Bible versions

[taylor30]

Ok, I think people might be missing something important in this lengthy debate, so I have a request to all the KJV ONLY people out there. Could you please show some scriptures side by side that CLEARLY show that the KJV is more accurate? I don't mean any verses, because each version will have different wording, and that in itself is not proof. I would like a KJV advocate to show me where the KJV preserves a specific doctrine better or more correctly than the NASB. I ask the NASB because that is the Bible I use. This is an honest request. I am a man, and certainly capable of being wrong. If someone on here clearly shows me that the KJV is in fact more accurate than my NASB, I will switch Bibles. I am confident but willing to be proven wrong.

[OneLight]

Taylor, there are verses omitted from the NASB that are in the KJV and NJKV because the NASB uses the critical text (or minority text) and the KJV uses the majority text. This is their main beef.

[OneLight]

This is the basic breakdown as to which translations used which format.

The Alexandrian text-type

(also called Minority Text)

2nd–4th century CE

• This family constitutes a group of early and well-regarded texts, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Most of this tradition appear to come from around Alexandria, Egypt. It contains readings that are often terse, shorter, somewhat rough, less harmonised, and generally more difficult. The family was once thought to be a very carefully edited 3rd century recension but now is believed to be merely the result of a carefully controlled and supervised process of copying and transmission. It underlies most modern translations of the New Testament.
  
• NIV, NAB, TNIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, EBR, NWT, LB, ASV, NC, GNB
  
  The Western text-type
  3rd–9th centuries CE
  
  • This is also very early and comes from a wide geographical area stretching from North Africa to Italy from Gaul to Syria. It is found in Greek manuscripts and in the Latin translations used by the Western church. It is much less controlled than the Alexandrian family and its witnesses are seen to be more prone to paraphrase and other corruptions.
    
  • Vetus Latina

  The Byzantine text-type

  (also called Majority Text)

  5th–16th centuries CE

  [*]This is a group of around 80% of all manuscripts, the majority of which are comparatively very late in the tradition. It had become dominant at Constantinople from the 5th century on and was used throughout the Byzantine church. It contains the most harmonistic readings, paraphrasing and significant additions, most of which are believed to be secondary readings. It underlies the Textus Receptus used for most Reformation-era translations of the New Testament.

  [*]KJV, NKJV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops' Bible, Douay-Rheims, JB, NJB, OSB

[~candice~]

Ok, I think people might be missing something important in this lengthy debate, so I have a request to all the KJV ONLY people out there. Could you please show some scriptures side by side that CLEARLY show that the KJV is more accurate? I don't mean any verses, because each version will have different wording, and that in itself is not proof. I would like a KJV advocate to show me where the KJV preserves a specific doctrine better or more correctly than the NASB. I ask the NASB because that is the Bible I use. This is an honest request. I am a man, and certainly capable of being wrong. If someone on here clearly shows me that the KJV is in fact more accurate than my NASB, I will switch Bibles. I am confident but willing to be proven wrong.

Here Taylor check this out

http://www.hissheep....e_kjv_nasb.html

There is a problem straight off the bat. Let's look at that article's first point, about Matt 6:13.

Here is what the NASB actually says:

¹³ ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from^[a]evil. ^[b][For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’]Footnotes:

1. Matthew 6:13 Or the evil one
2. Matthew 6:13 This clause not found in early mss

This is what your article claims:

Matthew 6:13 KJV "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." NASB puts the last two phrases in brackets and says they are not in the oldest and best texts (which are the Catholic corrupted texts out of Alexandria Egypt). It's a lie that cannot be proven; in fact the opposite is easily proven. Many verses are done this way.

Do pray tell, how exactly has that been handled wrong? Saying "this clause is not found in early mss" is totally accurate. It doesn't change the reading of the next and nor does it change any doctrine.

The rest of the article is equally lacking in solid argument against NASB.

Further, their argument is based on the assumption that the KJV is the gold standard by which all other translations must hold up, which is not true. The original greek and hebrew texts are the gold standard and we seek a translation that accurately conveys the message.

[~candice~]

Goodness me, your proof that NASB is in error is that it is not word for word the same as the KJV? Of course it's not! But that doesn't change doctrine. If THAT is your standard, than anything that isn't word for word greek/hebrew should be considered in error.

I think you are jumping the gun Candice, if you go through the list there are MANY words changed or REMOVED (here is just a part of the list;)

Acts 10:25-26 KJV "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. {26} But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." NASB "And when it came about that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. {26} But Peter raised him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am just a man."" Peter did not accept worship. Jesus did because He is God.

Really? Really?

I think I just rolled my eyes so far back that my retinas detached. Can you please point out the difference between these verses... not in words, because they are different translations, but in meaning and doctrine???

Do you not see, if this is the standard of evidence, why people fight against the KJV-onlyist "doctrine" so much?

[~candice~]

The Authorized Bible was here nearly 400 years before your NASB and it did not need revising

You have removed words, you have added words since the Authorized Version. WHY ?

Surviving for 400 years does not make it the soul authorised version, sorry to say. We did not remove words from the KJV, it was a new, valid, translation...

Unfortunately you have no evidence that the KJV is something we cannot move away from. It's a fine translation but it isn't the only legitimate english translation of scripture.

I get the sense that you think coming up with a translation different to the KJV, is equivalent to changing the bible? Is that right?

[~candice~]

The Authorized Bible was here nearly 400 years before your NASB and it did not need revising

You have removed words, you have added words since the Authorized Version. WHY ?

Surviving for 400 years does not make it the soul authorised version, sorry to say. We did not remove words from the KJV, it was a new, valid, translation...

Unfortunately you have no evidence that the KJV is something we cannot move away from. It's a fine translation but it isn't the only legitimate english translation of scripture.

I get the sense that you think coming up with a translation different to the KJV, is equivalent to changing the bible? Is that right?

Wisdom says do not touch what not is broken, ESPECIALLY if it happens to be GODs holy Word !

I'm not saying the KJV is broken, I'm saying it contained old english and it was valid to use translate the bible into modern english.

But the KJV is not THE bible, it is a translation of the bible. And as such it has no more merit than any other properly translated version.

[~candice~]

The Authorized Bible was here nearly 400 years before your NASB and it did not need revising

You have removed words, you have added words since the Authorized Version. WHY ?

Surviving for 400 years does not make it the soul authorised version, sorry to say. We did not remove words from the KJV, it was a new, valid, translation...

Unfortunately you have no evidence that the KJV is something we cannot move away from. It's a fine translation but it isn't the only legitimate english translation of scripture.

I get the sense that you think coming up with a translation different to the KJV, is equivalent to changing the bible? Is that right?

Wisdom says do not touch what not is broken, ESPECIALLY if it happens to be GODs holy Word !

I'm not saying the KJV is broken, I'm saying it contained old english and it was valid to use translate the bible into modern english.

But the KJV is not THE bible, it is a translation of the bible. And as such it has no more merit than any other properly translated version.

Why do you think what was good enough for every man of GOD like Moody, Spurgeon , Edwards, Wesley etc is not good enough for you or anyone else ?

That isn't really a refutation. That is an appeal to popularity. There is nothing wrong with people using the bible in an old english language if they so choose. Many have done it. There is also nothing wrong with people using the bible in modern english.

Now do you have any PROOF that the KJV is the only english bible we should use, apart from an appeal to popularity, or an appeal to "if it ain't broke"?

[~candice~]

The proof is in the Word " For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart "

Of course you realise this verse itself was not written in KJV old english??? It was written in GREEK, the true bible?

The KJV conveys this Word of God no better or worse than many other translations.

I believe that "modern" Bible versions have been tampered with by satan who is highly underestimated in this wicked, aoostate and reprobate age.

What evidence do you have of that? It's a pretty serious charge.

[Guest shiloh357]

People today make a lot of claims for the KJV that the scholars who trasnslated it did not make for it. I can imaingine that they woudl be embarrassed by the sheer idoloatry of version worship that is taking place where the KJV is concered.

The KJV is, itself a revision of previous English versions. There were previous English versions still in use long after the KJV was created. No one was living under any delusion that the KJV was the only true English Bible. Those settled the US long after 1611 were still using the Geneva Bible. They did not like the King James version. It was never seen as the ONLY English Bible.

KJV onlyism began in the 20th century and is based more conspiracy theories than truth.