Leaderboard

I often listen to a modern translation in my car, and when I am reading. But when it comes to scripture memorization, I prefer the KJV. I would read the KJV regularly, but the old language slows me down a bit.

I loved it the first time I heard it!!

That link makes false claims. It claims certain things are removed from certain versions and I have found two so far where the versions include what they claim to have removed. So far I have only found one difference that could be argued to be significant although I don't believe it is. I hope you checked it all before posting the link. Edit: I have only gone through the OT passages listed so far.

bible gateway means you don't need to keep them around. You can keep your KJV and then just use that website to look at others. You can also put passages side by side in there. Of course I always say one should never just compare one verse to another and make a judgment. Instead one should look at the extended passage to see if the meaning has been changed.

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/versioncomparisonchart.html See if this works for you. Having had a chance to examine the changes, there does seem to be a pattern. It appears that those translations don't like to mention hell, and like to remove verses that show us that Jesus is the Christ. Honestly, I don't see any need for new translations. Yes, it takes a little time to get used to the old English, but once you read a few books, it becomes obvious what it is saying. It only took me reading through Genesis to be able to read the 1611 KJV Bible with the old spelling, and the letter u looking like a v. At the same time, you know as well as I do that some won't take the time to do that, and all you are left with is a pile of new translations, none of which I have full confidence in. I have to look for the best of the bad, and even after looking at that web-page, it appears the NKJV Bible is better than the alternatives. The truth matters to me to the point where I won't settle for anything but the KJV Bible, but sadly, others don't feel that way. I appreciate you giving me that link. I don't keep a stack of translations lying around the house, because I don't need them. I have considered buying some for reference sake, but I have no use for them as a study tool. Ill stay with my kjv also, the nkjv has not went as far as the others. I recommend the kjv but it is up to each person to read or not read about the changes before they decide. I was able to learn to read the kjv so im surprised some same they can not.

the places I looked up the NKJV uses the base words instead of hell..... Hades, Sheol,and the others. Actually leads the reader to the correct meaning. I don't have time for many of the others right now.

yes all mine are kjv also

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/versioncomparisonchart.html See if this works for you.

I'm with you on that one. It does little good to just number the number of words by usage, since they are all translated. In the Old Testament "Lord" can be rendered from many Hebrew and Greek words and the NKJV mat have rendered another equivalent. It only counts if you change the meaning of what is being said to us.Thanks. In Christ, Pat Strong's Concordance Renderings Below: Strongs # Translit. Pronunciation English Equivalent H113 'adown ä·dōn' Lord, master(s), Lord, owner, sir H136 'Adonay ad·ō·nōy' Lord, Lord, God H3050 Yahh yä Lord, JAH H3068 Yĕhovah yeh·hō·vä' Lord, GOD, JEHOVAH, variant H4756 mare' (Aramaic) mä·rā' Lord, Lord H5633 ceren seh'·ren Lord, plate H7261 rabrĕban (Aramaic) rav·rev·än' Lord, prince H1376 gĕbiyr ghev·ēr' Lord H3072 Yĕhovah tsidqenuw ye·hō·vä' tsid·kā'·nü Lord our Righteousness H3074 Yĕhovah shammah yeh·hō·vä' shäm'·mä The Lord is there H3069 Yĕhovih yeh·hō·vē' GOD, Lord H7991 shaliysh shä·lēsh' captain, Lord, instrument of musick, great measure, excellent thing, measure, prince H2486 chaliylah khä·lē'·lä God forbid, far be it, be...far, Lord forbid, misc H7229 rab (Aramaic) rav great, master, stout, chief, captain, Lord H241 'ozen ō'·zen ear(s), audience, hearing, show, advertise, displeased the Lord, hear, hear, reveal, tell H117 'addiyr ad·dēr' nobles, excellent, mighty, principal, famous, gallant, glorious, goodly, Lordly, noble one, worthies H1181 Ba`aley Bamowth vah·al·ā' vä·moth' Lords of the high places H7300 ruwd rüd dominion, Lords, mourn, ruleth H8269 sar sar prince, captain, chief, ruler, governor, keeper, principal, general, Lords, misc Greek Results (New Testament) Strongs # Translit. Pronunciation English Equivalent G1203 despotēs des-po'-tās Lord, master G2962 kyrios kü'-rē-os Lord, Lord, master, sir, Sir, misc G4462 rhabbouni rhäb-bü-nē' Lord (Christ), Rabboni (Christ) G2961 kyrieuō kü-rē-yü'-ō have dominion over, exercise Lordship over, be Lord of, Lords G2634 katakyrieuō kä-tä-kü-rē-yü'-ō exercise dominion over, overcome, be Lord over, exercise Lordship over G4151 pneuma pnyü'-mä Spirit, Holy Ghost, Spirit (of God), Spirit (of the Lord), (My) Spirit, Spirit (of truth), Spirit (of Christ), human (spirit), (evil) spirit, spirit (general), spirit, (Jesus' own) spirit, (Jesus' own) ghost G2960 kyriakos kü-rē-ä-ko's Lord's

This comes straight from a website. What they don't look at is if the meaning of the passage is changed by doing so. If the meaning is the same then there really is no problem. It reminds me of the monarchy vs republic debate in Australia a number of years ago. The monarchists ran a very clever campaign saying there would be a certain amount of changes to the constitution if we became a republic. That scared a lot of people. However if one looked at what the changes were most of them were removing references to the monarchy or crown.

I've always used the KJV. But of late I found a reference to, The Holy Bible In Its Original Order - A Faithful Version with Commentary, that was recommended to me at another Christian forum I'm member of. I'm hoping the local library can obtain a copy through interlibrary loan so I can review it rather than purchase to find out if I like it or not.

check this out it may help someone New King James Omissions Omits the word “Lord” 66 times. Omits the word “God” 51 times. Omits the word “heaven” 50 times. Omits the word “repent” 44 times. Omits the word “blood” 23 times. Omits the word “hell” 22 times. Omits the word “JEHOVAH” entirely. Omits the word “new testament” entirely. Omits the word “damnation” entirely. Omits the word “devils” entirely. NIV Omissions Entire verses omitted include: Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24. ESV Omissions ESV completely omits the following verses from the New Testament: Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29; Romans 16:24, plus partial omissions in Mat. 5:22, Mat. 19:9, Mark 9:49, Luke 4:4, Luke 22:64, John 3:13, John 8:59, Acts 18:21, Rom. 8:1, Rom. 13:9, 1 Cor. 10:28, 2 Cor. 4:10, Gal. 3:1, Eph. 3:14, Col. 1:14, 1 Tim. 1:1, Tit. 1:4, Heb. 1:3, Heb 2:7, 1 Pet. 4:1, Rev. 14:5, Luke 9:55-56, Acts 9:5-6 and 1 John 5:7-8.

your post made me think of Matt 22. That is what I was referring to when I mentioned the church being guests at the wedding. We are also referred to as the body of Christ in scripture, and Jesus is the head of the body. These are comparisons to make a point, but I believe the bride of Christ is New Jerusalem, based on what it says in Revelation. yes I agree and like Matt 22 the first rejected the invitation to the wedding then any and all were invited similar to how Gentiles ( church ) was called after the first rejected the invitation.Thanks for the verses and better understanding.

your post made me think of Matt 22.

Rev. 19:7b-8 for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. v8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.. v14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, followed Him on white horses. The saints referred to are not necessarily those cannonized by the church. They are everybody who has given their lives to God and fully dedicated themselves to Him and His service. They are all true Christians, living and dead, who love Him and love one another. There is never any mention of Jesus procreating or engaging in sex. That sounds like the belief of the mormon cults. It is not a Christian belief and is not in the Bible. There is no marrying and giving in marriage in heaven but we will be like (similar to) the angels. We will have glorified heavenly incorruptible spiritual bodies like that of the risen Christ. 1 Cor. 15:42-49 During the 1000 years reign of Christ there will be people with earthly bodies who survived the tribulation, probably Jewish, who will in habit the earth and procreate, but they are not part of the bride of Christ spoken of here. Those who love the Lord and remain faithful to Him may become part of the New Jeruselem--I really don't know. All I know for sure is that upon death of this body our souls of true believers will be with the Lord for eternity.

Revelation 19:7-9 - Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. This passage is one that brings warmth to my heart .... Thank u

Hi Tiffany.check this out. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/bible-verses-about-the-bride-of-christ/

I've given a lot of thought to this since this thread started and noticed tend to listen to the KJV but read the 1972 version of the NASB.

I don't think that verse pertains to the whole Biblde but the book of revelation.

I don't think there is a description specifically addressing this however there are a number of passages that describe it. One would be "By this shall all people know you are my disciples if you have love one for another" and "And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers" I don't believe that is the case. I don't take it that we calling us the bride is meant to be taken literally. It is a illustration.

kings james versian jesus said dont take or add to his word i feel some new bibles do this

Hi Co Heir, No, I believe that you are correct; there's no mistaking Paul's metaphor of 'earthen vessels' is our temporal flesh, so you have the correct context. It's also not the only time in his letters that he infers this. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit, even though our flesh is temporal, and will one day fail us all, we have the eternal Holy Spirit of God in us and a home prepared for us that will never fade within the glory of God's living presence, which now abides even in these earthen vessels. I was only making the point that most translations try to make the same point, even if heavily paraphrased. I was pretty much weaned on the KJV myself - It was difficult to get used to the language but eventually I did. I still pretty much exclusively read the Psalms in the KJV - they are superb! If you are used to the KJV then stick with it - it surely contains the Word of God as do many other translations. May the Lord Bless, Pat

KJV But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. NKJV But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, , that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. NLT We now have this light shining in our hearts, but we ourselves are like fragile clay jars containing this great treasure., This makes it clear that our great power is from God, not from ourselves. NIV But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. ESV But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. RVR60 Pero tenemos este tesoro en vasos de barro, para que la excelencia del poder sea de Dios, y no de nosotros, NASB But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; RSV But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us. ASV But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves; YOUNGS LIT And we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us; DARBY But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassingness of the power may be of God, and not from us: WEBSTERS But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God, and not from us. HEBREW NV: But we have this treasure in clay vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves. VULGATE habemus autem thesaurum istum in vasis fictilibus ut sublimitas sit virtutis Dei et non ex nobis mGNT ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ᾖ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν TR Ἕχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ᾖ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν In Christ, Pat Thanks only one that may be suspect, I always believed the earthen vessel in kjv meant the human body, of course I can be wrong and often am. I must admit I never read any other than kjv and thats weird for me as bad as I read.

KJV But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.NKJV But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, , that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. NLT We now have this light shining in our hearts, but we ourselves are like fragile clay jars containing this great treasure., This makes it clear that our great power is from God, not from ourselves. NIV But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. ESV But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. RVR60 Pero tenemos este tesoro en vasos de barro, para que la excelencia del poder sea de Dios, y no de nosotros, NASB But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; RSV But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us. ASV But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves; YOUNGS LIT And we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us; DARBY But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassingness of the power may be of God, and not from us: WEBSTERS But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God, and not from us. HEBREW NV: But we have this treasure in clay vessels, that the exceeding greatness of the power may be of God, and not from ourselves. VULGATE habemus autem thesaurum istum in vasis fictilibus ut sublimitas sit virtutis Dei et non ex nobis mGNT ἔχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ᾖ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν TR Ἕχομεν δὲ τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως ᾖ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν In Christ, Pat

how about 2nd Corinthians 4: 7 where do we get one of those jars full of treasure in kjv it is earthen vessel meaning our body

Of course for those looking for an "exact", "non paraphrased" version - they really can't do much better than an early copy of the original, perhaps 2nd edition, from the apostle's own hand. This is probably a mere 2 decades from the original Gospel autograph of John. Here then is probably the most accurate, no frills passage, that you can find today; of course some might think it runs together a bit. Or we can read John 3:16 a couple of centuries later - still close Personally the ones below are all late, with the exception of the Vulgate. However be aware that every one of them they are paraphrased and translated. That said most all work just fine for me. In Christ, Pat

Further to my previous post on this subject of the 17 July. In the main I refer to four versions, namely ESV. NASB. NKJ. But best of all in my opinion is the, Holman Christian Standard Bible. An on line version of which can be found at, https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Holman-Christian-Standard-Bible-HCSB/ Every blessing. Edwin.

I am saying that where there are differences between the New American Standard Version (and other newer versions) and the New King James version, I will take the NKJV, or Young's or the 1910 American Standard Version. I will take litteral translations over thought for thought versions like NIV. But I would urge people to read any bible that they can understand. The Gospel is included in most of them. No translation is perfect but the Holy Spirit can still use them. I do not trust the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses or paraphrases like The Message.. That comment I placed in bold is interesting. Butero, I trust the Holy Spirit to work in the people He has called. My sister in law was brought back to the Lord while watching Jesus Christ Superstar!!! He is more powerful and opportunistic than we sometimes Give Him credit For--He is God. He used the RSV in my life for many years. But gradually I became aware of poorly translated areas and better translations became available; I was able to move to more conservative translations. I just don't underestimate God's ability to convey truth. lol...after all He still uses KJV in many peoples lives.

I am saying that where there are differences between the New American Standard Version (and other newer versions) and the New King James version, I will take the NKJV, or Young's or the 1910 American Standard Version. I will take litteral translations over thought for thought versions like NIV. But I would urge people to read any bible that they can understand. The Gospel is included in most of them. No translation is perfect but the Holy Spirit can still use them. I do not trust the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses or paraphrases like The Message.. What exactly is the New World translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses? It is put out by the Watchtower society and is not in fact a translation. In court the person who wrote it could not even identify the letters of the greek alphabet let alone translate any greek. So the first chapter of John says that the Word was a god, and other areas are altered that affect the divinity of Christ since they believe He is just an angel.

That sounds like quite a good idea. Thank you. I do have a good idea every once in a while. Oh, and if you go to a bookstore and they don't have the 4 that you want all in one Bible, ask the if they can get those particular 4 together. You almost can always get at least the 3 you like best in one book with a 4th one to go along with them. There are SEVERAL options.

You tube has a really good debate on this subject.

Please provide the proof of what you assert. Especially the statement of burning in hell for reading anything else!

I am saying that where there are differences between the New American Standard Version (and other newer versions) and the New King James version, I will take the NKJV, or Young's or the 1910 American Standard Version. I will take litteral translations over thought for thought versions like NIV. But I would urge people to read any bible that they can understand. The Gospel is included in most of them. No translation is perfect but the Holy Spirit can still use them. I do not trust the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses or paraphrases like The Message..

if its not the original 1611 version of the KJV then it is an abomination in Gods eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! no just kidding. I prefer literal translations such as the KJV and the NASB, the more literal the more accurate. Ill study out of the ESV on occasion to, it is a bit easier to understand. There are a lot of different translations out there, some better then others. Many do water it down, I won't say dont use them as long as they get the important parts right-such as the NIV. Its watery, but it does have the core message there. Other translations, such as the message, id just as soon burn as call them translations. I do have a copy of the message-right next to my copy of the Koran.

I prefer the Byzantine Majority text used by Tyndale and the KJV translators. The Critical text was very good as in the American Standard Version which used the alexandian text Codus Vaticanus (also used by Jerome in translating the catholic bible). It is very close to the Majority text. I consider Young's translation of Textus Receptus to be one of the most literal, and The American Standard Version the most literal of the Codus Vaticanus. But for the New American Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version they used the Codus Alexandrinus from Alexandria Egypt, which left out major portions and changed others to fit the doctrine of a gnostic-christian cult that was predominate there. While this is the oldest most complete text, it is also the most corrupt and major portions are omitted; this is the basis for the Nestle-Aland 21st edition greek text used by most new Bible versions.. The basis for calling the text of the newest versions the "best" is also partly because it is shorter and leave things out, which is ludicrous to me. I find the versions based on Nestle-Aland 21 to be less reliable, even though NASV is the most literal translation of that text. It is worth comparing to other texts and I used it for many years. I most often read the NKJV, but do refer to the NASV occasionally. I more often compare to Amplified Version, Youngs Literal Transation, Analytical-Literal Translation third edition, and Wuest's Expanded Translation. The latter 2 are only New Testaments but do more to translate the greek tenses and grammer more correctly into English.

Does it matter that its missing? I only ask because everytime a KJV only person has used that argument I have never once found the meaning to have changed. If the meaning is the same then squabbling over which specific word is used seems a bit pointless to me. Do you think the meaning of the overall passage has changed? Of course then one also needs to prove that the KJV was accurate in including whatever it was that they included and others were not accurate by leaving it out. Often the assumption made by people is that if it is in the KJV then it must be correct. That is not a reasonable assumption in my opinion. Shall not is an absolute negative, it's definitely not going to perish. The actual Greek word is a qualified negative Might not or should not.... but not definitely not. Meaning if you believe you don't have to perish, but you are not promised not to perish for there is more to it than that....... and you can use this mistranslated verse to think you are saved simply because you believe and feel good all the way to hell. That's why it's dangerous. I'm not a KJV only person, but you really do need that Interlinear Bible to look these kinds of things up. Even the latest NASB mistranslates this verse. So I use the early 1970's version NASB to read, but keep the KJV to compare. I have not found anywhere in that version of the NASB that would disagree with the two sets of manuscripts in my Interlinear Bible program. that is not the same in the KJV. John 21:15-17 where Jesus is asking if Peter loves him has two separate Greek words that are translated Love..... they are not the same meaning and the third time Jesus asks him if he loved him, he uses a different Greek word with a much less affectionate meaning than the first two times he asked. It would be similar to asking if you love me and me getting the answer that we are good friends, and the last time asking if we are really good friends. This is in every Bible I've ever read. Doesn't really matter toward salvation, but is just an example of needing to be aware that any time you translate things between two languages sometimes little things get lost.

amen to that...

out of curiosity where do you find these rules? If they are not listed in the front of the KJV bible then it is not real useful. Considering the KJV translators did not want to put in useful notes because they thought they were bad and/or unhelpful. In any case we can look at surrounding verses and see that it is talking to people in general not Moses specifically. Not sure where I found this particular one, I may have found it here on Worthy. I do copy things from here when I like them, and I make no money from anything I copy. The KJV translators probably didn't put in the kjv because at the time on translation it was not needed. It is only needed no that we far removed from those days. I don't know that they thought it bad/unhelpful most likely it was not needed at the time 400 years ago; only now it is needed. It was not hard to find and anyone can find this type of info. here is the info I used to decide which version I want to use, anyone can look here and get help to decide their choice. http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/mcelroy-nkjv.html and here is another version of the rule I posted from a different site http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/bacon-theethou.html And yet another version of the rule http://brandplucked.webs.com/theeandye.htm Im not here saying the kjv is the best or only Bible; I am saying this is how I decided and so can anyone else if they read these articles.

I prefer the Interlinear Bible where I can read how it was written when it was written, comparing the original to the translations.

That sounds like quite a good idea.

Does it matter that its missing? I only ask because everytime a KJV only person has used that argument I have never once found the meaning to have changed. If the meaning is the same then squabbling over which specific word is used seems a bit pointless to me. Do you think the meaning of the overall passage has changed? Of course then one also needs to prove that the KJV was accurate in including whatever it was that they included and others were not accurate by leaving it out. Often the assumption made by people is that if it is in the KJV then it must be correct. That is not a reasonable assumption in my opinion.

I like KJV but since it is a little harder to understand I reAd NKJV :-)

I have what is known as the Parallel Bible. They have 4 different translations all together on one page. I really like it because you can compare verses side by side. They come in different groups of translations. It's not as thick as you might think. I provided a link to an Amazon page search for them.

Loss of "thee" and "thou" Please decide what God is saying to Moses: "And the LORD said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?" (Exodus 16:28, NKJV) It looks like God is saying, "Moses, you are continuing to refuse to keep My commandments and My laws." But look carefully at the accurate King James: "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" KJV Now we understand! It was the people, not Moses, that God was upset with. "Ye" and "you" mean more than one person. "Thee," "thou," "thy," "thine," "doeth," "hast," etc., only mean one person. How do we know? The "y" is plural. The "t" is singular. Isn't that easy? Now you know what Jesus meant when He said to Nicodemus, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7). And then there is the therefore rule “ Anytime you see the word therefore back up 10 to 15 verses and make Sure what the therefore is for” I like the kjv, I have bought several and before I did I searched the internet for omissions in bibles, and so I kept with the kjv after some research. These rules help me read kjv.

For the Old Testament, I use the Brenton's LXX since that is what the New Testament authors quoted from most. http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/ For the New Testament, I use Ivan Panin's NENT since it's based off the oldest texts and is strictly translated. http://www.ubp1.org/pdf/NENT.pdf

I mostly use the NASB but many time use the ESV and the NKJV. Of course nothing compares to the Psalms in the KJV they are simply majestic. As to which one is more accurate - most agree with one another and where they don't I consult the Greek texts. I like to think that God didn't make all the Scriptures easy to understand because some of them He wants us to mine more deeply. Any way - may God bless you all, Pat

Yes, it was. There have been a few others but this was the first one translated this way.

I use the NASB for its word for word accuracy. I also use the New King James. I use other versions but not as frequently as those two. And I sometimes use the KJV just for quotes when speaking to others since some people object to other versions

NASB is certainly very good, but I prefer the English Standard Version. Bless you. Edwin.

I've heard from several different sources that the NASB (New American Standard Bible) is the most accurate word-for-word translation but I'm not a Hebrew / Greek scholar by any means.