Bible Study KJV vs. NASB

[Biblereader]

Some problems many people have with the NASBI do, too)

KJV:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

NASB:
19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly " Amen Come, Lord Jesus.



Mark 2:17 KJV "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

NASB "And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.""
NASB leaves out "to repentance" as in Matthew 9:13. Without this reference, what is the sinner called to? It is not by accident that this change is made not just in one verse, but in each of the gospels, eliminating all together that reference to the need for repentance.

Matthew 17:21 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

21Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting

NASB: leaves out entirely

2 Timothy 4:22 KJV "The Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Grace be with you. Amen."
NASB "The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you."

NASB leaves out "Jesus Christ." So whom is the reference speaking of that is Lord? They don't want Jesus to get the honor and glory due Him, nor for you to serve Him as your Lord and Savior.





The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count
slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

[bacord]

Mr. Biblereader,
The manuscripts we have do indeed leave this passage out of matt and it is only in Mark.
The KJV translators added it to Matt to be consistent.
This doesn’t make Matt a bad translation. I think and hope you are ready for what I am about to tell you. We don’t have interpretations of Bibles from the originals at least not anymore. If you could find the first translation of the KJV you would be shocked at how our Bibles have changed.
I have found by comparing the translations we do have the Concordant Literal to be the most accurate translation for me. There are inconstancies in all translations.
I do not want to disillusion you in your studies as Christ and him crucified is the main ingredient in the word of God.
I can show you many wrongly interpretations in the KJV Greek words that are translated wrong all through the Bible in all translations the KJV being one of them.
This is a site of Bible study that I think will help you a lot it did me.
http://www.bestbiblestudy.org read your Bible alongside the Concordant and the interlinear check out the Greek meanings as you go along and prepare yourself for a shocking great and wonderful eye opening good time studying Gods word.
Go to the KJV Matt:25,46 and see if this is what it says.
46 And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."

We could have a long discussion about this.

Now one more Site to look at and I hope you will read it thoroughly.
http://www.bestbiblestudy.org/eon.html

Concordant Translation.
Mark2:17
17 And, hearing it, Jesus is saying to them that "No need have the strong of a physician, but those having an illness. I did not come to call the just, but sinners."

2nd Tim 4:
22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit! Grace be with you! Amen!

 

[Biblereader]

Bacord: what church do you go to?

What denomination are you?

 

[bacord]

Bacord: what church do you go to?

What denomination are you?

At this time I attend a independent Sabbath day church of God.
I go there because they do not keep Pagan Holy days. Some of there doctrine I disagree with
never the less they have so far been as close as I can find.
I only hope this study will help you.
You will never find perfection on this earth in people or church.
I can tell you love the bible and Gods truth. The truth is a funny thing.

 

[OfficerCarson]

i have to say something

first off

bac you don't have to insult people :smt018

I go there because they do not keep Pagan Holy days

are you stating that Christmas is a "pagan Holy Day"? :smt017

also i read many different translations of the bible too :smt045

NLT
NKJ
NKJ2
Etc

i also am wondering if you understand the fact that he was simply stating that he was having trouble and was wondering if anyone esle is, or was. :smt102

please understand that this topic is for bible study :smt045
not debate. :smt018
thnx :x-mas:

if want to take a topic like this into debate go ahead and do so by starting it there.

 

[bacord]

Dear Officer I don’t know what is your agenda.
I in no way made any kind of controversial statement in my reply to Biblereader.
He showed errors in other then the KJV .
I hope I helped him or her to see there is no perfect interpretation in our times.
I then guided him to a site he could possible get a lot more information when studying the Bible.
I take it you made your statement without checking this out.
I would have to assume you are the one seeking a controversy.
Christmas comes from a pagan holy day practice before Christ was ever born.
If you will read the Bible the Jews in the desert build a golden calf and tried to dedicate it to God. He didn’t like it then and I feel his feelings haven’t changed on the issue.
If my conversation with you or anyone turns into anything but a discussion I will stop posting with that person.
Peace and peaceful conversations in the future.
bacord

 

[garethppls]

Sorry to hijack a little bit but what do people think of the New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha?

 

[bacord]

Sorry to hijack a little bit but what do people think of the New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha?

I am sorry I haven't any knowledge of this interpertation
bacord

 

[Biblereader]

I don't like any bible version except the KJV. Yes, I said that.
I've studied the bible, took Hebrew from a rabbi, all that, and found that the KJV
is trustworthy, in translation from Hebrew to English.
That's that.
I posted this, hoping to encourage someone else to concentrate on KJV, instead of all these other
mish mashed versions.

 

[bacord]

Biblereader then that is what you should do.
peace in Christ and his abudance to you all the rest of your life and I mean that.

 

[cyberjosh]

The NASB is one of the best litteral study bibles you can get of the non-Textus Receptus textual tradition. On the verses where the NASB and KJV agree on the exact same source Hebrew & Greek (no textual differences) the NASB almost always wins on the better translation (however no traslation is perfect). And don't get me wrong, I love the KJV. For more acurate scholarship however I study with the NASB. Now if I just wanted a reading (not study) Bible even the NIV would work, though the NIV is not all that accurate.

Now textual variances are a whole different animal, and are just that: historical textual differences that go back hundreds of years. The majority of all Greek manuscripts say "tree of life" rather than "book of life", even the RSV (a revision of the KJV has "tree of life"). The discrepancy lies on the unfortunate fact that the Textus Receptus (as compiled by Erasmus) had to partially be compiled from Latin sources (the Vulgate) rather than the original Greek. Biblical Greek manuscripts were rare and prized possessions, and the Vulgate became corrupted over time - not to mention that Latin translates Greek rather woodenly. Erasmus had to translate from Latin back into Greek the last part of Revelation (a translation of a translation). Since then we have had the great fortune of actually finding a Greek Manuscript that has the end of Revelation (always to be prefered above a translation). Anyway I assure you that "tree of life" is the correct reading. Not to mention it agree with the theological theme since the Tree of Life is mentioned in verses 2 and 14 right before this passage.

 

[bacord]

Nasb huh?I will look into this. I have found for myself the the concordant literal and the interliner to be the best as far as greek intrpertations.
The companion Bible is a good one to study with.
Like I said in a post above the site that has helped me the most is
http://bestbiblestudy.org
It has so many different translations I like to go to the sites in the middle with the warnings and read some of this.
Trying to learn all the time.
Is there a place on the web where the nasb can be used for research?
Bacord

 

[cyberjosh]

I have found for myself the the concordant literal

The Concordant Literal is quite good from the excerpts I've seen, I must admit. But like all word for word readings, like the YLT, it can sound wooden at times (and even the YLT will take liberties to express a metaphor in terms we can understand sometimes - out of the seeming necessity of it). I have a copy of a word-for-word, Hebrew interlinear Genesis with an accompanying Lexicon from a scholar/author I had the pleasure of working with in the past, the owner of http://www.ancient-hebrew.org . So I am very familiar with literal traslations, and when I say literal I mean he made it a rule to translate one hebrew word one way and one way only each instance, regardless of context (that's where you can easily sacrifice meaning sometimes). And even he admits that the awkwardly (because of its literalness) produced text wasn't meant to be a "traslation to end all translations", but rather as he readily admits, a valuable tool when you really want to dig deep, while such a literal translation may interupt the train of thought and intent of the standalone passage. There are pros and cons to any end of the literal vs. meaning Bible translation spectrum.

I, and several large Baptist leaders (like Charles Stanley - a great Pastor and author BTW), use the NASB for teaching the word of God. Evangelism (thank God) we have no lack of in the Church, but teaching on the other hand (building upon the Gospel foundation) is sadly lacking, and translations like the NIV don't help when people cling to them for dear life just so they can have a "readable" translation, which in fact can obscure the true intent of the passage by glossing over words. As I've said, no translation is perfect, but I choose the NASB for the best balance. The Hebrew is really where the prize scholarship shows through, for which I have also an NASB Concordance modeled after the format for Strong's Concordance for the KJV (same numbers, etc.).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Vic C.]

Glad to see we got back on topic. Let the Mods mod please. 8-) I didn't see anything insulting at all.

Anyway... Textus Receptus here; anything with a KJ in it and including Green's Literal versions and Young's Literal text too. 8-) I got my reasons and their posted all over this site. ;-)

Here is a basically unbiased site on Biblical texts.

http://www.biblelife.org/word.htm

 

[Biblereader]

KJB, the Holy Bible, came from the good, uncorrupted Textus Receptus, Godly men translated it, rather than the heretics and unbelievers, who translated the Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus,
which brought forth every perversion of the bible out today. Every vital doctrine is attacked, in the NASB, NEB, NIV, TLB, RSV, etc.
In the KJV, EVERY VITAL DOCTINE IS PRESERVED. The Godly translators used a good technique, known as formal equivalence.
The corrupt translators used a sinful technique, known as dynamic equivalence.

Matt. 10:34

Think about that verse, Matt. 10:34. The Word of God is also known as the Sword of the Spirit.

 

[cyberjosh]

KJB, the Holy Bible, came from the good, uncorrupted Textus Receptus

False, its not uncorrupted. No Hebrew or Greek manuscript we have is completely error free (unfortunately).

Godly men translated it,

That I have no doubt of, just as Godly men have translated other versions.

rather than the heretics and unbelievers

A false, ad hominem accusation.

who translated the Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus,
which brought forth every perversion of the bible out today

Incorrect! The Sinaticus and Vaticanus are imperfect, and even disagree with one another at points, but the Translators the majority of the time use the so called "majority reading" or "Majority Text", because they compare the majority of different texts, and the NASB is one of the best for noting alternate readings in the margin. Not to mention the NASB keeps passages found in the KJV in its text but brackets them to question its antiquity (for good reason - not just on a whim).

Note: If you are serious about textual study, I would first like to challenge you to list atleast 5 earlier Greek Manuscripts that we have earlier than the Sinaticus and Vaticanus. Hint: Look at the P documents, such as p75 and p66. Those documents predate the Sinaticus and Vaticanus and are not near as corrupt (terrific news for translators)! However even the Sinaticus and Vaticanus are not entirely corrupt, they do contain earlier readings that were shorter (often copyists would add "glosses" as they call them for explanatory purposes - which however do not detract from the Bible). The thing is the earlier P documents vindicate many of the shorter readings in the Sinaticus and Vaticanus. Thus we know they are scholastically safe to consider as closer to the original.

P.S. I'm not going to be rash and pin you as a KJV-onlyier. but I must say that you sure do sound like one. I hope you aren't believing just any site out there about translations, because there are some really biased sites out there. I have weaved my way between the whole textual debate before and seen good points on both sides. And the instances where I favor the KJV's readings is where early Church Father Quotes have a reading that is different than our earliest manuscript evidence. In those cases it suggests strongly that they had an earlier redaction (look that term up if you don't know what it means) of the Original Greek text. I am more than fair to both sides, so please don't accuse me otherwise. But merely off-handedly dismissing the Alexandrian (Non-Byzantine/non-Textus Receptus) Texts for the sake of KJV tradition is not fair nor an intelligent arguement.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

For the record the Vaticanus is better than the Sinaticus, and it also did try to preserve original readings. One scribe tried to alter a verse, and the editing Scribe went back and chewed him out about it and said, "Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!".

Here's a picture of it:

And a more clear image of just the text with the comment in the margin:

Oh yes, I know tampering happened. But that's the whole point of Textual Criticism, to investigate all early manuscripts thoroughly so we know what was original and what was added, deleted, or altered. The Textus Receptus isn't terrible, but it's no original either, we have reliable P documents which show the shorter readings. Some of the simple things done in the textus Receptus was copying a parallel passage from one Gospel to another to harmonize it better, but it in no way detracts to omit such a "gloss" since the original has the reading in atleast one place (the original place - with out unnecessary replication). And what happens eventually to all manuscripts passed down for hundreds of years, are simple copiests errors, slips of the eye. Many readings have been restored by finding earlier manuscripts that can be seen to have a word with a similar spelling (off by one letter) but otherwise identical & which makes more contextual sense and so the original reading is restored. That happened for the Textus Receptus, Sinaticus, the Vaticanus, etc., etc. Hey, stuff like that it happens, mistakes can occur in copying by pure accident... Anyway that is my short attempt to explain textual criticism in a nut shell to you. I hope you understand and are reasonable in your responses, rather than blowing me off. I would appreciate a thoughtful response.

Thanks. God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Vic C.]

I don't know Josh... I was aware of Bible versions well before I was saved. One of the first things I prayed was for God to lead me to truths concerning which Biblical texts would be the best to rely on. What was revealed to me with much thought of my own, was the major differences between the different texts. I was drawn towards the Byzantine family of texts. They're old and reliable. Just ask any Greek Orthodox believer. ;-)

The link I posted on the previous page summarizes all I have learned in the last eight years. I honestly believe the TR is God's way of preserving His written word. I just don't trust the suspected corrupted versions, especially knowing some of it was translated from text found in the garbage of St Catherine's Monastery. :o

Sorry folks, this is just one of those thinks I'm adamant about lately.

 

[cyberjosh]

Vic,

I looked at the site, and I must say very well researched. Very good. I became aware of the Textual tradition behind the Bible back in 2004 when the Dead Sea Scrolls to America traveling museum Exhibit traveled through Huntsville, Alabama. I not only got to see fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls in person but I also got to see some of the oldest English Bibles on the face of the earth. They infact had the very Bible which William Tyndale owned signed in his handwritting and they also have either a copy of or the original (several hundred years old either way) letter Tyndale sent as a request for warmer clothes and a Bible with Hebrew Text while he was imprisoned awaiting execution. They also showed a early copy of Luther's German Bible. I came home with a sovenier which the Lord blessed me with which has a certified 1650 KJV Leaflet and a 1650 Genev Bible leaflet (they were laminated in the back of an $80 book written by the curator, which I bought for what I had in my pocket ($7!!!) because the curator said "You're asking some good questions about the exhibit. I'll ask my brother to accompany you to the checkout desk." and his brother said "We're doing this to spread the truth about God's word, not to make money", and they let me pay for it for what I had on me - I was touched to say the least). That museum owns www.greatsite.com which sells some of those antique bibles, if you want to check it out (I highly encourage it). At that exhibit I learned and have since done extensive research myself on Erasmus, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Luther and all their respective traslations. I promise you I am ignorant of very little concerning the textual tradition, though of course one's could make a life's work of studying manuscript traditions.

I agree that the Textus Receptus is a good text, but I hold that in transmission it deviated from the original with glosses and even mistranslated text, well before Erasmus got his hands on it. Erasmus had with a few versus in Revelation to translate (as I said on the last page) from the Vulgate Latin back into Greek. Here is what this site has to say on it:

The last six verses of Revelation were missing, so Erasmus translated the Vulgate back into Greek to provide a text. Unfortunately he translated them into poor Greek, and, compounding the injury, despite his inclusion of them in the text, he suggested they did not actually exist. In his fourth edition he did rectify this by adding a text provided by the Complutensian Polyglot, but overall, his discernment and evaluation of the texts was piecemeal.

I'm only saying it is not a perfect heavenly text, free from human error. All the manuscripts suffer from this, but often the differences between translations don't even matter theologically! Tables such as the one on that site that compare verses where the NASB or NIV ommit something then go on to say, "This tries to deny the deity of Christ". Not true. As many have bben quick to point out, if translators or the early pre-4th century translators wanted to destroy a doctrine by merely removing something in one verse that was in the original, they did a poor job. Often parallel texts can be found with the same thoughts that say explicitly the doctrine in question in the NASB, NIV etc.. Some complain about nit-picky things like a verse saying "God" in the KJV but merely "He" in the NASB - c'mon the earlier texts read "he" and it most likely was changed to "God" for clarification over the centuries. Stff like that happens. One place I do trust Byzantine readings where other early manuscripts may fail are (like I said above) from Early Church Father quotes which predate our current manuscripts. Those are most helpful in identifying ancient readings.

None-the-less I personally do no like the Vaticanus or Sinaticus. I do however trust the 2nd century P documents, and other early documents like the Coptic Version of Collosians (which I got to see with my very own eyes in the museum exhibit). Have you ever looked into the P documents that well predate the Sinaticus and Vaticanus like p75, p66, etc?

I look forward to your reply.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

BTW, Vic, I perfectly respect your convictions and that is entirely your perogative if you wish to read a particular version. And I'm sure you've known me long enough that reading an alternate translation hasn't made me a heretic or any nonsense like that.

Infact, what I've tried to tell a KJV onlyer before he told me I was controlled by demons and was going to hell for reading another Bible version ( :D ), is that I actually like the NASB better than most versions, not just the KJV, for its translation of Hebrew & Greek text that both the Byzantine and Alexandrian traditions agree on, which is nearly 85%! I'm glad on that link (I assume that's your web page?) you don't go for KJV-only but rather give precedence to the Greek behind it, which then makes it a matter of translation. Those examples of where the KJV mistranslated a Greek word has been corrected in other versions, like the NASB for example. Not just those specific examples but in many places. Not to mention I am decked out with study materials, Hebrew lexicons, a NASB lexicon, and NT Greek word study book, etc, etc. so I never agree with a particular translation 100% anyway, because some things just can't even be properly expressed from the Greek into the English. But just as it is a matter of your preference of translation, I prefer the NASB because it has updated scholarship on Hebrew and Greek in general, on passages that haven't changed at all between the Byzantine and Alexandrian traditions, made possible by - guess what - the Dead Sea Scrolls. The KJV just didn't have the resources in Hebrew and Greek that we do today. Thus why I prefer the updated scholarship, and even then double checking with my own lexicons when I do in depth studies. And for the record I really like the NKJV. The NASB and the NKJV are my two favorite versions.

Surely you can see where I am coming from and how sincere I am about knowing the truth of God's word.

~Josh