KJV vs NASB

[Bayhawks83]

i heard some people say kjv is the most accurate, and i heard people say nasb is the most accurate, someone has to be *mistaken, who is?

*edit

 

[Philip]

i heard some people say kjv is the most accurate, and i heard people say nasb is the most accurate, someone has to be lying, who is?

Perhaps mistaken is a better word. I think that NASB is more accurate than KJV, but I'm not sure I would call it the most accurate.

 

[1John5:3]

There are problems with the KJV.
[url]http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm[/url]

The Lockman Foundation has finally allowed a downloadable desktop NASB! It's free with registration. I love it!
[url]http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/download/index.php[/url]

 

[AVBunyan]

I believe the 1611AV is vastly superior to the NASV. If anyone would like to discuss this in a polite and Christian manner I would love to especailly if you are seeking to truly learn about the subject.

So you will know up front - I do not know any Greek or Hebrew or make reference to it so don't worry if you don't either.

Have a blessed day!

 

[Durelen]

I use both translations and often side by side. I also use NKJV, Darby and Greek texts as well. This is between KJV and NASB and they are both excellent translations IMO. Yes there are some passages that are confusing as well as some punctuations misplaced but we are dealing with a translation of old Greek/Hebrew to our modern English. The underlining translation of these scriptures are sound and accurate enough to understand the true meaning being conveyed.

Now as for KJV, if you are not used to old English than study the NASB since it is far more reflective of our modern English language. NASB was intended to be a word for word translation and it is very readable. KJV is quite elegant and adds color to words in a Shakespearean way if I may say so. If I was Chines I suppose I would not read either version. Read the translation/s you enjoy to read.

 

[AVBunyan]

Here is my stand on the KJV for what it is worth.

Now, to some the below post may seem harsh but I understand that some do not understand the issues of the modern versions and just don't know - I understand this for I was there once myself until someone cared enough to show me the differences. For you I would love to discuss the issue in a polite and Christian manner. For those who seem to like attacking the 1611AV consistently then you and I would probably not get along to well.

Now, my post does not directly compare the KJV and NASV but the below may provide some of why I believe what others and I believe about the book I have in my hands.

If you came to my church with a NASV we would be very gracious and treat you with respect and not "attack" you or the version you use - we have more grace than some. But if you were to ask then we would respectfully and graciously seek to show you why we believe what we believe in order for you to come to the conclusion that you can have God's perfect words in your very hands without having to learn Greek and Hebrew.

Infallibility of the Bible - 1611AV

Here’s my two cents worth:
What I believe – I believe the King James AV1611 that I have in my hands and read everyday is perfect and without error. I believe this Bible I read is inspired down to the punctuation marks, italicized words, and even the chapter headings. I wouldn’t change one word in it – it is perfect as it stands. I do not believe the writers of the scriptures (James, Paul, Moses, etc.) were inspired but what God directed them to put down was and I can read exactly what God wants me to have today. I do not believe the King James translators were inspired but what God directed them to put down was. Take the “original” Greek and Hebrew that people talk about, all the lexicons, translations, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (and yes “Dead’ fits perfectly) and use them as paper weights.

I don’t just believe the Bible is inspired only in the “originals” for there is not one verse in the Bible that supports that only the originals are inspired. In fact in II Tim. 3:15-17 I find the all scripture is given by inspiration and look at verse 15 – Timothy had the scriptures and according to verse 16 there were inspired. And I’m 100% sure that Timothy did not have the originals. If what you have in your hands is inspired then they are the scriptures and if it is inspired it is scripture. If they are not inspired then they are not the scriptures. Now your translations may have some verses that match a King James and if those verses do then that verse is scripture but your book, as a whole, is not inspired. In fact if you read Jeremiah 36 real close you will see double inspiration.

All this discussion about the Syriac, the Aramaic, etc. seems to be a waste of time for the saint to research. Why would one be talked into going to the Greek and Hebrew when he probably hasn’t even mastered the English yet!?! The Holy Spirit is the teacher anyway and if He doesn’t the do the illuminating then all the Lexicons and “originals” are not going to help anyway. I believe the Bible that God has used since 1611 to go to the foreign seas and win the cannibals to the Lord, the one that God used to bring revivals all over the world for over 400 years. What are the fruits of the modern translations and Greek…chaos, confusion, and a generation of saints that produce very little for God (and I include myself in this bunch)?
And yes, I have heard all the arguments and read most of the books questioning the King James and all of their “evidences”, apparent contradictions, etc. and I still believe what I believe.

Now the real issue is…what is your final authority in all matters of faith and practice? Please don’t tell me the “Bible” if you use other translations, Greek lexicons, etc. for then they are your final authority. If you have a King James Bible in your hand then you have the final authority. Don’t you want to know that what you have in your hands is the “real thing”, perfect and without error? Why not try to believe that and go with that instead of trying to prove mistakes in the King James Bible? I can guarantee that you will get more out of a King James Bible with simple child-like faith trusting the Holy Spirit for illumination than by questioning it and using every Bible study aid known to mankind.



May God bless

 

[SavedByGrace3]

i heard some people say kjv is the most accurate, and i heard people say nasb is the most accurate, someone has to be lying, who is?

Lie is the incorrect word to use when it is a matter of opinion like this. I actually think the best version is Young's Literal Translation. Many of the "translations" you read should be called "interpretations." The guys who produce them are trying to "help" you by inflecting their own doctrinal slant into the text. I like the orignal word for word, thanks-but-don't-try-to-help-me text.

I recommend everyone go to www.e-sword.com and get a copy of e-sword. You get tons of Bible versions and commentaries and other helps. Really great. It has become my main Bible study tool. It is free and you can make a contribution if you like it... I did!


Here is an example from all the versions I have downloaded:

Joh 3:16

(ALT) "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten [or, unique] Son, so that every [one] believing [or, trusting] in Him shall not perish, _but_ shall be having eternal life!

(ASV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

(BBE) For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life.

(CEV) God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die.

(Darby) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal.

(DRB) For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

(EMTV) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

(GB) For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

(GNB) For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.

(GNT) οὕτω γὰρ ἡγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται, ἀλλ᾿ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

(GNT-TR+) ουτως3779 γαρ1063 ηγαπησεν25 ο3588 θεος2316 τον3588 κοσμον2889 ωστε5620 τον3588 υιον5207 αυτου846 τον3588 μονογενη3439 εδωκεν1325 ινα2443 πας3956 ο3588 πιστευων4100 εις1519 αυτον846 μη3361 αποληται622 αλλ235 εχη2192 ζωην2222 αιωνιον166

(GNT-V) ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον TSBαυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον

(GW) God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.

(HNV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

(HOT)​

​

(ISV) "For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life.

(KJV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(KJV+) For1063 God2316 so3779 loved25 the3588 world,2889 that5620 he gave1325 his848 only begotten3439 Son,5207 that2443 whosoever3956 believeth4100 in1519 him846 should not3361 perish,622 but235 have2192 everlasting166 life.2222

(KJVA) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(LITV) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(LXX)

(MKJV) For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

(MSG) "This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

(NASB) "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

(NASB+) "For God2316 so3779 loved25 the world2889, that He gave1325 His only3439 begotten3439 Son5207, that whoever3956 believes4100 in Him shall not perish622, but have2192 eternal166 life2222.

(TR) outwv gar hgaphsen o qeov ton kosmon wste ton uion autou ton monogenh edwken ina pav o pisteuwn eiv auton mh apolhtai all exh zwhn aiwnion

(WEB) For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

(Webster) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(WNT) For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages.

(YLT) for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

 

[seebs]

I am just curious: How many of the people arguing for the 1611 KJV use the full 1611KJV, which had all 79 books in it? I ask merely for information.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I use both translations and often side by side. I also use NKJV, Darby and Greek texts as well. This is between KJV and NASB and they are both excellent translations IMO. Yes there are some passages that are confusing as well as some punctuations misplaced but we are dealing with a translation of old Greek/Hebrew to our modern English. The underlining translation of these scriptures are sound and accurate enough to understand the true meaning being conveyed.

Now as for KJV, if you are not used to old English than study the NASB since it is far more reflective of our modern English language. NASB was intended to be a word for word translation and it is very readable. KJV is quite elegant and adds color to words in a Shakespearean way if I may say so. If I was Chines I suppose I would not read either version. Read the translation/s you enjoy to read.

If you can read English and can afford to use a computer to participate in a forum like this, you can afford to own several Bibles and read them all. Different Bibles were translated with different purposes in mind. The KJV was meant to be read aloud in public. I use it (or the NKJV) most often for that purpose. The NASB was intended for accurate study of the details. It is a good jumping-off point if you want to go on and do a word study, but doesn't sound beautiful when read aloud. The NIV was intended to be very readable in English - it is intended for private silent reading and for beginners. The RSV and NRSV are also good translations, but less specialized. They flow fairly well for public or private reading, and are fairly accurate for detailed study, although their translators often take a different slant than the translators of the NASB.

When I teach, I consult all four of these, at a minimum. I usually start by reading the whole book in one sitting, and I usually start with the NIV because I can read it quickly for the "flow" and main ideas. (Using the NASB, you can easily miss the forest for the trees, IMHO) Later, I will read the whole book in one sitting in several other trranslations, then go to the Greek or Hebrew for the particular passage I'm going to teach on.

If you study this way, the time in weeks you spend with a passage is much more important than the time in hours, because you will find yourself meditating on the scriptures frequently. That is when the Holy Spirit really does the illuminating.

 

[Crazy Liz]

:o

 

[AVBunyan]

Seebs asked:

"I am just curious: How many of the people arguing for the 1611 KJV use the full 1611KJV, which had all 79 books in it? I ask merely for information."

I'm assuming the other 13 books you are referring to are the Apocrphra? These were never considered part of the scriptures - if I am not mistaken (am I don't claim to be an expert on all this) the 1611 translators inserted them in between the Old and the New Testaments and later were removed altogether. I use the 66 books. Plus 79-66 = 13 the number of rebellion in the Bible - just threw that in for free!

Also for the above post where I John 5:3 said: "There are problems with the KJV." and then listed the site - I thought it would only be fair to list some other sites for comparison.

See below:
Defense of the King James Bible

http://av1611.org/

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/hortpapr.htm

http://www.baptistlink.com/av1611.html

http://av1611.com/kjbp/

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/links.htm

http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_version_defense.htm

Just a few if anybody is interested in doing a little research.

Also for you who like to get deep do a "Google" search of Edward F. Hills "The King James Version Defended."

I am not saying these sites are perfect but if you want to "get into it" then these would be a good start. Those were found just searching google using, "AV166 defense" or "KJV defned" , etc.

I'm sure there are more for both sides.

 

[Knight]

Between these two I prefer the NASB. With the 1995 update that is. It's accurate, readable and understandable.

 

[BAChristian]

I recommend everyone go to www.e-sword.com and get a copy of e-sword.

I concur. It rules.

Gotta love all the nifty plugins...

 

[The Thadman]

Hello all,

I know that my views may be a bit unorthodox, but then again what actually is (even the Orthodox churches are "unorthodox," yes?)?

As I see it, almost all translations of the New Testament are lacking something, the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, etc. We can all agree that a translation will never be as good as the original, correct? (I hope that I am not in the presence of those who think the KJV can be used to correct the original texts...)

I'm also hoping that we can all agree that a translation of a translation would be even worse, no?

What if I told you that I think that most of the NT was not written in Greek at all? Don't think so? Humor me for a moment and take a look at this example:

In Acts 8:27 we read the following (NIV, NASB, and KJV are provided):

So he (Philip) started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, (NIV)

So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship, (NASB)

And he (Philip) arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, (KJV)

This is 100% IMPOSSIBLE in the 1st Century, as eunuchs were not allowed to worship at the temple. We read in Deuteronomy 23:1:

No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD (NIV)

No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD (NASB)

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD (KJV)

So why do we see a eunuch here (and in the NARRATIVE of Acts)?

The answer lies upon the Aramaic, not Greek, behind this passage. In Aramaic, the word for "believer" or "person of faith" is "Mhaimno'."

"Mhaimno'" also means, you guessed it, "eunuch."

They are under two different entries in most major electronic Aramaic lexical works (i.e. SEDRAIII, etc.).

This is STRONG evidence that both the KJV, NASB, AND NIV are translating from the wrong texts.

Shlomo,

 

[Crazy Liz]

This is STRONG evidence that both the KJV, NASB, AND NIV are translating from the wrong texts.

Do you contend that the original texts still exist, or are you suggesting we try to derive them by back-translating?

 

[AVBunyan]

Regarding enuchs - entering into the congregation - the reference is referring to Lev. 21 - "Lev 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God." - where the priesthood is discussed. Those that are missing their privy parts cannot be a part of the priesthood. The "average Joe" could go up and worship. Also you are assuming that the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 was not a Jew or that he was Hamite. Daniel was taken prisoner and lived in Babylon and had great authrotiy and he was a Jew. And there is some indication if you compare somme references that Daniel and his buddies were mad eunuchs so I think your argument is unsound.

Again many people try to find fault with the KJV because they just don't understand the passages so they assume the KJV is wrong.

 

[The Thadman]

Do you contend that the original texts still exist, or are you suggesting we try to derive them by back-translating?

No not necessarily back-translating. I believe that the closest thing that we have going is the Eastern Aramaic Peshitta, a text that has the strongest textual integrity, and is the most misunderstood.

Shlomo,

 

[The Thadman]

Regarding enuchs - entering into the congregation - the reference is referring to Lev. 21 - "Lev 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God." - where the priesthood is discussed. Those that are missing their privy parts cannot be a part of the priesthood. The "average Joe" could go up and worship. Also you are assuming that the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 was not a Jew or that he was Hamite. Daniel was taken prisoner and lived in Babylon and had great authrotiy and he was a Jew. And there is some indication if you compare somme references that Daniel and his buddies were mad eunuchs so I think your argument is unsound.

Again many people try to find fault with the KJV because they just don't understand the passages so they assume the KJV is wrong.

But you must remember that the Jewish rule was not Biblical at the time. It was Talmudic and oral-tradition based. These traditions took the simple Biblical rules and extended them (this is why we get Talmudic Kosher as "meat and dairy are not allowed together" from "you cannot boil a goat kid in it's mother's milk", and why tax collectors were considered unclean, something found nowhere in the Torah). The Ethiopian would not have been permitted to worship at the temple, period, due to him missing one or both of his "rocks." The temple officials would not have allowed it due to oral tradition alone.

Shlomo,

 

[HiredGoon]

There's absolutely nothing special about the 1611 AV. Study the history of the struggle to translate the Bible into English, and look at King James' motive for his AV. The 1611 AV was not born of an unbiased objective effort to translate the Bible, it was meant to be pro-monarchy propaganda.

 

[AVBunyan]

There's absolutely nothing special about the 1611 AV. Study the history of the struggle to translate the Bible into English, and look at King James' motive for his AV. The 1611 AV was not born of an unbiased objective effort to translate the Bible, it was meant to be pro-monarchy propaganda.

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not concerned about King James' motives or the Puritan's motives or anybody elses. God runs things not man. It is God that works all things after the counsel of His own will. The 1611 AV was born out of God wanting one more final English translation of His word. I've heard all the stuff about King James was a homosexual, fell off his horse, etc. the Anglicans were baby-sprinklers and the motives of the Puritans - doesn't enter into the picture. God uses all kinds of men with all kinds of motives to carry out His will. Here God used Puritans, Anglicans and a very strange king to come together to translate His word.

God used a murderer (Moses), an adulterer (David), a deserter (Peter), a persecuter of the saints (Paul) and many others throughout history to carry out his purpose. So, in 1611 God called together a diverse bunch and said, "Sit down and write!", and we now have the results of God's work in 1611 in the form of one final Englsih translation.

May God bless