Translation of a Greek Word in KJV

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Mon 24 January 2005 2:20 pm

Thanks for the info, guys.

尼古拉前执事 · Mon 24 January 2005 2:41 pm

I believe the NKJV has major changes, removing Christ's words that he is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last in Revelation for one. It also removes the blood sacrifice from redemption in another verse. Offhand I recall these two, but I am sure there are a number of Protestant sites that would go further into the changes in the NKJV. The TMB was a book of the month on the portal page here at the Euphrosynos Cafe since it has been recommended by a few clergymen to me.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Mon 24 January 2005 8:50 pm

Fr. Dcn. Nikolai,

I checked Revelation, and those words are in the same verses in my NKJV that they are in my KJV. I also checked a couple dozen verses which I figured might be what you were speaking of regarding the blood sacrifice, but again had no luck. So, with those dead ends, I decided to spend a few hours reading through some pro-KJV, anti-NKJV arguments. And, in the end, I've come to the conclusion that the New King James Version is the better version for an Orthodox Christian to use. Once I got past all the wierd polemics and got down to the meat of their arguments--in the areas where there have been actual substantive changes--the NKJV is more in line with Orthodox thought. Certainly the NKJV having "you" as opposed to ye/thou/etc. is a mark against it. But the rest of the arguments used against the NKJV that I saw I didn't find persuasive (but maybe you know of others?) Here are most of the arguments from one site...

One charge is that the NKJV: "removes the word 'hell' 23 times"; the NKJV instead uses Hades. My response as an Orthodox Christian is... good, that's the proper word in those passages! The rich man did not look up from the torments of hell (Lk. 16:23), he was in hades (did Christ descend into hell and preach?). According to the Church, hell hasn't been created yet. So it turns out that on this point it is the KJV that is wrong, and not the NKJV. The KJV is totally confusing in Rev. 20:13-15, making it sound like people will be taken out of hell, judged, and then thrown back into it: "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Compare that with the NKJV, which is what the Orthodox believe:

The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Another supposed problem is that the NKJV takes the word "repent" out of the text. "They take it out 44 times!" we are informed. The only problem is that there is nothing wrong with the changes in the examples the KJV-only site provides. For example, they reference Matt. 27:3, where the KJV says "repented" but the NKJV says "was remorseful". I'm not sure exactly how this distorts passage, except if you have a minimalisitic faith and have artificially constructed your entire theology around certain buzz words and catchy phrases. According to Dictionary.com, "remorse" means "moral anguish arising from repentance for past misdeeds; bitter regret". So, if anything, the NKJV makes the point of the passage more pronounced.

Btw, I have mini-concordances in the back of both versions, and they both reference the words repentance/repent/repented 22 times in the New Testament. I guess those cultic-influenced NKJV translators who are doing Satan's work forgot to downplay repentance in the concordance like they supposedly did in the text.

I was informed that the NKJV uses the word "covenant" instead of "testament" in the New Testament, so that the actual word "New Testament" does not appear there. And so, even though this phrase (ie. New Testament) in the KJV never actually means the Bible (it's normally connected with the eucharist and Christ's work on the cross), this change supposedly is "An obvious assault at the written word!" How this is going to effect the theology or praxis of an Orthodox Christian, I'm not sure.

Apparently, "The word 'damned,' 'damnation' is NOT in the NKJV! ...'Condemned' is NO WHERE NEAR AS SERIOUS as 'damned'!" (emphasis theirs). What they don't realise is that some people just don't realise that there is such a sharp distinction to be made between damned and condemned. Like the NKJV translators. Or, I dunno, Jesus Christ. "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." (Jn. 3:18-19, KJV). "Condemn" sounds sobering enough to me, especially in our politically correct society where "judge" is a four letter word, and "condemn" is like the F word.

The word "devils" in the KJV is replaced with "demons" in the NKJV. Again, this has what meaning to an Orthodox Christian? If anything, "demons" is much more familiar to us and therefore the NKJV is more facilitatory for our learning God's will as taught in Scripture and Tradition. It is also said, in a very long-winded and polemical manner, that the verse telling us to "Study your Bible" in the Scripture has been altered (2 Tim. 2:15). The problem is that the term the NKJV uses, "be diligent" seems to be more faithful to the original Greek. Another case of putting one's buzz words and artificial theology above theological accuracy?

Similarly, we are told that "'virtue'is replaced with 'power' in Mark 5:30, Luke 6:19, 8:46!" Then we are asked, "How does anybody confuse 'virtue' with 'power'?" Where could they have gotten the idea that that word might be better rendered "power" than ":virtue," I wonder? As with the last example, I think this too is another case of those zany NKJV translators doing a crazy thing like being faithful to the Greek. According to Strong's, the word means "force (lit. or fig.); spec. miraculous power (usually by impl. a miracle itself):--ability, abundance, meaning, might (-ily, -y deed), (worker of) miracle (-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work.". What we mean in the 21st century when we use the term "virtue" is covered by a different Greek word; and no, the NKJV didn't cut those out (Phil. 4:8; 2 Pet. 1:3, 5; etc.)

The NKJV also apparently has "slave" rather than "servant" (KJV) in some passages (Rom. 6:22; 1 Cor. 7:22). The idea of whether we can be called "slaves of God" is debatable; I've seen the Church Fathers use language that was both for and against that idea. Whatever the case may be though, the word used by the NKJV does seem to be more accurate. There are words which mean servant, but the one used in Rom 6:22 has a different, stronger meaning. Strong's defines the word (douloo) thus: "to enslave (lit. or fig.):--bring into (be under) bondage, x given, become (make) servant." Compare that with doulon, "subservient:--servant". As to the second Scripture verse given, St. John Chrysostom didn't seem to have a problem understanding the verse as talking about a literal slave:

How then is the slave a free man? Because He has freed thee not only from sin, but also from outward slavery while continuing a slave. For he suffers not the slave to be a slave, not even though he be a man abiding in slavery: and this is the great wonder. But how is the slave a free man while continuing a slave? When he is freed from passions and the diseases of the mind: when he looks down upon riches and wrath and all other the like passions. - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 19 on First Corinthians

It is also said that "In order to 'harmonize' with the satanic New Age Movement (and of course the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!), the NKJV changes 'end of the WORLD' to 'end of the AGE'! And in it's no longer the 'WORLD to come' but 'AGE to come'. The New Age Movement teaches a series of ages (hence the name: New AGE)." I don't think a rebuttal really even necessary in this case. And to be quite honest I don't see a reason to go on with more of the same. Unless there are specific examples that someone wants to bring up?

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Fri 28 January 2005 9:57 am

Um, it was suppose to be polemical and over-reaching... a refutation of the zaniness of the KJV-only site. I hope no one took the tone too seriously (though I think the content is sound).

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sun 20 February 2005 3:21 am

As I've been reading a book on the creation of the King James Bible, a possible explanation for the words being translated differently occured to me. The translators who worked on the KJV were split into 6 sub-committees, called companies. These companies were given certain poritions of the Bible to translate, and then within the companies Scriptural books were given to individual members of the companies (there were suppose to be 9 men per company). As each person translated, they were suppose to go to group meetings where they would read their translation and others could agree, or disagree and offer alternatives. After all the work of the individual companies was done, a group was suppose to look over the whole Bible to make sure everything was ok. According to the rules given to the translators, they were suppose to be as consistent as possible in their usage of words (e.g., not to use "Church" in one place and "Congregation" in another). However, it's certainly understandable that, considering how large the Scripture, how many translators there were, and over how many years this work took place, some inconsistencies were going to creep in.

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Sun 20 February 2005 7:01 pm

An Orthodox friend of mine once told me to compare the passage of John 2:4.

The Greek Orthodox version is: What is it to Me and to thee, woman?
Ti emoi kai soi yuvai.

The non-Orthodox translation is: What have I to do with thee? It has that papist slur.

This is the guideline of how the rest of the Bible is translated. It indicates the accuracy of the translator.

But, from all the Bibles I've seen, they have never said it by the Greek translation. Plus all of them use the small letters when referring to Christ.

I do have a Greek Bible that says it the first way: what is it to Me and to thee, woman? In original Greek.

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Sun 20 February 2005 9:50 pm

I actually had to translate this passage from the Gospel from Greek into English for an assignment in my NT Greek class at seminary. I'll have to dig it up/get the TA to return it to me and see how I translated it, as I currently am unable to recall how I did it.

I am curious to know what a "papist slur" is.