Which is better, the NKJV or the Niv 2011?

and you know this how? Which texts are you referring to?

 

so what of those by the UBS, Nestle-Aland, Tregellis, Westcott and Hort, Alford, etc etc?

 

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.

 

Could you please use more care in your posts?

It is God.

And Word.

The Word of God.

 

Uh huh.

Explain.

Explain.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Neither......stick with the KJV


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

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

 

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.