and you know this how? Which texts are you referring to?
Which is better, the NKJV or the Niv 2011?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Yeshua1, Apr 3, 2018.
Page 6 of 8
-
Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member
-
-
Saved-By-Grace Well-Known 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. -
It is God.
And Word.
The Word of God. -
Right.
Wrong.
Wrong. -
-
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. -
-
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
-
Your posting here highlights while formal translations are to be preferred. -
-
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
-
Yea hath God said......
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
-
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.
Page 6 of 8