The NKJ Uses Awkward English

Amen, Brother TCassidy -- You are RIHGT ON! :thumbs:

Oops, a little dylexia there. I'll try again:

Amen, Brother TCassidy -- You are RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

There ya' go Ed! Just cut and paste . . .

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

Kind Dr. Cassidy

I kinda gotta agree with you. 'Cause your kinda right. :thumbs:

 

Rippon, is the main point of your thread to:

1). Prove the accuracy of the TNIV (or the NKJV)?
2). Get us to think about the English literary style of the NKJV and the TNIV?
3). Examine the actual translation of the underlying text that the NKJV or the TNIV used?

It very well may be a combination of all three (or another that I missed). I see messages on this thread that tend to touch on all three aspects. Maybe if you could clarify your intent, in might help in the discussions.

 

Good point. If the purpose of the thread is to compare with the TNIV then that should have been stated. I thought the thread was about the awkward English used in the NKJV and not a comparison with another specific English translation. If this is also the case, then we have to deal with the source text, also.

 

I read a good book by Arthur Farstad on the making of the NKJV. The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785251758/sr=8-3/qid=1153489930/ref=sr_1_3/103-1771335-2968653?ie=UTF8. Unfortunately I loaned my copy out and have never seen it since. I was impressed by the intense anguish the translation team had in trying to be both accurate to the underlying texts, but also faithful to the KJV in linguistic style and form. From what Farstad said, it was actually more difficult than doing a translation from scratch. I have a lot of respect for the approach and work that they did.

I have read that in many places, the NKJV is actually more literal than the NASB and I have no reason not to believe that.

While I appreciate your use of the TNIV, you are comparing a dynamic equivalent translation to one that is very literal. The goals of the translations were different - one being faithful to the text (literal) and the other being faithful to the thoughts (dynamic). Being of a dynamic nature, the TNIV can take more liberty with proper, up-to-date english flow while the very nature of the NKJV didn't give the tranlsators that freedom. Although it has been shown that the TNIV is actually more literal in many places than the NIV!

I have found the NKJV to be a good translation to use when you have a number of KJVs in use too (i.e. a bible study), but it does tend to get awkward when you are using it with people using the NIV, NLT, and less literal translations (of course the same could be said of use of the NASB in those situations).

I have found your research interesting and I thank you for posting it. I enjoy seeing how the different translations deal with each verse.

 

Just by what he offers, I can see that the NKJV is somewhat delusive to the whole meanings of almost every example he made.

The more I read from these "examples" in every "discussion" on the version issue, the more CONCRETE I become on the King James Bible being the right Bible for all English speaking people.:thumbsup:

 

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.

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:

 

Amen, Sibling Mesly -- Preach it! :thumbsup:

An MV is innocent until proven guilty - that is proven guilty
by someone who has actually studied the MV.

 

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:

 

The KJVO movement limits the Holy One of Israel by making His Word limited to the confines of only one interpretation - the KJV. But that is not the case here. No one is limiting the Holy One of Israel to the confines of only a single interpretation. At least it hadn't happened in this thread until now, Salamander. Are you limiting the Holy One of Israel to only one intepretation?

Yes it does Salamander, in most cases. But there are errors in the KJV just as there are errors in every English Bible version. Not one of them is perfect in every way. 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.

 

I really don't know what you are looking for. When you make lists and lists of clip and paste scriptures and want us to compare the "renderings" for superiority you are asking a difficult question.


Are you looking for a better style of English?

Are you looking for more accuracy to the original manuscripts (and if you are, then are you taking into consideration the differences in manuscripts, CT vs. TR)? I think Dr. Cassidy already gave an overview answer for this question. I believe he said that the NKJV is more true to the original manucripts--if this is the case---and considering it was Dr. Cassidy who said it---I would have to assume that comparing lists of verses in English only is an exercise in futility.

If you want the grammar to read better (boy, that's poor grammar-----) then why don't you buy a Steven King novel and you can read without any adjectives to get in the way.

My whole point is, what exactly are you looking for or trying to prove?

Maybe the NKJV isn't as easy to read as the TNIV, but if it is more accurate to the manuscripts, give me the NKJV any day.

Am I understanding your discussion---or off in the deep end?

 

Chapter and verse please!

 

//Alexandrianism=emotionalism//

Chapter & verse please!

 

Nothing was said about any chapter and verse, AA. What's your agenda here?

:laugh: :sleep: :smilewinkgrin: