Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Psalm 4:1 Answer me when I call, O God of my righteousness! You have relieved me in my distress; Be gracious to me and hear my prayer. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Psalm 4:1 Answer me when I call, O God of my righteousness! You have freed me when I was hemmed in and relieved me when I was in distress; Be gracious to me and hear [and respond to] my prayer. |
Subject: Alleged changes in the NKJV |
Bible Note: Bruce7: I've read this thread with interest -- ALL threads have some interest! -- and would like to chime in with a brief note about translations, specifically about the KJV and its place in modern English translations. I use the term "modern" in connection with the KJV for good reason. It is written in modern English, not Old English or Middle English. The language of 1611, frequently referred to as Jacobean or Elizabethan English, is early modern English, but it is not the standard English of 2004. Nearly four centuries have passed since the 1611 translators did their work, and a monumental work is was. No translation of God's word into the English language before or after the KJV has reached the heights of sheer excellence and beauty which the King James Bible has enjoyed for four centuries. ....... But there are three points about the beautiful King James Version that I would like to make. [1] Dynamic changes in the English language have taken their toll on this translation. Syntax has changed, words and phrases have become obsolete or have changed their meanings, even to the extent that some words in common usage in 1611 mean the very opposite today of what they meant then. God's word, through no fault of the 1611 translators, is becoming in the KJV more and more obscure and incomprehensible to the modern reader of English. [2] A reading of the introductory essay written by the KJV translators -- it is called "The Translators to the Reader" -- puts to the lie any notion that the translators considered themselves divinely inspired [a patently false claim made by the cult of King James Onlyism) or that they considered that their work was in any manner the definitive and inerrant translation of Scripture for all time to come. [3] Since 1611 scholars in the various fields of archaeology and ancient languages have not sat idle by any means. On the contrary, enormous strides have been made during these nearly 400 years that have given the academic community so much more knowledge of the language and culture of the ancient world, and not only that, but a large volume of biblical manuscripts are now available to translators that were unknown to the King James translators. Translators now have a far larger number of manuscript resources as well as older ones which simply weren't available when the KJV translating team did their work. The KJV team did an excellent job with the resourses they had, but it is not at all inconceivable to think that, had the 1611 translators possessed the vast manuscript wealth that modern-day translators do, their KJV would not have been exactly the same as it is. ....... Finally, Bruce, as Tim Moran and others have mentioned in this thread, Bible translation is a serious and extremely complex business. It is therefore not wise to heed the uneducated criticism of any translation by web "experts" who more often than not are guided by bias and emotion instead of by knowledge and reason. You can find a virtually unlimited number of web sites dedicated to spreading the foolish claims of King James Onlyism. I've never read a one of them that made sense or that proved any point they were trying to make. The KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, the NIV (to name but five; there are others) -- these are all of them good and trustworthy translations into English. Not a one of them alters the great doctrines of Scripture in any meaningful way or leads the reader into theological error. --Hank |