KJV vs. NKJV: which do you prefer?

[Rippon2]

How about Junia as an Apostle?

She was not an Apostle, you are wrong.

 

[rlvaughn]

I do not think either Junias (male) or Junia (female) was an apostle. However, it is not an unknown interpretation of Romans 16:7. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown names Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck, Alford, and Jowett among those who held that idea -- though he takes them to mean "apostle" n a lax sense rather than a narrow sense. Expositor's Greek Testament says:

It might mean, well-known to the apostolic circle, or distinguished as Apostles. The latter sense is that in which it is taken by “all patristic commentators” (Sanday and Headlam), whose instinct for what words meant in a case of this kind must have been surer than that of a modern reader. It implies, of course, a wide sense of the word Apostle: for justification of which reference may be made to Lightfoot’s essay on the name and office of an Apostle (Galatians, 92 ff.) and Harnack, Lehre der zwölf Apostel, 111–118.

 

[Rippon2]

As far as translations go, the NASB reads the same as the NIV.
NLT : They are highly respected among the apostles.
ESV, EB, NET : They are well known among the apostles.
CEB, GW, ISV, NABRE : They are prominent among the apostles.
CSB : They are noteworthy among the apostles.

 

[Rippon2]

Many in the reformed and Baptist camp would disagree with you that the Niv 2011 is best version, as we prefer by far a more formal translation to use, since we hold to verbal plenary inspiration, why use a thought for thought instead of word for word?

You are wrong on all counts, as usual.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are wrong on all counts, as usual.

You deny that many reformed and Baptists have issues with the Niv 2011, and that we would prefer a more formal translation to use?

 

[Rippon2]

You deny that many reformed and Baptists have issues with the Niv 2011, and that we would prefer a more formal translation to use?

You are particularly and grievously wrong about verbal and plenary inspiration.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are particularly and grievously wrong about verbal and plenary inspiration.

Every word recorded down for us in the originals were inspired by the Spirit, so why would we not seek to translate that in a word for word fashion?

 

[Rippon2]

Every word recorded down for us in the originals were inspired by the Spirit, so why would we not seek to translate that in a word for word fashion?

Because word-for-word is a fiction.

 

[Yeshua1]

Because word-for-word is a fiction. Your mind is like a sieve.

I know no English translation can be fully formal, but it should be primarily one!

 

[Rippon2]

I know no English translation can be fully formal, but it should be primarily one!

Your pronouncements are not trustworthy. You have a shoddy track record.

 

[James1023]

I would prefer the NKJV, while I do consider the KJV to be fully inspire just never have care for the term Easter in Acts 4:12.
But if I could find the Webster Bible Translation in a Study Bible format it would be my first choice. Seeing that i am a TRP (Textus Receptus Preferrer).

 

[37818]

Because word-for-word is a fiction. Your mind is like a sieve.

What is not a fiction is "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." -- Matthew 4:4 < Deuteronomy 8:3.

 

[37818]

. . . that i am a TRP (Textus Receptus Preferrer).

Which TR?

 

[Reformed1689]

Because word-for-word is a fiction. Your mind is like a sieve.

I don't think anyone is truly arguing for a word for word reality as everyone knows (well every reasonable person) that is not possible. However, I would rather have something that is as close to word for word as possible, without sacrificing readability, than have a thought for thought process that can lend to much more interpretation on the part of the translator. Not that any of the major dynamic translations change doctrine in any way, they don't, but you do lose some nuances.

 

[Yeshua1]

I would prefer the NKJV, while I do consider the KJV to be fully inspire just never have care for the term Easter in Acts 4:12.
But if I could find the Webster Bible Translation in a Study Bible format it would be my first choice. Seeing that i am a TRP (Textus Receptus Preferrer).

So you would hold that the Lord inspired the translators of the 1611 Kjv same way did the originals?
But not the revisions such as 1769? And which TR, Beza, Eramus, Schriever?

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think anyone is truly arguing for a word for word reality as everyone knows (well every reasonable person) that is not possible. However, I would rather have something that is as close to word for word as possible, without sacrificing readability, than have a thought for thought process that can lend to much more interpretation on the part of the translator. Not that any of the major dynamic translations change doctrine in any way, they don't, but you do lose some nuances.

Since we would hold to the Bible being verbally inerrant, why would we not prefer a more formal translation then?
And you are right, many times it seems that those of us preferring formal are said to be naïve and not thinking it thru correctly!
I would much prefer reading and using a formal translation off worse source texts that a more dynamic off very best texts!

 

[Reformed1689]

Since we would hold to the Bible being verbally inerrant, why would we not prefer a more formal translation then?

Well I would be careful, we hold that the originals are inerrant. But we do not have the originals. We can be fairly confident we know what the originals said.

But while I wouldn't use a dynamic as my primary translation, I don't have a problem, per se, with people that do. I don't recommend it, but I don't think that it is wrong either.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well I would be careful, we hold that the originals are inerrant. But we do not have the originals. We can be fairly confident we know what the originals said.

But while I wouldn't use a dynamic as my primary translation, I don't have a problem, per se, with people that do. I don't recommend it, but I don't think that it is wrong either.

I qualified this by saying our preferred translation, as in primary one, for I also like to read thru in the 1984 Niv in addition to the Nas/esv.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

NKJB

 

[Rippon2]

Since we would hold to the Bible being verbally inerrant, why would we not prefer a more formal translation then?

Why would a more formally equivalent translation be more in keeping with the doctrine of verbal inspiration?

And you are right, many times it seems that those of us preferring formal are said to be naïve and not thinking it thru correctly!

You are absolutely correct here. And that, my friends, is a rarity.

I would much prefer reading and using a formal translation off worse source texts that a more dynamic off very best texts!

Please tell me what you think the "worst source texts" are?