The NKJ Uses Awkward English

[robycop3]

Salamander:The you would be subjecting God and preventing His reasoning with His Church and sinners to what He would have them to understand in that specific point in time. You would "kill" by the letter and deny the Spirit. You would limit the Holy One of Israel by making His Word limited to the confines of only one interpretation and no application.

That's EXACTLY what the KJVOs try to do...LIMIT GOD as to how He may present His own word. Are you now renouncing the KJVO myth?

I agree there are many "alternatives" that do not render the Originals very well, but i have to state that the KJB does render the Originals very well, unless of course you mandate certain MSS that really don't belong in the Canon.:thumbsup:

And there are several other versions, in OUR English, that render them just as well, or better.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

My "agenda" is,where in the Bible(any version or edition) does it say only the originals were inspired?
That is why I asked(in vain no doubt--those of the Alexandrian dissension are affraid to answer simple questions) for CHAPTER AND VERSE to support your assertion.

 

[Keith M]

My "agenda" is,where in the Bible(any version or edition) does it say only the originals were inspired?
That is why I asked(in vain no doubt--those of the Alexandrian dissension are affraid to answer simple questions) for CHAPTER AND VERSE to support your assertion.

Then you should be able to show us chapter and verse support for you anti-Alexandrian stance, AA. If your position that Alexandrian texts cannot be correct, then where is this chapter and verse proof you are so fond of. Likewise, I am sure that you are afraid to answer such a question because the proof does not exist.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If we can't get back to a discussion of "The NKJ Uses Arkward English" VERY quickly this thread will be closed.

There is nothing in this thread about the KJV.

 

[Salamander]

TCassidy:

Amen, Brother Doctor TCassidy -- Preach it! :thumbs::thumbs:

A translation should use the same figures of speach and imagery
as the original document. If 'compasion' is related to human 'bowels'
in the Greek, then the translation should do likewise.

To Doctor TCassidy's above statement
Brother Salamander sez:


This is not a sentence so cannot be argued because it says nothing


To Doctor TCassidy's above statement
Brother Salamander sez:


This is a sentence, but again, nothing correct or even close to
correct is being said. In fact, your statement more closesly true about
your own writings than to Brother Doctor TCassidy's writing.

To Doctor TCassidy's above statement
Brother Salamander sez:


The kettle calling the pot 'black'.
In fact, the one book error and it's allied distain of
Sacred Education show strong in these statements.
Your statement is totally untrue and an insult to
Brother Dorctor TCassidy :tear:

It would do you alot of good to examine your own "writings" Ed. You accuse me, thy Brother, but your accusation stands over-ruled by your multiple errors to my one error of missing the "n" key.

"Bowels" means inward feelings which also means compassion in a godly manner. it seems you confuse your passion with compassion, which is very evident in your "studies"raying:

 

[Salamander]

If we can't get back to a discussion of "The NKJ Uses Arkward English" VERY quickly this thread will be closed.

There is nothing in this thread about the KJV.

I apologize for addressing the comments, but my post was about the "evidences" proving the "awkward" use of English. I can't help it if the KJB English is much better.

Now, it is sooooooooooooo amazing how the regulars in these "discussions" immediately facilitate this into a "MV vs KJVO" debate!

I have always liked the example in Job where God is submitted by the NKJV where the male gender is referred to, but the context deals specifically with the attributes and character of the wicked in ch. 24. Talking about
AWKWARD ENGLISH!raying:

 

[Salamander]

Salamander:The you would be subjecting God and preventing His reasoning with His Church and sinners to what He would have them to understand in that specific point in time. You would "kill" by the letter and deny the Spirit. You would limit the Holy One of Israel by making His Word limited to the confines of only one interpretation and no application.

That's EXACTLY what the KJVOs try to do...LIMIT GOD as to how He may present His own word. Are you now renouncing the KJVO myth?

I agree there are many "alternatives" that do not render the Originals very well, but i have to state that the KJB does render the Originals very well, unless of course you mandate certain MSS that really don't belong in the Canon.:thumbsup:

And there are several other versions, in OUR English, that render them just as well, or better.

When one exacts out the rendering, the NKJV is much more awkward than some other translations.

BTW< who ever made yall the ones who have any right to "your" English, doesn't God want you to share?:tongue3:

 

[Salamander]

I can easily bring to mind one glaring error in the KJv where both the OT and the NT translates a word correctly in every appearance but one, and there a word is used which did not even exist when the NT was written. The only perfect writings were the original autographs.

Since English didn't even exist when the Originals were penned, your statement would hold true, but the word you must be referring to does hold the same meaning in contextual definition and use.

I believe it takes certain character traits to be "glaring", dont you?:flower:

 

[EdSutton]

If we can't get back to a discussion of "The NKJ Uses Arkward English" VERY quickly this thread will be closed.

There is nothing in this thread about the KJV.

Like the late comedian, Milton Berle, I know a good line when I steal one.

To steal a line from another Ed, "Amen, Brother C4K! Preach it!"

Ed

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Then you should be able to show us chapter and verse support for you anti-Alexandrian stance, AA. If your position that Alexandrian texts cannot be correct, then where is this chapter and verse proof you are so fond of. Likewise, I am sure that you are afraid to answer such a question because the proof does not exist.

I rest my case!!!

 

[Ed Edwards]

//Alexandrianism=emotionalism//

Chapter & verse please!

Amen, Brother Ed - Preach it! :thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

double post

 

[Ed Edwards]

double post

 

[Rippon]

The point of this thread was about the usage of cumbersome English in the NKJ version . But since I was challenged that the TNIV renderings were not as accurate as the NKJ I did some digging at the NET Bible . It has about 64,000 footnotes and expanding all the time . Even with all of those resources some verses have no notation . But the following will demonstrate that the accuracy of the TNIV ( which I paired with the NKJ ) is not just more readable , but faithful to the original much of the time . Now sometimes if the literal is put into words the clarity of expression is compromised . But , many times it is still clear regardless .


The NKJ is at the top and the TNIV is below .

3:2 Where you have not lain with men ?

Is there any place where you have not been ravished ?

Heb. -- where you have not been ravished .

3:25 And our reproach covers us .

and let our disgrace cover us .

Heb. -- Let us be covered with disgrace .

4:13 we are plundered !

We are ruined !

Heb.-- Woe to us !

10:8 A wooden idol is a worthless doctrine .

taught by worthless wooden idols .

Heb. -- The instruction of vanities [ worthless idols ] is wood .

22:22 The wind shall eat up all your rulers

The wind will drive all your shepherds away

Heb. -- A wind will shepherd away all your shepherds .

25:8 you have not heard my words

you have not listened to my words [ exactly the same in Heb. ]

30:24 In the latter days you will consider it.

In days to come you will understand this . [ same as the NET text -- isn't it clearer ? ]

31:5 eat them as ordinary food .

enjoy their fruit.

Heb. word means to enjoy its fruit

31:14 I will satiate the soul of the priests

I will satisfy the priests with abundance

Heb. I will satiate the priests with fat . [ the word fat is used more abstractly for abundance or rich food ]

31:20 Is he a pleasant child ?

the child in whom I delight ?

Heb. -- a child of delight

44:19 we made cakes for her

we were making cakes impressed with her image

Heb. -- and make cakes in her image

48:32 Your plants have gone over the sea

Your branches spread as far as the sea [ isn't it easier to understand ? ]

48:5 the sons of tumult .

the noisy boasters [ NET notes say : Or noisy boasters ]

49:4 Your flowing valley

your valleys so fruitful [ NET --the fruitfulness of your valleys ]

49:10 I have uncovered his secret places

I will uncover his hiding places [ clearer huh ? Secret places could suggest many things to a reader ]

49:19 from the floodplain of the Jordon

from Jordon's thickets

Heb. -- the thicket along the Jordon

49:20 the least of the flock shall draw them out

The young of the flock will be dragged away [ much clearer , don't you think ? ]

50:11 you bellow like bulls

and neigh like stallions [ same as the NET text ]

50:15 She has given her hand

She surenders

Heb. -- the NKJ has the Hebrew rendering , but the meaning is more clearly expressed with She surrenders

50:19 His soul shall be satisfied

their appetite will be satisfied

Heb. the NKJ has the Hebrew rendering but the word soul here means hunger or appetite

 

[EdSutton]

Well, at least we know there are some "awkward wordings" in Hebrews, as well as Jeremiah.

:sleep::sleep::laugh::laugh:

Ed

 

[Keith M]

It's all a matter of opinion. For example, no one should find any problem with "you have not heard my words." That is basic, rudimantary English. There is nothing awkward at all about it, except in Rippon's opinion. :laugh:

Also, the TNIV rendering "taught by worthless wooden idols" is no less awkward than the NKJV "a wooden idol is a worthless doctrine." The TNIV apparently gives the ability to teach to something that cannot possibly do so. Talk about awkward! The wording of the NKJV is definitely better in this case.

The NKJV rendering "we are plundered" is again awkward only in Rippon's mind. No one else should have any problem with this basic and correct English usage.

"Eat them as ordinary food" is not at all awkward, except in Rippon's mind.

I'm not going to go on and on like Rippon, for then I would also be spamming. But this is enough to show that the TNIV is not at all superior over the NKJV. As a matter of fact, the NKJV, being a more literal translation, is going to be more accurate overall thatn the TNIV, which is only a dynamic equivalence translation. I find it very hard to understand how anyone can prefer the inferior TNIV over the superiority of the NKJV or any other more literal translation.

 

[Rippon]

Keith M , don't let facts inconvenience you . I listed a number of examples wherein the TNIV renderings were more faithful to the Hebrew . That means the wording of the TNIV was more formal -- the NKJ was more dynamic . You did not like to see all my examples and likened it to spamming . Your mind is as closed as those of the KJO position that you continually harp on . You have the perfect right to disagree and say that you appreciate the phraseology of the NKJ to that of the TNIV . The TNIV can't be faulted for dynamic renderings in my Jeremiah examples . But , on the other hand the NKJ not only was shown to be dynamic ( which in itself is not at all evil ) but uses awkward English . The awkward English aspect is the point of this thread .

 

[Rippon]

NKJ on top and TNIV below for just six examples . I don't want to overload anyone . There is no sense taxing you beyond what you can endure .

1:8 Do not be afraid of their faces .

Do not be afraid of them .

Heb. -- Do not be afraid of them .

2:2 The kindness of your youth , The love of your betrothal

the devotion of your youth , how as a bride you loved me

Heb. -- the loyal love of your youth

Which word is closest in meaning to loyal -- kindness or devotion ?

2:33 Why do you beautify your way to seek love ?

How skilled you are at pursuing love !

Heb. -- How good you have made your ways to seek love .

What in the world does "beautify your way" mean ?

29:8 nor listen to the dreams which you cause to be dreamed .

Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have .

The NET text says : Do not pay any attention to the dreams that you are encouraging them to dream .

"Cause to be dreamed " is vague .

30:19 I will also glorify them

I will bring them honor

The NET text is identical with the TNIV rendering . To "glorify them" suggests something quite different than to honor .

30:24 In the latter days you will consider it.

In days to come you will understand this .

In the NET text it says : In days to come you will come to understand this . " Will consider " suggests thinking about something , but "understand" develops it a bit .

 

[Keith M]

Then there is no point in continuing this. You have made your point over and over and over and over and over and over that you prefer the TNIV over the NKJV. Why don't you let it rest??? And also you should consider that others have their preferences. I seriously doubtr you are going to convince anyone here to switch to the inferior TNIV over their Bible of preference. You liken me to the KJVO folks, when it is you who is more like them, Rippon. You can't let it lie, can you?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Come on, Brother Keith M, quit hassling Rippon
Rippon is providing a service to interested parties like me;
Rippon is fulfilling his calling to ministry. If this subject
is offensive or boring to you -- read elsewhere in the Version/Translation
Forum (or the rest of the board, if you can find your cup of tea there).