The NKJ Uses Awkward English

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

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:

 

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:

 

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:

 

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

 

I rest my case!!!

 

Amen, Brother Ed - Preach it! :thumbs:

 

double post

 

double post

 

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

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

Ed

 

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.

 

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?

 

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).