When Words Become Stumbling Blocks

There is an opinion out there, even among people who agree that the Westcott and Hort revision was based on corrupt Greek texts. that the English translations that have come down to us from that revision aren't really a problem.  They may not go as far as defenders of the revision do, believing that the great variety of translations is a blessing to the Church, but they don't really see anything wrong with it either.  They're just translations after all, it's no big deal.  Or something like that.

But this is a big mistake.  It isn't just the bad Greek that's a problem, it's the bad English on top of the bad Greek, and it's more than that:  the multiple translations are not only bad they are destructive to the unity of the Church. 

This hit me hard again today as I was starting to read a book by Rosaria Butterfield, which is titled Openness Unhindered, and found her wrapping her thoughts around this phrase from the Book of Acts, giving it the weight of God's own words when it's just a translation from the New American Standard Bible version.  It's an attractive enough phase, and we certainly should be able to treat the words of our English Bible as God's, but if you don't have a NAS version you won't recognize that attractive phrase that's being treated as if it were God's very words, and beyond that, it's not even clear if it's based on the Greek words inspired by God either.   Certainly it's based on the "Critical Text" which incorporates Westcott and Hort's Greek text abomination, but I don't even know if the English fits the Greek of that text.  The NAS has the reputation of being an accurate translation of the Greek, but I wouldn't be able to find out without spending far too much time at it.

Rosaria Butterfield is a deep thinker and I'm sure she'll use the phrase to make some important observations about Christian life  (which I'll read as soon as I get this complaint written out which has so rudely interrupted my reading of her book).  Meanwhile it just breaks my heart that Christians have to struggle with these disturbances of God's word, the Bible on which we all depend.  We're ordinary people, we're not Greek scholars or experts in the English language.  I know God leads many through the various modern translations, and that He protects us from serious problems, but it can't be a good thing that we aren't all reading the same Bible.

As a reminder, I'm not a KJV-onlyist, but because it's the only Bible NOT based on the corrupted Greek texts, AND because it has always had a reputation as great literature, surely we have to give it more weight than all the modern corrupted Bibles.  I think we should chuck them all out myself, and start all over with a serious God-fearing team of scholars just to see what alterations to the KJB might really be necessary and important.  That's what the revising committee that was hijacked by Westcott and Hort was supposed to do, however, so I can't be very optimistic that this could be done today with the necessary expertise and, above all, restraint, but if it could, that's the only way we might get a good Bible we can all read.

Anyway, here's a comparison of the NAS passage and the KJV translation of it:

NASV:
And he stayed two full years in his own rented quarters and was welcoming all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered.

KJV:

And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,   Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. So.  Where to begin with the complaints about this. 1)  Start here:  Surely it is obvious that the NAS's "teaching concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness unhindered" is NOT the same as "teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no man forbidding."   The first part is close enough in meaning but such different wording means people who memorize their Bibles are memorizing different twords and won't be able to recognize each other's quotation.  This can't be a good thing for Christian unity. Then we have to ask concerning the last part, is "openness unhindered" an accurate translation of what the Greek says?  I think we can be fairly sure that the KJV's "with all confidence, no man forbidding," is accurate.  So how different are the underlying Greek texts?   Since the NAS is based on a compilation of Greek texts which includes the W&H fraud, the Critical Text, why would they choose a reading SO different from that of the traditional text on which the KJV is based?  Why?  Is this one of those cases where they just had to come with different enough wording to justify having a new translation at all?  And if so, this is deceitful. And exactly how is "rented quarters" a NECESSARY change from "hired house?"  Or "two FULL years" for "two WHOLE years.   Gratuitous changes to stumble the Church.   Why why why do otherwise solid Christians put up with this? 2)   Then I have my usual complaint about the NAS:  its klutzy English.  And this is definitely Westcott and Hort's fault.  "Was welcoming" all who came to him:  This is just bad English.  According to Burgon it's the result of the bad Greek AND bad English of Westcott and Hort.  And the NAS is full of this kind of trashing of the English language, even presented as an improvement in the rendering of the Greek when it's only a silly aping of Greek phrasing at the expense of good English. We can't all read Dean Burgon.  I love him to pieces but I can't get through all his arguments either.  I pray for a new generation of scholars who will rise up and shake off the influences undermining the Church, a big one being the proliferation of translations and corrupted Greek texts. The Church has been falling apart over the last century in both little and big ways.  Unfortunately we often forget that "judgment begins at the house of God" and if we stop to consider it there's plenty that God must be judging, and we can't get very far in restoring the culture until this is faced and undone.  The new versions are a big part of the undermining of the Church, but it started before that.  W&H were certainly the product of the Liberal Theology that came out of Germany not long before, and there was no doubt some influence of Darwin and Marx in the mix, and an important one was the Oxford movement which undermined Reformed thinking by its insidious infiltration of Catholicisms into the Anglican Church, and we know W&H had Catholic sympathies.  So there's a lot going on in the 19th century that contributed to the Church's undoing.  Maybe we should include Finney's influence as well.  Then, as I keep suspecting and suggesting, the abandonment of the woman's head covering is probably a much bigger part of it than even I am usually willing to argue, which of course feeds into the Feminist influences that have also infiltrated liberal churches, and now we even have practicing homosexual clergy.  The Bible versions are all interwoven with all of this.  We have a very sick Church but do we have any idea how sick?

"Sprinkle" or "startle?" --Just Another Bit of Translational Skulduggery from Westcott and Hort

Heard a great message on Christian radio this afternoon on Isaiah 53, which really starts back in Isaiah 52.  When the preacher got to Isaiah 52:15 he commented that the Hebrew word nazah, which is translated in the KJV as "sprinkle," is best translated "startle." 

The KJV has:

So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

But supposedly it would be better as "So shall he "startle" many nations?" 

For me these days it's an unavoidable irritation to hear sermons where the preacher favors the Westcott and Hort-inspired translations over the KJV, and this one is especially irritating because "startle" just isn't anything like "sprinkle," so I wanted to find out what lay behind it.  It's not irritating, by the way,  because I think the KJV is perfect, which I don't, but because I know the KJV translators knew their languages and this felt like just another slap in their worthy God-fearing faces by the revisers who hated the KJV, I mean HATED it, which they even said in so many words, being closet Catholics.  So I have to suspect it's probably another one of those 36,000 unnecessary corrections made in Westcott and Hort's 1881 "revision"  (See Bishop Wordsworth quote Change for Change's Sake in right margin).

I decided to find out.

So I did a little research. 

The list of Bible versions at Blue Letter Bible for that verse shows that nine of the twelve English versions have "sprinkle" while only two of them, the New Living and the Revised Standard, have "startle" and one, Darby, has "astonish."

The Revised Standard Version IS Westcott and Hort's Revision.  ONLY theirs and the New Living Translation have "startle."  Interesting that all the other modern versions stuck with the KJV on "sprinkle" instead of following the lead of the RSV from which they're all textually descended.   Should that perhaps be explained as their recognizing that "sprinkle" is the better rendering, or is there some other explanation?

The Hebrew word nazah  according to Strong's Concordance, occurs 24 times in the Hebrew Bible. 
It is translated in the KJV 24 times as "sprinkle."  That is, it is never translated by any other English word than "sprinkle" any place it occurs in the text.

Strong's gives "sprinkle" as the main meaning in English but also notes a secondary meaning, "leap," from which "startle" is deduced. 

I've discovered that this is a typical pattern for the Westcott and Hort revision.  That is, it's as if they checked the Concordance for the English meanings of a particular word in Greek or Hebrew, and chose a meaning that is on the list but far from the most common rendering, in a way that looks like they had no other interest than to find a rendering that is as different from the KJV as they could get but still within the ballpark as it were. 

People who favor the new versions will argue, of course, that a particular word is simply a "better translation" than the word found in the KJV, although they have no expertise in the language themselves and in most cases there's really nothing to justify that opinion except the fact that it's in a particular translation and not in the KJV.  The argument becomes silly in those cases where there are many different words in the many different translations, which is often the case.  Which of those many words is the "better translation" is a matter of subjective judgment.  And often a word choice was made simply to meet the requirement to have a certain number of differences from other translations in order to qualify for copyright.  That is another reason for the babelous cacophony of the translations besides Westcott and Hort's basic motive of vandalism of the KJV.  

So, yes, it looks like this is one of those 36,000 unnecessary changes, and maybe because it occurs in the Revision itself it's accepted by even the best of preachers as "more accurate" than whatever the KJV has:

• despite the fact that nine of the twelve versions at BLB give "sprinkle" in agreement with the KJV
• and despite the fact that "sprinkle" is the most common rendering.

I suppose Darby got "astonish" from "leap" too, but his is an oddball translation anyway.

The New Living Translation gives "cleanse" as an alternative in a footnote, which is odd since "cleanse" isn't exactly a synonym of "startle," although it is of "sprinkle."  But this is an oddball translation too. 

The translation that counts in this context is the RSV, because I wanted to know if this particular change can be traced to Westcott and Hort's devious schemes, and it looks like it certainly can.

I also looked up the English word "startle" in Strong's.  The word does not occur in the KJV at all.

And the English word "astonish:"  It occurs in various forms in the KJV ("astonied" and "astonished"), not one of which translates a Hebrew word even remotely similar to nazah.

Information on the RSV at Blue Letter Bible:

Transcribed from: The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version containing the Old and New Testaments, translated from the original tongues: being the version set forth A.D. 1611, revised A.D. 1881-1885 and A.D. 1901: compared with the most ancient authorities and revised A.D. 1946-52. — 2nd ed. of New Testament A.D. 1971. There should be enough in the rest of the description to identify the text.

Excuse me if my lip curls in a sneer as I read this.  I'm sniffing sulfur from the pit of Hell, knowing that the RSV was produced by people who hated the KJV, who ignored the instructions to keep the revision to a minimum of changes by making 36,000 UNNECESSARY changes in the English (I assume a few were necessary), AND by palming off as "older and better" a few corrupted Greek texts which happen to have been approved by the Vatican, in the place of the KJV's Textus Receptus on which all the previous English translations had been based.  So to claim that it has anything whatever to do with the "version set forth A.D. 1611" except to mutilate it, is a big fat lie.  "Compared with the most ancient authorities" is just another piece of the Antichrist lie about the corrupted texts they've reinvented to be the oldest and best.  More Vatican inspired forgeries and deceptions.   Go watch Chris Pinto's films and listen to his radio shows.

Changes in the New King James that derived from W-H-influenced translations

The reason for this post is that the NKJV is billed as simply an updating of the KJV, based on the Textus Receptus and so on, but then it turns out it contains all kinds of influence from the Westcott and Hort revision, in its footnotes and apparently also in changes in wording that follow their pattern.

I found this list of some of those changes online , and it looks like the typical list of changes in the NKJV that were influenced by the Westcott and Hort revision. Yes, it's from an extreme KJVO website.

(By the time I got through this post, by the way, I found myself not agreeing much with the KJVO point of view on this. I'd never personally investigated any of this before, so that was a discovery).

As I go through the list, checking each briefly with Strong's and with the other versions, it's clear that the NKJV did come up with renderings that agree with the Westcott-Hort-influenced translations, whether they took them directly from them or not. The modern versions defenders claim the changes were not copied from the other versions, and perhaps they are right, but judging from Strong's it appears that very few could actually be claimed to be more accurate translation so that their similarity to the others doesn't seem to be the accidental result of independent work.

While the modern versions defenders always ask whether it is more accurate or not, I always want to ask whether the change was really needed or not since preserving the KJV as much as possible is what the revising committee of 1881 was supposed to do, and the NKJV as well. This shouldn't sacrifice accuracy of course. As I went through them I found a few that could be justified as clearer, and quite a few that didn't make enough of a change to qualify as necessary, simply change for change's sake. There are also some changes I just don't get. The KJVO commentary seems overheated for the occasion on many of them, and to miss the point on some.

[FUCHSIA = I agree with the KJV; RED = I prefer the change; GREEN = I can't decide]

Genesis 22:8: One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV!

It's possible I'm missing the whole thing here as I don't see how the change destroys the promise, but I also don't see any need for the change either. The original reads just fine. Checking Strong's it appears that "himself" isn't even in the Greek but added in the translation, though all the versions include it and I don't know Greek so all I can say is it looks like that from Strong's breakdown of the Greek words. The "for (himself)" was also added in those that have it -- the ESV, the NASB and the NKJV. Was there really no influence here?

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

According to Strong's it can be a ring, an earring or a nose ring. "Nose" is also a possible translation for the word the KJV translated as "face." Putting it on the "face" does seem very odd and I can see how the translator would prefer "nose" in that place; on the other hand the bracelets were put on her "hands." Are there any other reasons for calling it a nose ring? But also Strong's shows that there are other places in the Greek text where a specific reference to the ear is made when referencing this same piece of jewelry. I can't be sure in this case which is better, and since I trust the KJV translators on such a basic translational point, which the W-H committee didn't, and can't see any necessity for the change, I'll tentatively say it should have been left as "earring."

Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word!

I noticed this one years ago. I certainly agree that "satraps" conveys absolutely nothing to the English reader. Some ENGLISH word for the kind of officer referred to is needed, so I see nothing wrong with "lieutenants."

Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).

And puts in variations on "accuser," "adversary" etc. I'm going with the KJV. The translators knew what they were doing and this is not one of those places where it could be improved with a change.

Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light." THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction!

This one I find hard to resolve. I don't think the meaning is so completely lost by "difficult" myself since I believe it's probably referring more to the walk with Christ than justification by faith, but I also don't think it improves the meaning at all and perhaps blurs it. "Strait" is a bit archaic on the other hand. This is one for my Dream Team Translation Committee. (Really, they all are; I wouldn't want my own impressions to prevail).

Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!

I totally agree with this KJVO's observation. While a "big fish" COULD be the better translation in some contexts, according to Strong's, this context doesn't require it and the change seems irritatingly unnecessary.

Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

The Greek word definitely implies worship, changing the English word is completely unnecessary.

Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes "Christ" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

I'm going on my memory for most of these and I think these are places where "Christ" is in italics in the KJV, which indicates that it isn't in the Greek but strongly implied in the context. I trust the KJV translators, see no reason for any change.

John 1:3: change "All things were made BY him;" to "All things were made THROUGH Him" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

There is a difference in meaning from this change that could affect doctrine. I also can't grasp what it means to say anything was made THROUGH a person. Things are made BY a person. Again I trust the KJV translators. Burgon has plenty to say about this substitution and changes to the other part of this verse in other versions as well (pages 132, 135, 174, Revision Revised), but I'm not going to take the time to copy it out here right now as I'm just running through my own impressions.

John 4:24: change "God is a spirit" to the impersonal, New Age pantheistic,"God is spirit" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

At first I couldn't see any big difference but Strong's clearly shows the article with the noun -- yes, in English, not in Greek, but the two languages aren't exactly equivalent after all -- and with such examples as an angel, an evil spirit, the human soul and so on it seems very clear leaving off the article must be wrong and it does suggest a pantheistic idea of spirit. Since the article is indicated in Strong's I don't see how anyone would independently think to remove it based on the Greek, and that suggests that the NKJV was influenced by the other translations.

John 14:2: (NKJV 1979 edition) change "mansions" to "dwelling places" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

I didn't look this one up for some reason but off the top of my head it seems a completely gratuitous unnecessary change, so leaving the time-honored word in place is my first choice. But then I think it does imply something perhaps unintended, at least to our ears today, a KIND of dwelling place that's unnecessary, so I may end up going with the change.

John 14:16: change "comforter" to "helper"(refers to Holy Spirit) (NASV)

"Helper" looks more accurate to me from a glance at Strong's but I have to ask why the KJV translators would prefer "Comforter," which they did in four of the five places parakletos is found in the Greek text, choosing "Advocate" in the fifth. So I tentatively vote that it should have been left alone. No, I do like "helper" better and it seems to fit the Greek better.

Acts 4:27, 30: change "holy child" to "holy servant" (refers to Jesus) (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

One of those changes where the new versions seem to have chosen the least likely from Strong's list of possible renderings. "Child" is the first rendering listed, somehow more lovely too, and here I go clearly with the KJV. No need for this change.

Acts 12:4: change "Easter" to "Passover" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

While modern versions defenders think this is an obviously necessary change I'm not completely convinced. Something to do with historical usage. One for the Dream Team Translation Committee.

Acts 17:22:changes "superstitious" to "religious" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

"Superstitious" is fine in context, but so is "religious." I personally LIKE "religious" better but this is another I'd leave to the DTTC.

Acts 24:14: change "heresy" to "sect" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Another place where context makes the difference and "heresy" is more appropriate, the change was not necessary.

Romans 1:18: change "hold the truth" to "suppress the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

The change in this case seems to me to be clearer but I defer to the Dream Team Translation Committee.

Romans 1:25: change "changed the truth" to "exchanged the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

No need for this change, the original is quite clear.

Romans 5:8: change "commendeth" to "demonstrates" (NIV, NASV)

Strong's doesn't give any warrant for "demonstrates." "Commends" may be somewhat archaic, however, and yet the KJV used it in a majority of places for the Greek word. I can't think of another alternative either. I'd leave it as "commends" until the Dream Team can deal with it.

Romans 16:18: change "good words and fair speeches" to "smooth words and flattering speech" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

The change is clearer to my mind, though the original wording wasn't hard to understand. I'll go with the change on this one.

1 Cor. 1:21: change "foolishness of preaching" to "foolishness of the message preached" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) There's nothing foolish about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unless you're not saved! 1 Cor. 1:18 says: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS. . ." I wonder where that leaves the translators of the NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV?

I don't see a problem with the change as far as meaning goes, as the gospel IS foolishness to the world as scripture says elsewhere, but I also don't see a reason to change it, the original is clear enough.

1 Cor. 1:22: change "require" to "request" (NASV)

Seems to me like one of those completely unnecessary changes. Strong's makes either acceptable. I like "require" if my likings count.

1 Cor. 6:9: removes "effeminate" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

Here's a case where I think the modern changes in the last words are clearer for today's readers, to "homosexuals" and "sodomites," and I don't see that anything is lost in the meaning.

1 Cor. 9:27: change "castaway" to "disqualified" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

The change translates the Greek more literally, but I'm not sure I see anything seriously wrong with "castaway" as far as meaning goes. Wonder what inspired that word. I like "disqualified" better myself.

2 Cor. 2:10: change "person of Christ" to "presence of Christ" (NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Both are OK by Strong's, don't see that the change improves things. I go with the KJV.

2 Cor. 2:17: With all the "corruptions" in the NKJV, you'd expect 2 Cor. 2:17 to change. IT DOES! They change, "For we not as many which CORRUPT the word of God" to "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Strong's gives "corrupt" as a fair translation, derived from the peddler's adulteration of their wares. "Peddling the word of God" doesn't evoke anything very clear. I strongly prefer the KJV's "corrupt."

2 Cor. 5:17: change "new creature" to "new creation" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

Both are OK, need to hear arguments pro and con.

2 Cor. 10:5: change "imaginations" to "arguments". Considering New Age "imaging" and "visualization" is now entering the church, this verse in the "old" KJV just won't do. (NIV, RSV)

I like "imaginations" myself, but I could go with "reasonings" better than "arguments" which is another possibility from Strong's. Another for the DTTC.

2 Cor. 11:6: change "rude in speech" to "untrained in speech" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

"Rude" is MUCH better than "untrained." Simpler, more direct.

Gal. 2:20: omit "nevertheless I live" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

According to Strong's this phrase is very clearly in the Greek of the Textus Receptus. Perhaps this is a change due to the substitution of the Alexandrians in the critical texts that underlie the modern versions? If so that would demonstrate a definite influence from them to the NKJV.

Phil. 2:6: (NKJV 1979e.) change "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" to "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped". (robs Jesus Christ of deity) (NIV, NASV, RSV)

I've always thought the changed reading is incomprehensible. I don't know if it denies Christ's deity or not, it just doesn't make sense. The KJV rendering is a lot clearer.

Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

Both are acceptable according to Strong's, neither is more accurate, but again, that being the case, why change it? Tender sensibilities? Would like to hear pros and cons.

1 Thess. 5:22 change "all appearance of evil" to "every form of evil" (NASV, RSV, NSRV)

Since I do give the KJV team much more credit than the modern versions defenders do I'm inclined to go with "appearance." Again, both are acceptable according to Strong's, so it's a matter to be determined by the judgment of the best Greek scholars. I've seen arguments that there's no way to abstain from the "appearance" of evil, it's too much to ask of us, but that doesn't hold water to my mind. There's no way to avoid sin either as long as we are in the flesh but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be making every effort.

1 Timothy 6:5: The NKJV changes "gain is godliness" to "godliness is a MEANS OF gain". There are NO Greek texts with "means of" in them! Where, oh where, did they come from? Care to take a wild guess? YOU GOT IT! The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

There's nothing wrong with rewording a phrase if it's needed to convey the meaning better to the reader, but in this case I don't see the need for it. "Gain is godliness" appears to be an exact literal translation of the Greek of the Textus Receptus and I go for the neatest simplest rendering.

1 Timothy 6:10: The NKJV changes "For the love of money is the root of all evil:" to "For the love of money is a root of all KINDS OF evil". The words "KINDS OF" are found in NO Greek text in the world! Where did they get them? Straight from the NIV, NASV, NRSV!

The KJV wording appears to follow the Textus Receptus exactly as far as I can tell from Strong's. The commenter says the phrase "kinds of" isn't in any Greek text, in which case it must have been added because the translator felt it made it clearer. Seems to me that if "a root" is permissible, as opposed to "the root" no other change is needed for those who are sure the love of money couldn't be THE root of ALL evil: so it would read "a root of all evil." "All kinds of" doesn't improve it.

1 Tim. 6:20: change "science" to "knowledge" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

"Science" MEANS "knowledge" or it did originally. Now it's acquired a more specific meaning that doesn't fit well, so "knowledge" is the better word -- an updating rather than a correction.

Titus 3:10: change "heretic" to "divisive man" (NIV)

This one is a really terrible change, and I even did a post on it a while back. It can be translated "divisive" or "factious" or "heretic," all of them implying a holder of false doctrine, but the problem with the first two is that today they all too easily suggest the reverse, condemning a person who IDENTIFIES a heretic, as someone who raises such questions these days is likely to be called "divisive." It's akin to the false theology of "love" or the command to "judge not," that claims "love" would never judge even the worst heresy. I have definitely encountered this misreading in action. Perhaps this change in the text is even the cause of this reversal of meaning. At best this is a case of softening and blurring the meaning. Stick to the strong clear word, "heretic." (If there is no influence from the other versions it's just odd that the NKJV would prefer this much less desirable reading since it's supposed to be preserving the KJV wherever it can. Very odd).

Hebrews 4:8 & Acts 7:45: "Jesus" is changed to "Joshua". (NIV, NASV, RSV)

Yes, very bad change, like all those changes that treat the original Hebrew as better. {Later, I see I misunderstood this because I didn't check the verse. It is referring to Joshua son of Nun, right-hand man and successor to Moses. "Jesus" was used to refer to that Joshua in the KJV and that IS confusing so it's a GOOD THING it was changed.

But back to my general point about retaining the original languages even though it turns out it was off topic: } Retaining names in Hebrew also feeds the Hebrew Names heresy. Such as "Yahweh." Completely unnecessary change that causes more problems than it solves. I also object to changing the KJV's "Hell" back to the Greek or Hebrew term, Hades or Sheol or Gehenna or whatnot. I've seen where some confuse Hell with the lake of fire and make that the argument for retaining the original words, but this makes no sense to me. If there's some reason in scripture for the confusion I'm not aware of it. Meanwhile there is nothing wrong with "Hell." "Hell" is the English word so it belongs in English Bibles. Nobody really knows what Hell entails anyway, and using foreign words only compounds the mystification. All the owlish discussions of the different cultural notions of abodes after death add nothing to the understanding of the reader who comes across the foreign word in the scripture, but "Hell" at least has some meaning in English, however vaguely apprehended. Let individual pastors do the detailed study to discuss the shades of meaning for their congregations if they want to. Nobody is going to know what it's all about until the End anyway.]

2 Pet. 2:1: change "damnable heresies" to "destructive heresies" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

"Damnable" is apparently read as implied by the KJV translators, and Strong's treats it as an option though "destructive" is higher on the list. I'd say the new versions are softening and blurring the meaning and the strong word "damnable" is far better, clearer and more pointed.

1 John 3:16: remove "love of God"; (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

They remove "of God," which is in italics or parentheses in the KJV. This is a matter of what exactly the Greek says, and I don't know, but again I wouldn't dismiss the KJV's choice lightly.

1 John 5:13: The NKJV reads: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE TO believe in the name of the Son of God." They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever! Not even the perverted NIV, NASV, NRSV and RSV go that far! A cruel, subtil (see Genesis 3:1) attack on the believer's eternal security!

I don't see how this is an attack on eternal security. If those who believe are addressed it makes sense that John is saying he wrote so they might continue to believe, but it seems there is more going on here that I'm not able to judge. Strong's has the KJV reading clearly based on the Greek. I wonder if this is one of those places as discussed by Burgon, where the incompetence of the 1881 revisers in dealing with Greek grammar, tenses and so on, has reared its ugly head. That would mean the idea of continuing is simply a wrong reading of the tense that would have been learned through the bad examples of Westcott and Hort, and somehow the NKJV followed up on it while the other modern versions for some reason didn't. Just a speculation of course.

Rev. 2:13: change "Satan's seat" to "Satan's throne" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Does seem unnecessary. "Seat" implies this is his base of operations, "throne" doesn't improve it as far as I can see, in fact it gives an overly literal image for what is meant to be metaphorical. Both are reasonable renderings according to Strong's.

Rev. 6:14: "Heaven" is changed to "sky" in (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

NO need for this change at ALL. "Heaven" is sometimes synonymous with "sky" anyway.

* * * * * *

As I went through the list I got caught up in deciding whether I thought the reading was more or less accurate, or necessary, and lost track of the claim that the changes reflect the Westcott and Hort influence. So when I'm up to it I hope to go back and make a few more comments in that direction.

*****POST CONTINUES TO BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

I am still pondering parts of this post and it is still subject to change. I would like to add at this point though that it's interesting how little I side with the KJVO point of view and find the changes congenial when I get into the specifics. I'm still going to end up far more conservative about these things than the modern versions defenders but I think maybe this exercise of going through these verses has made it clear that I start off accepting more of the KJVO position than I really agree with when I get into the particulars. Well, there aren't many in the middle of the road as I am from whom to draw information and arguments, and the KJVOs do often have some good ones. In this case, though, I'm glad to find out that the NKJV wasn't quite the disaster I'd been led to believe it was, especially since I used it for years. I could certainly do without the footnotes to the Alexandrian - based critical texts, however. And there is still more to explore about it.

=========
Another discussion of the NKJV changes is here.

7/25/11: I don't see the change from "world" to "age" that I discuss in my post on "aion" yesterday. That's one big error that does derive from the poor scholarship of Westcott and Hort that should get top billing in these discussions.

Accuracy versus Tradition in translational choices

A debater complains that I slight accuracy in favor of tradition, in answer to my argument that the many different renderings of a particular Greek word or phrase in the various modern versions demonstrates change for change's sake. He insists that the accurate translation of the word is the main thing and that I overlook that by such a list, as if I treat all the words as identical. Since this is hardly the case the discussion can get very frustrating.

It occurred to me today that perhaps what causes the confusion is that I treat the KJV choice as the most accurate. I assume it. Where I see a need for a change it isn't because the KJV's word is inaccurate, it's usually because its meaning has changed over time so that now it means something different to us.

The word "corn" as in a "corn of wheat," for instance, is not part of our language at all now, and I can't see that anything is lost in this case by replacing it with "grain." There is no question of accuracy versus tradition here, both are accurate. In the case of "strain at a gnat" versus "strain out a gnat" it seems obvious to me that "out" is correct and "at" is not (Orthodox Jews still strain their soup in case they might accidentally swallow unclean meat such as a gnat), and in this case it's not the fault of the KJV translators (who had "out" in their first edition according to something I read), but was a printing error. There are those who argue for "at" on the ground that it's in the language and the culture now, and while I consider that to be a very strong argument in some cases, I don't in this case, especially since the two words are so close in sound there's no chance anyone will mistake the reference when it is quoted. So this is one place where one could say tradition is being wrongly put ahead of accuracy.

We also don't use the word "virtue" as it is used in Luke 8 where Jesus said he felt "virtue" go out of him when the woman touched his garment, and unless "virtue" carries special meaning that is lacking in "power" or "strength" I would like to see it changed to "strength." All are accurate enough, the question is which conveys the meaning best to our ears today. Burgon thinks the RV's "power" is a poor choice over "virtue" and perhaps "virtue" did carry a meaning then that is now lost to us, even because "power" has been substituted in its place. That's a sad thought if so and if that's the case I could be persuaded that "virtue" should be retained.

But the KJV's choice was the most accurate at the time. They were certainly aware of the possible alternatives in "power" and "strength" and in fact that is why I think it's important to be very cautious in making changes to the KJV. What looks like a needed change may simply be the result of our own ignorance of nuances in the KJV term that should be taught rather than replaced by a less accurate word. This is Burgon's argument against substituting "love" for "charity" for the Greek agape for instance, and I think he makes a very good case that "charity" is the most accurate word, and "love" is very inaccurate. Unfortunately, since the substitution of "love" has stuck in many of the new versions, the subtleties in the word "charity" are even more remote to us than ever. But that's a whole discussion unto itself.

In any case I don't put tradition ahead of accuracy, I just don't agree with the debater about which is the most accurate translation, as he would often side with one of the modern versions against the KJV. And since the comparisons of six or eight different versions usually show quite a few different translations for a single Greek word from one version to another, the idea that they were chosen for accuracy of translation rings hollow in any case.

Again, I ALWAYS assume the KJV translators made the most accurate choice. It would be very strange if they hadn't. At the same time I accept that there are some places where the KJV needs to be corrected -- but that becomes an issue only when I come to those places. Otherwise I assume the KJV translation is the superior translation.

But I suspect that this very position means to a defender of the modern versions only that I must be KJV-Only after all since I put the KJV above all the others, and that automatically means to them putting tradition above accuracy. Apparently there's no way to get around their assumption. There's no such thing in their mental set as a fair assessment that the KJV is simply BETTER -- meaning a more accurate translation among other things -- than all the modern versions, because they are so convinced that's not the case. So they have to treat it as an irrational prejudice. With such a clash of basic assumptions fair debate is really not possible.

Just because the KJV is the best doesn't mean it can't be improved. It's best in comparison with the versions which are based on bad Greek texts and translated according to bad Greek and English grammar and misunderstanding of idioms -- according to J W Burgon, whose arguments always impress me with his clear grasp of these things. (This assessment of Burgon gets me accused of "worshipping" Burgon, too, rather than recognized as fairly making a rational assessment of his superior judgment. Really, there is no way to debate any of this, it's all going to be twisted against me). Anyway, since the other versions are that bad the KJV doesn't have to be perfection itself to be better.

But also I do think there are probably some instances in which a KJV reading should be retained simply because of tradition -- that is, because it's been established for so long in English culture and literature -- but I don't know if this necessarily involves a sacrifice of accuracy until I encounter such instances.

=======
added 3/7 - 6 am

I see I'm being discussed by this debater at another forum. A poster has read my blog and opined that the only reason I like "strength" over "power" is that Burgon opposes "power." This is not in fact the case. I don't like "power" myself in that particular place and like "strength" better, based on the context of the passage alone, and I suspect Burgon would not have liked "strength" either, so Euthymius is just making up stuff. I also said I could be talked into "virtue" if there are good reasons for it. I also say, however, that "power" is acceptable. THE NUMBER OF TIMES the KJV translates a Greek word by a particular English word is irrelevant, by the way (7 times for "strength") as it is the context which determines which they choose, not being blind mechanical one-for-one translators as Westcott and Hort were, which is something Burgon criticized them for.

As for "corn" of wheat, I thought it might still be current British and failed to check. My bad, but it did occur to me. So I'm for an Americanized Bible.

Everyone seems terribly concerned about the 36,000 changes Burgon reports -- I run across this number in many places, not just in Burgon. Unfortunately it doesn't show up in the index to Burgon's Revision Revised. I note that someone found it quoted by Bishop Wordsworth there however. The usual way it is phrased is something like "36,000 changes, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH were unnecessary and in fact changes for the worse." If I failed to add that clause it would have been a rare occurrence but of course something someone looking for faults would pounce on. Burgon offers counts for smaller portions of the scriptures as well, such as the gospel of Luke where he finds an enormous number of changes for the worse.

AND A LAST WORD on the fact that the KJV translators ALSO made a great number of similar type changes to the previous Bibles as the 1881 revision made in the KJV. The answer to this is very simple: Accuracy is the important thing, right? And in this case too I assume the KJV translators to have produced the most accurate rendering unless shown otherwise (in the very few instances where that might be the case). This assumption is based on their demonstrable superiority, both the number and quality of the translators, plus their faithfulness to their commission to preserve as much as possible of the Bishop's Bible in particular but the earlier English Bibles in general, which is a RULE THEY TOOK SERIOUSLY AND FOLLOWED, unlike the revisers of 1881.

======

Oh and somebody comments that "charity" and "virtue" are "Vulgatisms" as if that alone disqualifies them. (The Vulgate was the Latin translation that had survived for centuries.) Odd to my mind how they complain about the fact that this Latin translation was involved in the KJV. English has plenty of Latin influences, it's not as if it's an alien imposition on the language.

Change for the Sake of Change: 2 Peter 1: 5-7

In a discussion of the 1881 revisers' incompetence at handling Greek prepositions, Burgon gives the example of 2 Peter 1:5-7, in which they made 30 changes from the KJV in a passage of 38 words. He is highlighting their lack of skill as translators but this passage also demonstrates their violation of their commitment to make only the most minimal changes where clearly needed.

Burgon comments:

Was it then in order to bring Scripture within the captus of 'a Reader of ordinary intelligence' that the Revisers have introduced no less than thirty changes into eight-and-thirty words of S. Peter's 2nd Epistle? Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of 'Revision.' It is the only one we shall offer of the many contrasts we had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition ἐν [en]? (p. 171, Revision Revised).

2 Peter 1:5-7 (Red shows differences from the KJV)

KJV: And beside all this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

RV: Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge; and in your knowledge temperance; and in your temperance patience; and in your patience godliness; and in your godliness love of the brethren; and in your love of the brethren love.

Burgon continues:

The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists' statement (Preface, iii. 2), --'We made no change if the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version.' To ourselves it appears that every one of those 30 changes is a change for the worse; and that one of the the most exquisite passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled, -- rendered in fact well-nigh unintelligible, -- by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers. Were they -- (if the question be allowable) -- bent on removing none but 'plain and clear errors,' when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token of their stern resolve 'to introduce into the Text as few alterations as possible,' that they spared the eight words which remain out of the eight-and-thirty? (p. 172, Revision Revised)

He goes on to discuss their "wooden" rendering of the Greek preposition ἐν but I won't quote him there as my point here is to show the change for change's sake the revisers did against their own assertion that they would only make the most minimal and absolutely necessary changes.

Now I'll include some of the modern versions' rendering of this passage, which ought to show 1) that the changes made in the RV are carried through in most of them, and 2) that the spirit of Westcott and Hort persists in any case in the making of changes for change's sake. It is possible that for today's readers two or three of the new word choices would be better, but the commitment originally was to make only changes that were needed where the sense was unclear, and I can't see how this applies in any of the changes in this example. (I've put words that are new in a particular translation in magenta.)

ASV: (1901) Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in [your] virtue knowledge; and in [your] knowledge self-control; and in [your] self-control patience; and in [your] patience godliness; and in [your] godliness brotherly kindness; and in [your] brotherly kindness love.

RSV: (1946-52, 71) For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.

NASB: (1966-95) Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral *excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge, and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness, and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.

NIV: (1973 NT, OT 1978, Rev 1983) For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self control; and to self control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.

NKJV: (1982) But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.

Just musing: It is possible that the KJV's "charity" would be better rendered as "love" for today's readers, but Burgon makes a strong case for retaining "charity," (pp 201-2 RR) so that even though it's not used now as it was then it might be worth it to try to resuscitate it by retaining it, partly because of its place in the history of the English church and English literature, but mainly because the English word "love" is too broad for the specificity of the Greek agape -- "a grace of purely Christian growth" as Burgon puts it. (By the way, the Greek word translated variously "brotherly kindness, brotherly love" etc., is philadelphia.) On the other hand, I checked with the older translations, Tyndale, Wycliffe etc., and found that they used "love" for agape and to my mind that makes a good case for the change. Nevertheless, the KJV translators had those earlier versions available to them, and if they saw fit to change it to "charity" that is at least an equally strong argument to retain it now. Something for my wished-for future and probably impossible Dream Team Translators to ponder.

A few of Burgon's objections to the language in the Revised Version

To give some of the flavor of Burgon's criticism of the English changes made in the Revised Version of 1881, I decided to list some of his page headings in his article The New English Version, in The Revision Revised, which indicate the topic covered on that page.

Burgon presents himself as a capable scholar of the Greek, textual critic, and an astute judge of the English language, this particular article being about both the bad Greek and bad English in the Revised Version.

And the point is: Beside the point of demonstrating Burgon's abilities and exposing the mentality of the revisers who gave us the bad Alexandrian Greek tests, I've already done a few posts and hope to do more showing that the modern versions that have sprung up over the last century all take their cue from the Revised Version, sometimes repeating its phrases exactly. Garbage in, garbage out.

Disastrous results of revision
Blunders recorded in the margin
Unfairness of the textual annotations in the margin
Unfair suppression of scripture
Text of S. Matth 1. 18, depraved
First three textual annotations incorrect. -- Text of S. Matth 1. 25
Licentiousness of the revisionists
Changes wantonly introduced
Senseless alterations
Revisionists' notion of making 'as few alterations as possible.'
St. John XIII. 12, --mistranslated
Injudicious or erroneous changes
Changes for the worse
Acts XXI. 37, mistranslated
S. Matthew XXVI. 15, now mistranslated
Unwarrantable change in Acts XXVI. 28, 29.
Specimens of Infelicitous and unidiomatic rendering.
Pedantry of the revisionists in rendering the Greek aorist
Offensive pedantry of the revisionists exposed
The Greek tenses, misrepresented throughout by the revisionists
The Greek article, misunderstood by the revisionists
The particles, tastelessly or inaccurately rendered
Unidiomatic rendering of the prepositions
30 changes in 38 words. -- Violated properties of the English language
Margins encumbered with textual errors
Sorry "alternative renderings"
Useless marginal glosses.
Mistakes resulting from want of familiarity with Hellenistic Greek
Absurd note
Mistaken principle of translation
"Epileptic," why inadmissible.
Socinian gloss on Romans IX. 5

Many of the topics he discusses in this section show to my mind a highly trained and highly refined scholar and judge of language. Unfortunately the decisions made by Westcott and Hort, and their inferior understanding of both Greek and English, now prevail, and there don't seem to be people trained to recognize it. I had a discussion elsewhere with someone who claimed to have seminary training and to be well educated in Greek who insisted Burgon had to be wrong about a particular Greek word which Burgon claims the revisionists misunderstood. Well, you can take today's seminary training as your standard, of course, but I take Burgon's judgment myself, and figure this sort of adamant objection to Burgon's judgment is the result of Westcott and Hort's plot having won -- so that the wrong understanding now prevails and is taken for the standard instead of Burgon's better judgment.

Change for the Sake of Change: Isaiah 32:17

Besides evidence for the use of corrupted Greek texts in the modern Bible versions starting with Westcott and Hort's, I also want to give examples from time to time of the changes in the English that demonstrate what can only be called a destructive attitude toward the Bible, changes that serve no purpose other than change.

In the newest versions this is probably the result of the need to make a certain number of changes in order to qualify for copyright. That's bad enough. However, Westcott and Hort made over 36,000 changes against their commitment to do the most minimal possible revision of the Authorized Version or King James.

As I discovered some time ago from comparing the differences between different versions on the first three verses of Psalm 91 all the changes from version to version seem to have no purpose except to creat a confusion of tongues Babel-style in the Christian churches, making it impossible for Christians to quote consistently or read in unison, destroying the unity of the church in a diabolically subtle way, so subtle that some of the very best preachers have completely overlooked the deceit.

Here is another example, Isaiah 32:17: (Differences from the KJV in red and lt. blue. I bold the main words where they are the same as the KJV's.)

KJV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.

RV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and confidence for ever.

I ask you, was there a COMPELLING NEED to change "assurance" into "confidence?" Is there some problem with the word "assurance" that escapes me? Is it an archaic word or a difficult word to understand? Or isn't this obviously change for change's sake?

ESV: And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever.

Footnote:
* Or security

Now we've got "effect" where "work" is in the KJV, and "result" for "effect." I checked: the Hebrew does not have the same word in those places. And now "trust" replaces "confidence" which replaces the KJV's "assurance." Is there any explanation for this except change for change's sake? AND we've got a footnote too, giving us yet another synonym, just what we need.

RSV: And the effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust for ever. (Identical to the ESV)

ASV: And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and confidence for ever. (Same as the RV)

NASB: And the work of righteousness will be peace, And the service of righteousness, quietness and *confidence forever.

A real original there, in "service."

NIV: The fruit of righteousness will be peace; the effect of righteousness will be quietness and confidence forever.

Another original, that "fruit."

Webster's and Darby's are identical to the KJV

I know we usually say "will" for "shall" but "shall" is correct and it isn't a strange-sounding word to us either, so why should it be changed? The RV and the ASV retain it, why shouldn't it be regarded as the standard reading?

The RV, ASV and NASB also retain the KJV's "work," adding to the impression that there is no good reason to change THAT word either. The only change they all agree on is "assurance" and that just seems silly.

Come on, you CAN see that all this is nothing but Babel, can't you?

=====

Apparently my Anonymous commenter to this post can't see it. He's at pains to convince me that these choices were all made by scholars for scholarly reasons. If so, that's a pretty sad comment on scholarship. What could be more revealing of the uselessness of scholarly work than the results shown above?