Genesis more farorably than the NiV and NASB) ?
These Man Made Bible change the wording around so people can understand the
bible better......IF God wanted the wording changed so we could understand
his
word better he would have wrote it like that long ago when he finished the
bible. These NKJV,NIV,NASB.......is not all the true word of God do to the
changing of wording by man.
If you really want to understand God`s word then get a 1611 King James
Bible
and as God Said......Study To Show Thyself Unto Thee........>
On the other hand one could buy a transliteral Greek/English or
hebrew/English NT or OT and read what the original documents say translated
word for word rather than an attempt to render the meaning, rather than buy
an A.V. (KJV for the US Christians......)Bible and get an archaic
translation, if you like the wording of the AV do you also speak thusly? or
are you a hypocrite and use an AV but speak modern english.......and
consequently get a whiole lot of things wrong?!
Beowulf
Matthew Johnson
In article <9vadul$38b$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, ahum...@aol.com says...
>
>
>
>Need to get a 1611 King James Bible...All these other so called Man made bibles
>are of man.......
The KJV is no less 'man made' than all these others. The translators themselves
say so. Have you ever read the Translator's Preface to the KJV?
bwme...@crcwnet.com
On 13 Dec 2001 14:28:37 GMT, in soc.religion.christian.bible-study you
wrote:
>Need to get a 1611 King James Bible...All these other so called Man made=
bibles
>are of man
So the men who produced the 1611 version were really angels, rather
than men?=20
(do you have any idea what is meant by "THE HOLY SCRIPTURES"
in Romans 1:2 and 2 Timothy 3:16? If you do, you are=20
wilfully mouthing open blasphemy of those Scriptures. If you
do not, you had better learn Proverbs 18:13, for "He hath no
pleasure in fools")
So there was no Word of God before 1611? =20
("it was good for Paul and Silas; and it's good enough for
me!")
So the apocrypha is part of the The Holy Scriptures?
***************************************
Why does the 1611 KJV contradict the Holy Scriptures at Romans 9:5?
When it merely says the our Lord was blessed by God (by inserting a
comma, which was not in the Scriptures):
". . .Christ came, who is ouer all, God blessed for euer,
Amen"
when what the Scripture literally says at that point (see, eg,
Alford's Greek Testament):
" . . . Christ came, Who is over all God, blessed forever,
Amen"
and then why do KJV only people have the ridiculous gall to put forth
the lie that KJV supports Christ's Deity, and the modern versions do
not? When the NKJV corrects its crime with:
"Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God.
Amen"
And the NIV renders it:
"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human
ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!
Amen."
Why does it deliberately lie, at Mark 3:21, with:
"and when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold
of him, for they said, He is beside himselfe"
when it is plain that it was not His "friends" at all (see vs 31 for
who it was --- His mother Mary and her likewise unbelieving sons).
There is no reason whatever to render oi par autou ("the ones from the
side of Him," or simply "His relatives") as "friends." Well, of
course, there is one "good" reason: the passage tells it as it was
concerning Mary, from shortly after His birth when Mary rapidly forgot
Who her "son" really was, until after His resurrection. It certainly
offends the teaching of the "catholic church" regarding her, and these
"translators" were very careful to avoid giving such offense at that
time.
And then the KJV only people again have the gall to lie further with
the accusation of modern versions of having "Catholic bias," through
Westcott and Hort (and that all the modern translations depend on, or
come out of Westcott and Hort).
Bob
Christ Died to Save You
Catherine Hampton
On 14 Dec 2001 15:23:05 GMT, Matthew Johnson
<Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <9vadul$38b$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, ahum...@aol.com says...
>>Need to get a 1611 King James Bible...All these other so called Man made bibles
>>are of man.......
>The KJV is no less 'man made' than all these others. The translators themselves
>say so. Have you ever read the Translator's Preface to the KJV?
Matthew's right. This time, anyway. :>
The KJV is a fine translation of the original texts of the Holy
Scriptures, in my opinion. It is, however, a translation made by men
working with no special inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who made some
mistakes. This is true of all translations of the Bible. (And, for
that matter, is a fact about all translations of anything period.)
Further, it's a translation into seventeenth century English, almost
four hundred years out of date. The language itself has changed in
that time -- some words meant one thing in the seventeenth century and
mean something else now, in the twenty-first century. For example,
"prove" meant "test" in the seventeenth century. That's why the
saying, "the exception that proves the rule", made a lot more sense
then than it does now. :)
That isn't the only case where the KJV sometimes miscommunicates to
modern readers, although at the time it was translated the words
chosen were correct.
Matthew, =where= have you been? Email me, okay? :)
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
====================================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
The Icon Wall * <http://www.iconwall.org/>
Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>
St. Herman of Alaska * <http://www.stherman.sunnyvale.ca.us/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
LeRoy Prater
Kjv.1611 The only one Le Roy
Called and chosen to stand in Daniel's Lot.
Roy Mock
LeRoy Prater <ETMES...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9vnlqo$4e2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>
> Kjv.1611 The only one Le Roy
>
> Called and chosen to stand in Daniel's Lot.
Do you really use the Kjv.1611?!
I don't think it is readily available.
My guess is that the normal Kjv we use these days is a revision dating from
the 1700's.
JonahHex
On 18 Jan 2002 03:07:08 GMT, "Roy Mock" <ro...@intercoast.com.au>
wrote:
>
>
>
>LeRoy Prater <ETMES...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>news:9vnlqo$4e2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>
>>
>> Kjv.1611 The only one Le Roy
>>
>> Called and chosen to stand in Daniel's Lot.
>
>Do you really use the Kjv.1611?!
>
>I don't think it is readily available.
>
>My guess is that the normal Kjv we use these days is a revision dating from
>the 1700's.
The 1611 edition is available from nelsonbibles.com. They state that
the KJV used today is from 1769.
My Name
JonahHex <jh...@dc.com> wrote in
news:a2bvsv$311$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
>
>
> On 18 Jan 2002 03:07:08 GMT, "Roy Mock"
> <ro...@intercoast.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>LeRoy Prater <ETMES...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>news:9vnlqo$4e2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> Kjv.1611 The only one Le Roy
>>>
>>> Called and chosen to stand in Daniel's Lot.
>>
>>Do you really use the Kjv.1611?!
>>
>>I don't think it is readily available.
>>
>>My guess is that the normal Kjv we use these days is a
>>revision dating from the 1700's.
>
> The 1611 edition is available from nelsonbibles.com. They
> state that the KJV used today is from 1769.
>
> for details about this group. )))
They also state: available exclusively through Thomas Nelson.
And: Availability: Out of stock.
Please check back later.
--
Live to reboot. Reboot to live.
Roy Mock
JonahHex <jh...@dc.com> wrote in message
news:a2bvsv$311$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> On 18 Jan 2002 03:07:08 GMT, "Roy Mock" <ro...@intercoast.com.au>
> wrote:
> >LeRoy Prater <ETMES...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >news:9vnlqo$4e2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> Kjv.1611 The only one Le Roy
> >>
> >> Called and chosen to stand in Daniel's Lot.
> >
> >Do you really use the Kjv.1611?!
> >
> >I don't think it is readily available.
> >
> >My guess is that the normal Kjv we use these days is a revision dating
from
> >the 1700's.
>
> The 1611 edition is available from nelsonbibles.com. They state that
> the KJV used today is from 1769.
Yes. I know. I managed to get a copy quite a while ago. Thanks for specific
date. I suspect that everyone I know with a KJV most likely have the 1769
revision.
Matthew Johnson
On 19 Jan 2002 14:29:51 GMT, JonahHex <jh...@dc.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 18 Jan 2002 03:07:08 GMT, "Roy Mock" <ro...@intercoast.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>LeRoy Prater <ETMES...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>news:9vnlqo$4e2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>>
[snip]
>The 1611 edition is available from nelsonbibles.com. They state that
>the KJV used today is from 1769.
It is also available on the Net at http://ebible.org/bible/kjv/. This
copy is particularly good, since it includes the VERY important
'Apocrypha', which are, unfortunately, usually omitted in the $1 KJVs
you can buy in bookstores.
Roy Mock
Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:a2k25e$dqs$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> On 19 Jan 2002 14:29:51 GMT, JonahHex <jh...@dc.com> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Jan 2002 03:07:08 GMT, "Roy Mock" <ro...@intercoast.com.au>
> >wrote:
> >>LeRoy Prater <ETMES...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> >>news:9vnlqo$4e2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
[snip]
> It is also available on the Net at http://ebible.org/bible/kjv/.
[snip].
Because of the modern spelling, I suspect it is not the original 1611
edition.
Joshua Holman
The Word of the Lord Came to Roy Mock saying:
> My guess is that the normal Kjv we use these days is a revision dating
> from the 1700's.
>
>
The KJV I use is the 1769 edition. Most use a newer one.
Joshua
Roy Mock
Joshua Holman <hos...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:a3qb69$8mc$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>
> The Word of the Lord Came to Roy Mock saying:
>
>
> > My guess is that the normal Kjv we use these days is a revision dating
> > from the 1700's.
> >
> >
>
> The KJV I use is the 1769 edition. Most use a newer one.
It peeves me a bit that the KJV editions I come across don't seem to print a
revision history upfront like other normal books these days. I suspect that
the ordinary man in the street would think they have the 1611 edition in
their hands.
I sometime ask about the the relationship between the KJV[1611] and the
TR[1633]. Only to be told that the TR is a class of material that began
from Erasmus's work.
I am beginning to wonder whether, perhaps, the KJV[1769] best reflects the
TR[1633] than the original KJV[1611]. Do you think that may be the case?
Kjasowen
>Joshua Holman
>The KJV I use is the 1769 edition.
Most people including myself use the 1769 KJV.
Kjasowen
Fred Goodwin, CMA
kjas...@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote in news:a4tpru$gn0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net:
> Most people including myself use the 1769 KJV.
Does that mean the 1611 version was not perfect?
--
Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
Skeptic's Creed:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Kjasowen
>Fred Goodwin
>Does that mean the 1611 version was not perfect?
Some KJV onlyists said the 1611 KJV is perfect, however I reject the KJV
perfection. Nothing wrong with the 1611 KJV if it is not perfect. Also the
1769 KJV. Both of them did not affect any doctrines.
If the 1611 KJV is perfect, please tell me which one is more accurate --- The
Cambridge 1611 KJV or the Oxford 1611 KJV?
If the 1611 KJV is perfect, please tell which one is right --- "Ye" or "He"?
(Jeremiah 34:16 KJV).
Nothing wrong with people if they use 1611 or 1769 KJV because the 1611 KJV and
the 1769 KJV are accurate translations for English-speaking people today.
Kjasowen