Comparing the NASV with the KJV

[AKJVReader]

"BUT THE WORD OF THE LORD ENDURITH FOREVER. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." - 1 Peter 1:25
​

The whole issue of this confusion engendered by such a multiplicity of versions is narrowed down to the following: If the reader believes the Bible to be the verbally, plenary, inspired Word of God in the original manuscripts, then of necessity he must believe that God has providentially preserved it through the ages down to the present hour. For the Holy Spirit has recorded in Psalm 138:2, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy loving kindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
The Psalmist tells us (12:6): "The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." And again in Psalm 119:140: "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." If we believe God has, in His great and sovereign Providence, preserved His Book intact through the ages, then there’s but one question left: "Which version is nearest to the original manuscripts?" We maintain with solid substantial proof that the KING JAMES VERSION is that version.
The following analysis of the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (NASV) compared with the KING JAMES VERSION (KJV) is enlightening, to say the least! And, also, disheartening! We have noted that some very fine evangelicals (a number of whom we know personally) have highly and heartily endorsed the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION (NASV). We just cannot understand it, and we feel sure you will agree after reading this pamphlet. The facts are here. They cannot be denied. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that these fine evangelicals read the NASV through completely.
The reader will note in the following examples that doubt is cast again and again upon the infallibility of God’s Holy Word when verse after verse is radically changed or omitted - often times without any explanation.


Leviticus 6:21 NASV: "... as a soothing aroma to the Lord." KJV: "for a sweet savour unto the Lord." (Whoever heard of soothing a sovereign God!) The same is found in Leviticus 8:28, 17:6, and 23:18.
1 Kings 19:12 NASV: "... a sound of a gentle blowing." KJV: "... a still small voice." (In the English language, there’s a vast difference between "a gentle blowing" and "a still small voice!" I’m sure the reader will agree.)
I Kings 20:38 NASV: "... with a bandage over his eyes." KJV: "... with ashes upon his face." (In English, "ashes" and "bandage" are two different words entirely.)
Isaiah 53:10 NASV: "... If He would render Himself as a guilt offering." KJV: "... When thou Shalt make his soul an offering for sin..." (This, in our humble opinion, is a very serious perversion.)
Hosea 11:12 NASV: "... Judah is also unruly against God, Even against the Holy one who is faithful." KJV: "... but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.’ (What is this but perversion!)
Matthew 12:6 NASV: "... that something greater than the temple is here." KJV: "... That in this place is one greater than the temple."
Matthew 12:42 NASV: "... behold, something greater than Solomon is here." KJV: "... behold, a greater than Solomon is here."
Matthew 19:17 NASV: "... ‘Why are you asking Me about what is good?’"
KJV: "... Why callest thou me good?"
Mark 3:5 NASV: "... and his hand was restored." KJV: "his hand was restored whole as the other. "
Mark 6:51b NASV: "... and they were greatly astonished." KJV: "... and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered."
Mark 7:16 NASV: The verse is eliminated here and is placed in the margin in very small italicised type. KJV: "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." (This would cause the reader to doubt the accuracy or authenticity of this verse.)
Mark 9:24 NASV: "... ‘I do believe; help me in my unbelief’" KJV: "...
Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."
Mark 9:46 NASV: Omitted with a marginal note referring to verse 43 which says, "Verses 44 and 46, which are identical with verse 48, are omitted by the best ancient manuscripts." (The "best ancient manuscripts" are Codex B and Codex Aleph, both of which are the worst of manuscripts with the most errors and have proved to be the most unreliable.) KJV: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 10:24 NASV: "... ‘Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!’" KJV: "... Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"
Mark 11:10 NASV: "... ‘Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David’" KJV: "Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."
Mark 11:26 NASV: Omitted entirely but placed in the margin in italics explaining that "later manuscripts add verse 26." (The later manuscripts in many cases are better by far than the earlier ones.) KJV: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
Mark 16:9-20 NASV: Gives the footnote, "Some of the oldest manuscripts omit from verse 9 through 20." (In John Burgon’s book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, he has written over 400 pages proving conclusively that this section was in the original manuscripts. Burgon’s book remains unanswered and is unanswerable.)


For more see:
A Comparison of the New American Standard Version with the Authorised King James Version

 

[kiwimac]

More KJV-Only heiferdust!

Leviticus 6:21 "Soothing aroma", the Hebrew here is: נִיחוַֹח נִיחוַֹח which means 1. (properly) restful, i.e. pleasant
2. abstractly, delight; KJV: sweet (odour). Root(s): נוַּח v. 1. to rest, i.e. settle down 2. used in a great variety of applications, literal and figurative, intransitive, transitive and causative (to dwell, stay, let fall, place, let alone, withdraw, give comfort, etc.)

The Hebrew is quite clear in this matter and so is the English, The word Sweet comes from O.E. swete "pleasing to the senses, mind or feelings" thus a delight as a restful pause is delightful.

1 Kings 19:12; the Hebrew here can be translated as a "soft whisper" or "gentle breath" just as easily as a "still, small voice" Indeed the Greek translation of this verse ends with the "sound of a breeze."

I Kings 20:38; the comment about English here is silly as the original language was not English but Hebrew, some English translations give 'Bandage' some "Ashes" The Hebrew here is אֲפֵר 'apher (af-ayr') n-m. which means "a turban" and which word comes from a root word meaning "ashes" BOTH meaning a disguise of some kind.

Isaiah 53:10: The sense of this passage is the Messiah as sin-offering and the Hebrew supports both renderings.

Hosea 11:12; is not a simple passage, the language is symbolic and pregnant with meaning; witness the following translations:

(Hos 11:12 [CLV])
Ephraim surrounds Me with dissimulation, and the house of Israel with deceit. Yet Judah still holds sway with respect to El. And shall be trusted with holy places."

(Hos 11:12 [CPDV])
Ephraim has besieged me with denials, and the house of Israel with deceit. But Judah went down as a witness before God and the holy ones of faith.

(Hos 11:12 [EBR])
They have compassed me about––with denial, Ephraim, with deceit, the house of Israel,––but, Judah, hath, again and again, run riot with GOD, though, with the holy places, entrusted.

Matthew 12:6 the word "One" is marked in Italics in the KJV meaning that it is not there in the original text, it is an addition.

I could go on but I truth the point is made. Translation is a work of art not simply a word for word transliteration from one tongue to another (if that was possible.) There will always be differences between translations, it does not make one better or worse than another simply different.

 

[AKJVReader]

It's kind of interesting what you said but i would like to know what your views are about the NASV (as a whole) as i was hoping to show that the KJV is superior and that the NASV has errors that merit the KJV to be read instead. Blessings

 

[kiwimac]

The NASV is a superior translation to the KJV which is dated and based on a mishmash of latter manuscripts and latin document.s

 

[cyberjosh]

Please keep this thread conversation civil.

At the risk of stating the obvious: each translation has its deficiencies and is not perfect. And if we ask which translation is better we must of necessity mean in the average case/on average, because any two translations may have have superior readings over one another in different verses. The KJV may be better in one verse, while the NASB may be better in another. I have had a KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB for many years and in certain passages I sometime prefer one's reading over the other based on its accuracy and clarity of translation. Generally I love the NASV/NASB as a study bible with excellent scholarship in translation, but sometimes it can do the same as the NIV and gloss over a literal translation for the sake of emphasizing the thought. Some times this is good, and sometimes this is bad.

In general though the NASB has updated scholarship particularly in the OT with the Hebrew, yet the NASB does actually descend from the KJV line of translations, so sometimes is reads very similarly. Where the NASB is not literal enough for me, or there is simply a alternate reading I often love comparing it to the NKJV. The NASB and the NKJV are my two primary study texts.

As a kid I learned to read the Bible on the the NIV which made it more accessible and since I have often followed the "NIV is not literal" camp, and prefer other versions, however the NIV occasionally has better readings than even the NASB (not the norm but I have counted a few places where the NIV infact had the better reading!).

The lesson? Use multiple translations. Or better yet, don't use a translation and teach yourself Hebrew and Greek and read the original text, or if it helps start with an interlinear translation.

My thoughts.

P.S. It would be in the best interests of everyone involved in this conversation that this thread not devolve into a KJV-only tirade.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Also keep in mind that there are two different main contributing elements to a given Bible version which need to be kept seperate and distinguished from one another, because they often get jumbled together and glossed over or ignored. These two elements/factors can be posed in the form of questions:

1) Which Bible has the better translation of the source text?
-This is the one that we almost always implicitly mean when we ask "Which translation is better?". This has to do with the accuracy of translation. But we often forget....

2) Which Bible uses the better source text for a given passage when there are manuscript variants?
-With this in mind we should then recognize that we cannot correctly ask "Which is the better translation?" when the translations themselves are from different source text readings - simply on the basis that they are not comparable because they do not translate the same thing. Indeed, you can get complicated mixtures of these two elements in a passage where the variant only occurs at the beginning or end of the verse but the rest of the source text agrees, but the section with the variant technically creates a different translation altogether.

I don't really want to hammer on #2 because its point is fairly obvious, and it would take an in-depth study of textual criticism to really delve into.

Mostly I think this topic (and most of the similar topics) want to discuss only #1. I just don't like it when I see a person say one Bible version is better than another in a translation of a verse where a variant exists. At least, don't say that one's translation is better than another, but rather say that one's source text is more trustworthy (has the more likely reading) than another. The latter is more accurate to say in that case (and that is my pet peave on this issue ).

The take away point from that is to be accurate with your terminology when discussing "translations" (perhaps calling them "versions" is better when one wishes to speak more abstractly/generally).

 

[AKJVReader]

I ask you to think of this:
[FONT=arial,helvatica][SIZE=-1]"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." (1 Corinthians 14:33).
So God is the author of the Bible. With a NASV, NKJV, NIV and more aren't you going to get confused if you use a different one each time, with differing verses. God does not want you to be confused and which Bible Version will you quote from?
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Which Bible can we trust?

THE BIBLE 1S A PRESERVED BOOK

God has safeguarded the Bible in the past from the wicked poison of human reasoning and He will continue to do so in the future. God is not the author of confusion and therefore He has only inspired and preserved one Bible. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35).

MODERN TRANSLATIONS ARE DIFFERENT BIBLES

Modern translations are not just simply different versions of the King James Bible written in contemporary language. These perversions are different Bibles entirely. Their foundation is not the God-preserved Textus Receptus of the New Testament. Instead, they are based on contaminated, Christ-denying manuscripts which had been rejected by the early church fathers.
This turning away from the true Bible to a wicked counterfeit is largely the work of humanistic scholarship. Men who call themselves textual critics have placed their thoughts and ideas above those of God and have presumed to improve upon that one Bible which has been given by God. One can only conclude that they have been so blinded by their compromise and delusions of self-importance that they forget God has already given us His Word. The duty of every believer today is to take the one Bible which God has given and proclaim its glorious message of salvation to a sin-sick world.
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel . . . As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:6, 9). Almost 2000 years ago men were preaching another gospel no doubt from another Bible. However, never since the Bible was given has it been under such Satanic attack as it is in our generation. Humanistic scholarship has deviated from the Textus Receptus in about 6000 places. This has the same effect as questioning the inerrancy of the Holy Bible in 6000 places. Charles H. Spurgeon stated it very well when he said, "The craving to alter the Word of God is accursed. This is the crime of the present day. The Lord preserve us from it."

THE PURE FOUNDATION OF THE KING JAMES VERSION

The Old Testament of the King James Bible was translated from the Masoretic Text. This text was in use during the time of Christ and He quoted from them many times. If the Masoretic Text was acceptable to Christ then it certainly should be accepted by every child of God. This text was kept pure by the Hebrew priests who were given the responsibility of caring for it.
The New Testament of the King James Version was translated in 1611 A.D. from the Greek manuscripts known today as the Textus Receptus. The scholars who did this work were giants in their field. They were far superior to the self-proclaimed scholars in Biblical criticism who are responsible for the rash of modern perversions.
The Textus Receptus from which the King James Bible was translated is a faithful reproduction of the original manuscripts, which were penned by the writers of the Scriptures. The T.R. or Traditional Text as it is also called has been traced back to the early church.

Most, if not all, of the modern translations of the Bible follow the path of the two worst manuscripts which are in existence. They almost seem to loathe the Textus Receptus. This is evidenced by the fact that most Bible colleges, seminaries and schools use some Greek text other than the Textus Receptus. Nevertheless, the new versions are founded on faulty texts and are not acceptable for any purpose.

You will notice that the modern versions have as their goal the "return to the original Greek texts." The New American Standard Bible, for example, is based on Nestle's Greek New Testament. Nestle's text, as the Westcott and Hort text, is the classical Greek of Alexandrian scholarship, written in Italy. It is not the koine Greek of New Testament scholarship, written in Asia Minor. Nestle's "original Greek" is built on the theory of Vaticanus (the Catholic manuscript which contains the seven corrupt books of the Apocrypha, never recognised by Jesus or Paul, and shows its source of corruption as Rome itself) as the most perfect text. Therefore "going to the Greek" to correct the Authorised King James Version involves running to Romanism to correct a Bible-believing Protestant translation.

Read the rest here:
Which Bible Can We Trust?

 

[Hitch]

Nonsense

 

[AKJVReader]

Nonsense

Without being rude: "Nonsense" is not an answer! Prove to me that my post is wrong!

 

[jasoncran]

koine greek is a dead language and isnt even spoken anymore and the only we know how to translate it by the greek language that evolved from it. from what i hear also is that we couldnt translate it without the other greek classics that are from antiquity. ironic.

 

[Hitch]

Without being rude: "Nonsense" is not an answer! Prove to me that my post is wrong!

Why?

 

[AKJVReader]

koine greek is a dead language and isnt even spoken anymore and the only we know how to translate it by the greek language that evolved from it. from what i hear also is that we couldnt translate it without the other greek classics that are from antiquity. ironic.

Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a lingua franca for the eastern Mediterranean and Near East throughout the Roman period. It is also the language of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) and of the Christian New Testament. Koine is the main ancestor of modern Greek. As the language of the New Testament and of the Church fathers, Koine Greek is also known as biblical, patristic or New Testament Greek. Scholars can read it.

 

[cyberjosh]

I ask you to think of this:
[FONT=arial,helvatica][SIZE=-1]"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." (1 Corinthians 14:33).[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvatica]So God is the author of the Bible.[/FONT][/SIZE]

Yes and no, depending on what you are meaning here. It is, first of all, more accurate to say that God inspired the men who wrote the Bible to pen the infallible, inerrant Word. However when you say "author of the Bible" be sure that you do not automatically connect "English Bible" in with that statement. It is a fact that the Bible was penned in 3 different languages throughout its books, and none of them are English.

[FONT=arial,helvatica][SIZE=-1]

[FONT=arial,helvatica][SIZE=-1] With a NASV, NKJV, NIV and more aren't you going to get confused if you use a different one each time, with differing verses. [/SIZE][/FONT]

I understand the sincerity of the question and I will answer in kind. The answer is 'no', for me at least. What the message of the Bible says never gets lost from one translation to another. I have never seen a major theological doctrine or historical fact affected between multiple translations, aside from blatant tampering or reinterpretation (the "Message Bible" for example is a blatant paraphrase - which many people consider only a commentary of sorts not a real translation). Jesus died for my sins in all versions, man is responsible for his sinful falleness in all versions, all men will be judged in the last day in all versions, all men who profess to know Christ must walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh in all versions, Satan and Hell exist in all versions (unless you get some ultra-kooky liberal denominational Bible translation that tries to hide the truth), the historical redemption story of Israel from Genesis to the Prophets in the Old Testament is still clear in all versions, etc., etc.

None the less when trying to understand individual points or significance in particular verses I in fact gain clarity from comparing multiple versions, but only because I often dedicate hours of my time to systematic and deep study and I often write my findings down. What version I'm reading doesn't matter to me as long as I can understand the meaning of what was written.

Let me also say for historical reference that the early Church Father Origin compiled the Hexapla which was a six-fold, six-column book compilation of different Hebrew and Greek manuscript traditions of the Bible, including the Greek Septuagint (LXX), at the time (and this was only a few hundred years after Christ's ministry) which even Jerome consulted in translating the Bible (the Vulgate) into Latin. See here for more. That certainly is an ancient example of six different translations/versions of the Hebrew & Greek text.

And I'll start by saying that I like the Hebrew language. It is fascinating, and sometimes it has nuances not fully captured in English (take for example that the word for anger 'aph (אַף) means 'nose' [see definition] but when applied as a verb or descriptive adjective means angry - the connection being that the nostrils flare and the nose turns red when one is angry). For other words as well, different translations may give one a more literal picture of what is said while others may give a more descriptive/meaning/intention interpretation of what was said. Both add balance if you put them together.

Multiple perspectives of examining God's inexhaustible Word can only help in my opinion (not that there is a multiplicity of interpretation, but that volumes of meaning can be found in nuances of the text - sometimes not captured in a single translation). Yes, some translations are just bad, while others allow you to peer into and get a glimpse of the writer's thoughts, mind, time, circumstances, and culture when they were writing it to give you a better overall perspective of what is trying to be conveyed. Is this not why we read the Bible? To understand what was written? Multiple versions for me help me to understand it.

The KJV is a fine translation, and I celebrate with many others the 400th anniversary of the 1611 KJV this year(!!), but it is not perfect. I even have a complete fascimile of the original 1611 KJV (and I personally own a page of Ezekiel 16/17 from a 1650 reprint of the KJV - which is authenticated to be at least 350 years old - the pages come from damaged antique Bibles which cannot be restored thus they sell the intact pages to salvage some value & preserve history by selling them to collectors). Some of the translations of the KJV, honestly, were simply inadequate on linguistic grounds (just because of the state of knowledge at the time about the original languages was not as complete as it is today - and we are still learning new things as we discover more and more non-biblical Greek and Hebrew manuscripts or literature which shed more light on ancient words and their meaning), and on the other hand (as far as the English) many of the words used in the KJV do not mean the same thing today and can [in and of itself] engender confusion (what we want to avoid right?) to the modern reader. As a kid I did infact misunderstand the meaning of some verses because of the way the KJV put it, which I only later after comparing to other versions understood what was being said. Or shouldest I wean mine seed to become learned in the language of Shakespeare? Or can we reasonably update the language? Betwixt the twain I am caught in dire straights! (Just having a little fun here ).[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvatica][SIZE=-1]But seriously the KJV to this day still confuses me on occasion (normally consulting the NKJV helps while not losing the spirit of the KJV much), and I don't consider myself particularly ignorant of archaic language. Nonetheless, the KJV and any english translation are still that: translations. I am okay at reading New Testament Greek, but still I need to work on it (especially Greek verbs), and I'm even further behind in understanding Hebrew, but the original languages are good to know to double check against your translation of choice.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvatica][FONT=arial,helvatica][SIZE=-1]God does not want you to be confused and which Bible Version will you quote from?[/SIZE][/FONT]

[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvatica]My answer: The version that I think makes the most sense and is most accurate (which is not a whimsical decision, and can be quite informed). In fact many students who go through seminary prefer to translate the passages themselves when presenting them to a congregation or writing it in a book (and will note that they are doing so), but they too do not shun existing translations but use their fresh translation for comparison with well-known versions in order to elucidate some clairity in passages that can be difficult to understand even with an excellent translation (some passages in the Bible are just hard to understand).[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvatica]I could go on and on about this, but the fact of the matter is that it is not confusing for the one who takes the time to carefully compare translations to arrive at the most likely and best reading.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvatica]God Bless,[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=arial,helvatica]~Josh[/FONT][/SIZE]

 

[Elijah674]

Personally speaking: I like the K.J. best of my different translations, even with some few mistakes from the compliers. (like chapter verses numbers,comas & the like) And the Inspired penman's Word expressions in a couple places as they indivually expressed it as they saw it best discribed.

The Jewish Bible's two book of the O.T. are one of my favorites, because they have most likely been around the longest & most understand what Legalist implies?;) And it goes from right to left which might be hard for some 'readers' to follow? But I do compare with it for accuracy.
(even with NO NT there is way more than enough for them to see Christ as God!)

And the Doay Bible is also used by me.

And NASV? whatever.

--Elijah

 

[AKJVReader]

[SIZE=-1]But seriously the KJV to this day still confuses me on occasion[/SIZE]

The links here give more info:

Are you confused because you are using multiple Modern Versions and trying to reconcile them to the KJV? For myself i find that the KJV is not at all confusing, it is a word for word translation. Any word you dont know can be looked up in the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary here: Home :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible. It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Are the Hebrew and Greek behind the New King James the same as that for the King James Bible?

The New King James Version is to the English Bible what the Alexandrian manuscripts are to Greek. A corruption of a pure text by men who hold the deplorable doctrine that the Bible cannot be perfect (regardless of what they may say when they preach) and must be corrected by the feeble intellect of man. The New King James Version unlike most modem translations is based on the correct Antiochian manuscripts instead of the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts. Unfortunately, the men doing the translation work view the Bible as imperfect. They would vehemently deny this charge in public because their jobs depend on it, but in fact they do not believe that ANY Bible is perfect. Not even their own New King James Version! Thus, to them, the Bible is lost ("settled" in heaven) and the minds of scholars are the only hope of rescuing its "thoughts" from oblivion. The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp | Evangelist Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. | A Friend to Churches Ministries

Question: What is wrong with the New King James Version (NKJV)? All it does is modernize the words of the King James Bible, right? Why should I read the King James and not the helpful New King James?
Answer: The New King James is not a King James Bible. It changed thousands of words, ruined valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead copied the perverted NIV, NASV or RSV. And this you must know: those who translated the NKJV did not believe God perfectly preserved His words! What is wrong with the New King James Version (NKJV)?

It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text. While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times. In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell", 23 omissions of "blood", 44 omissions of "repent", 50 omissions of "heaven", 51 omissions of "God", and 66 omissions of "Lord". The terms "devils", "damnation", "JEHOVAH", and "new testament" are completely omitted.The NKJV: A Deadly Translation

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi AKJVReader,

Before I reply let me just preface this by saying that I am not responding to pick a fight, but rather to let you know my thoughts and conclusions on this issue. I have already explained that I am not anti-KJV, but I do believe that it is important not to idolize it as a perfect translation, and I also think that other translations are just as valid as the KJV's attempt at translation and that the Textus Receptus should not be followed blindly. I explain my reasoning below.

The links here give more info:

Are you confused because you are using multiple Modern Versions and trying to reconcile them to the KJV? For myself i find that the KJV is not at all confusing, it is a word for word translation. Any word you dont know can be looked up in the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary here: Home :: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com

I understand that the confusion naturally arises out of the change in the usage of English. If you want to read original Shakespeare you would have to do the same thing. As I mentioned before, I do not regard myself as particularly ignorant of archaic English. And yes I know about the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary.

The thing is, that is not the ultimate solution to reader comprehension of a translation. Translations by definition place text from one language into another language that you can understand, and this calls for occasional updates of your language (and hence also translations) as it also changes. I have nothing against reading the KJV and also refering to the 1828 Dictionary for help.

However that is not the sum total of what I meant by "The KJV still confuses me sometimes". Sometimes the translation itself is not clear, or discerning whether something is the subject or object of a particular passage can be unclear sometimes. In other passages, because general pronouns like 'he' is used, for example in the minor Prophets, it is not always clear if God is talking or the prophet, and sometimes it jumps back and forth. Newer translations have improved upon that some what by looking at the original Hebrew and trying to capitalize it 'He' for God where the sentence structure most likely indicates God is speaking, but even then in some passages we just don't know. Anyway, I meant that it is hard to understand in terms of its general clarity sometimes.

The New King James Version is not a true King James Bible.

I know of its various changes and updates from the KJV.

It mixes some true King James accuracy with a lot of Alexandrian and "new version" errors. We know this because the NKJV tells us which ancient texts they used when they made up their Bible. Are the Hebrew and Greek behind the New King James the same as that for the King James Bible?

You are right that the NKJV does give its sources, which is in fact a feature of it that I like. However unless you give specifics (examples of verses) the default assumption that all Alexandrian readings are incorrect where they differ with the Textus Receptus is wrong. Only KJV-only propaganda believes this. You do know that some non-Alexandrian texts among the Bodmer Papyri (see a very brief synopsis here - you can google 'Bodmer Papyri' for tons more on them) that predate both the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts such as P66 and P75, manuscripts containing early Greek portions from the Gospel of John, and P45, containing portions of Luke & Acts, actually contain readings more consistant with the later Alexandrian text than the later Byzantine text in places, right?

Does this mean that the entirety of the Alexandrian text is reliable? No! But that's what textual criticism is for. If we have more than one witness, say P66, Codex Sinaticus, and an Old Latin translation that have an early reading for one of the Gospels but a singular different reading in a Byzantine text (later the TR) then we can say that the weight of the manuscript evidence falls on the former reading (P66, Codex Sinaticus, and an Old Latin) and not on the latter reading (Byzantine/TR).

This involves the rough science/methodology of determining which manuscripts contain the most likely and original reading based on camparisons of all our extant manuscripts. It's not always a question of number, but also of age. We have only one copy of the Bodmer Papyri (which were INCREDIBLY valuable finds, since they predate Alexandrian and Byzantine texts) which are relatively early 2nd-3rd century AD, whereas we may have hundres of copies of Byzantine texts which however represent a later manuscript recension 5th, 6th, 7th century AD and beyond.

The factor of age, for earlier manuscripts, does not always trump the multiplicity of manuscript witnesses though (such as with the Byzantine text) but it does give it additional weight to them since it predates the other readings. Where translations do choose to go with the majority of textual readings, regardless of age, they note this under a category called the Majority Text (MT) most of which favors the Byzantine Textual Tradition and the Textus Receptus. The NKJV as you noted lists its sources, and more times than not it cites the Majority Text. Only where more convincing does it use other readings such as the Alexandrian Text (for the New Testament) and more recently the Dead Sea Scrolls which the 1611 King James Version translators did not have at their disposal to assist in translating the Hebrew Old Testament (and it has since shed light on many words).

That being said, each Bible version uses different source texts, which is why they read differently and even where the texts agree they just translate them differently.

I happen to think though , and I defend this, that the Textus Receptus does indeed have some correct readings that are not attested in the Alexandrian Text due to the fact that Early Church Fathers quote passages in their "longer" form as in the Textus Receptus that do not appear in the Alexandrian Texts.

This site provides an excellent overview of that: Early Witnesses to the Received Text. And note that the Bodmer P66 manuscript is mentioned(!) in defense of the Textus Receptus in certain verses (its not all pro-Alexandrian, and predates Byzantine and Alexandrian texts, thus it can support both Byzantine and Alexandiran readings at different points). That is one case where I uphold, in defense of the KJV, the more traditional English translations of certain passages that have since been taken out in more modern versions (at least the NASB though keeps them in, but puts them in [brackets] to bring to the readers attention that the genuineness of that verse is questioned, but at least it still translates it).

So in summary you could say that I am neither pro-Textus Receptus nor pro-Alexandrian Texts, but I do believe that textual criticism is valid and should be consulted to reach a most likely reading. I do not accept, however, the blind claim though that the entirety of Alexandrian texts are corrupt. That is is not based on logical conclusions and research but on bias/ideology. Please deal with specific examples, not blanket statements like that.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[bear.fr00t]

Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.

 

[AKJVReader]

The Bible says in Proverbs 11:3: "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Since the Word of God is the foundation of a Christians faith, it is very important to clearly establish how the Lord has chosen to preserve "His Word" in the day and times we live in.
Psalm 12:6&7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Please see this chart:
http://www.born2serve.org/images/kjvchartbig.gif

The KJV Defended:
http://www.pdf.cftresources.com/2008_08-31__The KJV Defended as Gods Preserved Word.pdf

Great Information about the KJV:
The King James Bible Defended!

but I do believe that it is important not to idolize it as a perfect translation

How can love for the King James Bible be idolatrous? A pure Word is perfect to me

 

[jasoncran]

The Bible says in Proverbs 11:3: "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" Since the Word of God is the foundation of a Christians faith, it is very important to clearly establish how the Lord has chosen to preserve "His Word" in the day and times we live in.
Psalm 12:6&7: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Please see this chart:
http://www.born2serve.org/images/kjvchartbig.gif

The KJV Defended:
http://www.pdf.cftresources.com/2008_08-31__The KJV Defended as Gods Preserved Word.pdf

Great Information about the KJV:
The King James Bible Defended!



How can love for the King James Bible be idolatrous? A pure Word is perfect to me

one would think that if the the translaters of the kjv had acess to the dead sea scrolls that there would be better translation. josh's point was that we shouldnt say that this bible alone is the only one or that each text should be only on the textus recipticus, i would hate to see what you would do if we found the first version of the bible books and compared them to the textus recipticus and errs were found.

bibles arent cheap why should one have to buy a dictionary with a bible just to read it(i didnt as the holy spirit showed me but i also have a foreign language back ground (spanish)that helped alot)?

 

[kiwimac]

Anything which exalts a mere book into a doctrine which must be believed is idolatrous. The Bible is a book, it is neither a living thing nor a part of the Godhead.