Why inverted words in Reverse Interlinear?

In Rev 1:10 it states "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day." A video commentary states this should be "the Day of the Lord" because John is being projected into the future to the actual end of days. When I look at the Greek, though it doesn't look right.

The NKJV Interlinear has the words:

Lord’s		Day
ἡμέρᾳ₇		Κυριακῇ₆

which would mean the Kuriake should be read before emera. But when I look in the TR or the NA28 has the same word order. So, should the Rev 1:10 actually be the "Lord's Day" instead of the "Day of the Lord?"

1 Thessalonians 5:2 and 2 Peter 3:10 have it reversed for "Day of the Lord" as emera before Kuriou.

My question is: why would the NKJV Reverse Interlinear switch the two Greek words from Kuriake emera to emera Kuriake? The actual Greek text has Kuriake first and the NKJV English also has Lord first. The Reverse Interlinear actually has emera under Lord and Kuriake under Day.

I could see if the TR or NA28 had the wording reversed they would do this, but it is presented in both of these in the same word order as the NKJV English "Lord's Day." Not as Peter does.

What am I missing here? Is there a reason the Reverse Interlinear handles the underlining text like this?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

MJ. Smith

So, should the Rev 1:10 actually be the "Lord's Day" instead of the "Day of the Lord?"

The text used for the reverse interlinear is a standardized text not the text as understood by the translators. Therefore, your question cannot be accurately answered by Logos. However, the text to which it is aligned is Scrivener’s 1881 Textus Receptus. Electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1995. It reads:

ἐγενόμην ἐν Πνεύματι ἐν τῇ Κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ· καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην ὡς σάλπιγγος,

Scrivener’s 1881 Textus Receptus, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1995), Re 1:10.

The numbers in the RVI (6,7) give the original language order which matches the text. So I'm not sure where you are seeing a discrepency.

DMB

Looks to me, an error ... the RI alignment is reversed including morphs, roots, etc. The Logos NKJV matches the hardcopy, so that's not the issue. The Cambridge KJV is correct.

It's interesting early english translations cut to the chase ... Sunday!

Steven Veach

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186246#Comment_1186246

Textus Receptus. Electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1995. It reads:

ἐγενόμην ἐν Πνεύματι ἐν τῇ Κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ· καὶ ἤκουσα ὀπίσω μου φωνὴν μεγάλην ὡς σάλπιγγος,

Scrivener’s 1881 Textus Receptus, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1995), Re 1:10.

The numbers in the RVI (6,7) give the original language order which matches the text. So I'm not sure where you are seeing a discrepency.

But it doesn't actually match what's on the screen. What you highlighted here has day under Lord's and Lord under Day in the reverse interlinear. Since the underlining TR word order actually reads in the greek Lord's Day there should be no reason for the reverse interlinear to reverse the order to Day Lord and then add the word order number back to Lord's Day. Why the reverse reversing?

Steven Veach

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186249#Comment_1186249

Yeah it does look like an error. You are right about the KJV. It has the word order correct with Lord's Day in Greek. Also the NET, NIV, LEB, NASB Interlinears have it correct. How bizarre that it would be reversed in the NKJV and EOB interlinears. I wonder if they used the same copy of the underlining Greek text for both?

David Thomas

What am I missing here?

Word order doesn't equate 1 to 1 in Koine. The Genative can be translated either way. To equate the Lord's Day with "Sunday" is to read bias/pre-understanding into what the text actually says.

notice the little 6 and 7 in MJ's post which indicates the Greek word order. I concur that alignment is off - Kurios needs to align with Lord.

There is both an alignment issue and an interpretive issue. Word order doesn't solve the 2nd. Also to compare to Paul (1 Thess) and Peter (2 Pt) doesn't offer any conclusive proof on how John (Revelation) would use the phrase. [I do concur that both Divine and Human authorship contribute to word choice].

Isaiah Hoogendyk (Faithlife)

This is an alignment mistake. It has been fixed in the source. An update to the NKJV resource may not happen right away, but we'll prioritize shipping it out in the coming months.

Thanks!

Steven Veach

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186290#Comment_1186290

Thanks very much Isaiah for the update. I'm glad it could be fixed!