Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
and you know this how? Which texts are you referring to?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Which is better, the NKJV or the Niv 2011?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
and you know this how? Which texts are you referring to?
Majority/Bzt/TR/Critical Greek texts
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
so what of those by the UBS, Nestle-Aland, Tregellis, Westcott and Hort, Alford, etc etc?
they would be Greek texts used to translate the word of god into English, if one so desired.
Garrett20
Member
I most definitely prefer the NKJV over the NIV. I use it for preaching, teaching, devotionals, scripture memorization, etc. I believe it to be very helpful in serious study as well. It contains the TR readings in the text, but provides the reader with the alternate NA/UBS differences in the footnotes along with the Majority text readings.
I consult other translations but prefer the Byzantine Textform translations such as NKJV, KJV, WEB, MEV. The Modern Literal Version is a Majority text translation based off of the Robinson/Pierpont Greek text. It’s quite well and I use it often.
I consult other translations but prefer the Byzantine Textform translations such as NKJV, KJV, WEB, MEV. The Modern Literal Version is a Majority text translation based off of the Robinson/Pierpont Greek text. It’s quite well and I use it often.
When the word word is capitalized it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Word (IE Logos - John 1:1)
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
When the word word is not capitalized it refers to the word, the written or spoken word.
Matt 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”
Mark 7:13 making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this.”
Luke 3:2 in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.
Luke 4:4 Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’”
Luke 5:1 Now while the multitude pressed on him and heard the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret.
Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
And so on.
The Word, speaking of Christ, is a proper noun and requires capitalization.
The word, meaning the spoken or written word, is not a proper noun and requires no capitalization.
WOW! So The Message, the old Living Bible, Good News For Modern Man, CEV, New World Translation and others are all superior to the NIV? Your understanding is quite limited due to your extreme bias and limited reading.
He should have said all More formal translations, such as the Nas/Nkjv!
I have just finished preparing a sermon on Isaiah 54, using the NIV (1984) which I am required to use. In these cases the NIV (2011) is pretty much identical.
Two big irritations: first is the omission of the preposition 'for' (Heb. kiy; Strongs 3588).
Isaiah 54:4, NKJV. 'Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed; neither be disgraced, for you will not be put to shame; for you will forget the shame of your youth.......'
Isaiah 54:4, NIV. 'Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame. Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated. You will forget the shame of your youth.'
Just in case someone thinks it's just me being pedantic, commentator and Hebrew scholar Alec Motyer, in his commentary on Isaiah, writes: "In verse 4, the 'for' before, you will not [be put to shame], you will not be humiliated and you will forget should be re-introduced. The commands in this final section are abundantly furnished with explanatory assurances, and it is a serious error on the part of the NIV to obscure this fact." The same thing happens in verse 6 and elsewhere. 'For' is in the text, and it is no part of the translator's job to leave out bits of God's word.
The second irritation is 'interpretative glosses.
Isaiah 54:11, NKJV. 'O you afflicted one, tossed with tempest, and not comforted.....'
Isaiah 54:11, NIV. 'Afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted......'
The word 'city' is not in the text. The addressee here is the barren woman in verse 1, whom I understand to be Sarah. She and Abraham did not have a city but sought the one to come, the city that has foundations (see 11b-12). It is therefore perverse of the NIV to stick 'city' in the text, since it forces me to tell my congregation that it's not there and diminish their faith in the Bible they have in front of them.
However, at least the NIV is better than the CSB:
Isaiah 54:11, CSB. 'Poor Jerusalem, storm-tossed, and not comforted.....'
Words fail me! Where is Jerusalem in the text? What right have the translators unilaterally to plonk it there. If the Holy Spirit had wanted it there, He would have caused Isaiah to write it in.
Two big irritations: first is the omission of the preposition 'for' (Heb. kiy; Strongs 3588).
Isaiah 54:4, NKJV. 'Do not fear, for you will not be ashamed; neither be disgraced, for you will not be put to shame; for you will forget the shame of your youth.......'
Isaiah 54:4, NIV. 'Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame. Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated. You will forget the shame of your youth.'
Just in case someone thinks it's just me being pedantic, commentator and Hebrew scholar Alec Motyer, in his commentary on Isaiah, writes: "In verse 4, the 'for' before, you will not [be put to shame], you will not be humiliated and you will forget should be re-introduced. The commands in this final section are abundantly furnished with explanatory assurances, and it is a serious error on the part of the NIV to obscure this fact." The same thing happens in verse 6 and elsewhere. 'For' is in the text, and it is no part of the translator's job to leave out bits of God's word.
The second irritation is 'interpretative glosses.
Isaiah 54:11, NKJV. 'O you afflicted one, tossed with tempest, and not comforted.....'
Isaiah 54:11, NIV. 'Afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted......'
The word 'city' is not in the text. The addressee here is the barren woman in verse 1, whom I understand to be Sarah. She and Abraham did not have a city but sought the one to come, the city that has foundations (see 11b-12). It is therefore perverse of the NIV to stick 'city' in the text, since it forces me to tell my congregation that it's not there and diminish their faith in the Bible they have in front of them.
However, at least the NIV is better than the CSB:
Isaiah 54:11, CSB. 'Poor Jerusalem, storm-tossed, and not comforted.....'
Words fail me! Where is Jerusalem in the text? What right have the translators unilaterally to plonk it there. If the Holy Spirit had wanted it there, He would have caused Isaiah to write it in.
Last edited:
We are studying the book of Isaiah, and I have Motyer's book -- which is excellent, in my opinion. We are at chapter 40, having gone through all the previous chapters verse by verse. What you mention is one thing that has caught my attention in Motyer's book. Even though it uses the NIV as its primary text, Motyer is quite often disagreeing with its translation.
I do like it better as the way the nas has chosen to indicate that they are adding in words to attempt to "fill it in", as they keep them in italics, so know not part of the source texts!
Your posting here highlights while formal translations are to be preferred.
he is a recognized expert, so His views should have some merit!
terrpn
Active Member
A good translation, but not the only one God honors and uses!
terrpn
Active Member
I would not not argue with that. My point is that anyone should be skeptical of any translation that has “new” associated with it.
Yea hath God said......
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He has spoken to us in both the old and contemporary English
terrpn
Active Member
We can agree to disagree and mostly from reading your Posts I cannot argue. Of course it depends on how or if the contemporary English communicates the Received Text?
I am not a fan of how Contemporary English uses gender-neutral language, removing-adding words for humanity, though not for God. Contemporary English removing "begotten" from a verse like Jn. 3:16 for example is a problem. All so-called new, modern versions are typical of removing the deity of Christ- but you already know that.
That being said one can lead someone to Christ with a NWT, CEV, NIV (which one......?) and so on. I do enjoy using my Parallel Bible and reading through the different variations of scripture.
- Status