Changes Made in the NASB 1995 Update

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Craigbythesea, Jan 24, 2004.

  1. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Hi! I am looking for detailed information regarding the changes made in the NASB 1995 Update, and also for opinions regarding these changes. [​IMG]
     
  2. go2church

    go2church
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,304
    Likes Received:
    6
    Mostly they took out the thee's and thou's. Didn't really make it much more readable. Still a good translation.
     
  3. Marathon Man

    Marathon Man
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2001
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try this:

    http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasbcmp.php


    Personally, I welcome the changes and have found them to make the translation more readable, yet without compromising its high standards of accuracy. Without the changes, I would've switched to the ESV as my primary Bible.
     
  4. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Guys, Thank you for your help.

    Further responses would be appreciated.
     
  5. Jason Evers

    Jason Evers
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still a good translation huh? Is that why the NASB says David didnt kill Goliath? According to 2 Samuel 21:19 in the NASB it says that Elhanan slew Goliath. Now i thought it was David, but since it is a good and some say better preversion then who am i to agrue with?

    Take care and God bless!
    Jason
    1Cor. 15:58
     
  6. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even mine? :D
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which Goliath are you referring to?

    Notice the phrase "the brother of", as per the KJV, is in italics - in other words, it has been *added* to the KJV. It is not in the Hebrew. Does the Hebrew deny David killed Goliath? Is the Hebrew a perversion as well?
     
  8. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Jason Evers wrote,

    Jason,

    Thank you for your post. As BrianT pointed out, the KJV says exactly the same thing if you ignore the words in italic type that are an addition to the English text rather than a translation of the Hebrew text.

    The problem is, therefore, not with the NASB, but with the Hebrew text from which both the KJV and the NASB were translated.

    2Sa 21:19 -
    The Hebrew text is manifestly very corrupt. First, for “Jaare-oregim,” 1Ch_20:5 gives us the reading Jair. “Oregim” has evidently got in by a transcriber’s error from the line below, where “oregim” is the Hebrew for “weavers.” Again, the word the “Bethlehemite” is very doubtful. It is supported by 2Sa_23:24, but it is not found in the far purer text of 1Ch_20:5, but instead of it we find the name of the Philistine slain by Elhanan, “Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite.” It is probable, therefore, that either the words “the Bethlehemite,” are a corruption of “Lahmi,” or that the recurrence of “Lahmi,” and the termination of “Beth-lehemite” has confused the transcriber, and led to the omission of one of the words in each text. (from Barnes on the Old Testament)

    2Sa 21:19 -
    Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim - slew - Goliath the Gittite - Here is a most manifest corruption of the text, or gross mistake of the transcriber; David, not Elhanan, slew Goliath. In 1Ch_20:5, the parallel place, it stands thus: “Elhanan, the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear-staff was like a weaver’s beam.” This is plain; and our translators have borrowed some words from Chronicles to make both texts agree. The corruption may be easily accounted for by considering that ארגים oregim, which signifies weavers, has slipped out of one line into the other; and that בית הלחמי beith hallachmi, the Beth-lehemite, is corrupted from את לחמי eth Lachmi; then the reading will be the same as in Chronicles. Dr. Kennicott has made this appear very plain in his First Dissertation on the Hebrew Text, p. 78, etc. (Adam Clarke)
     
  9. Jason Evers

    Jason Evers
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well i am sorry for calling it the NASB because it is a version not a Bible.

    But in the King James Bible there is only one mention of one Goliath. And the italized words were put in so to make sense in the English language. Which you have to do when translating from one verse to another. Such as if you took the italized words out of Psalms 7:11 "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry every day." So God is angry every day?

    And i am glad to know there are people here that know their Hebrew. I looked up Jaareoregim in the Strongs Concordence and the funny thing was it says see Jair. But with that aside, not only do you believe that the Hebrew text are corrupt but as well as the KJB and the NASV? When the KJB and NASV use different sets of manuscipts. KJB comes from the Textus Recptus. I don't believe the NASV comes from that set! So basically you don't believe God preserved his words like He said he would in Psalms 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7: Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." But of course the manuscripts here must be corrupt also since most of the other versions change this to God keeping people.
    If you believe that the Word of God, KJB for english speaking people, is currupt along with the manuscripts they are translated from; How can you believe Jesus died for you sins if you can't even trust the Word God has given us?

    Something interesting about the NASV is it matches totally with the JW's Bible.
    John 1:18 - "The only begotten Son, ... He hath declared Him."-KJB
    N.A.S.V John 1:18 - "The only begotten God, ... He has explained Him." So according to this "better translation" Jesus was a begotten God and that means there wasn't a deity!
    Not to mentions NASV omittions such as Acts 8:37 on the eunuchs profession of salvation. Some NASV's put a margin note casting doubt on the scriptures. Here is a link to all the changes in the NASV http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nasv.txt

    I will leave you with a quote from a NASV committee Member
    "I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Hort and Wescott's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"--Dr. Frank Logsdon.

    I will pray that God opens the eyes of the baptist on this site. That they see that they have the pure Word of God for the english people. That God exposes these perversions for what they are! Another baptist forum takes up most of my time so i may not get to post much. Take care and God bless!

    Jason
    1Cor. 15:58
     
  10. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Jason, Jason, Jason! [​IMG] Let’s get the facts straight before we post! Here is the true story about Dr. Frank Logsdon: :(

    Dr. Frank Logsdon Not On the Committee
    of the New American Standard Bible
    by Gary R. Hudson

    A "testimony tape" regarding a so-called "ex-committee member of the New American Standard Bible" has been circulated by David Otis Fuller’s "Which Bible? Society" and Peter Ruckman’s bookstore for the past twenty-two years plus. The speaker on this tape is Dr. Franklin Logsdon, who claims to have worked on the NASV committee. Logsdon, now deceased, made the claim that he had "seen the truth" regarding the KJV as a direct result of reading David Otis Fuller’s books. He was thus led to renounce all ties to the NASV and denounce both its translation and its underlying Greek NT text. Fuller, elated and "vindicated," also published a tract containing Logsdon’s testimony.
    Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions, also sells Logsdon’s "From NASV to KJV" tape from her organization, AV Publications. Inside the title page of her book, Gail reproduces the following transcript from Logsdon’s "testimony:"
    "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard...I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface...You can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct...If you must stand against everyone else, stand. Dr. Frank Logsdon"
    When I was a Ruckmanite, I used to sit around with my KJO friends and listen to Logsdon’s tape. In fact, the first man to introduce me to Ruckman’s teachings also gave me a copy of Logsdon’s cassette. It seemed like "part of the package" the man delivered me in my initial indoctrination, along with other tapes and books by Ruckman, Fuller, Waite--and last but not least--my new and advised subscription to E. L. Bynum’s "Plains Baptist Challenger." This was in Gainesville, Florida, during the Spring of 1979.
    Recently, I was reading a new book by Dr. Robert L. Thomas, which is titled, How To Choose A Bible Version (Christian Focus Publications, 2000). In discussing the New American Standard Updated Edition Bible that came out in 1995, Dr. Thomas mentioned the fact that the list of original translators of the NASV has now been published by the Lockman Foundation. This aroused some personal interest, not only to obtain this list of translators but to see if Frank Logsdon was listed as one of them.
    Yesterday, I telephoned the offices of the Lockman Foundation and spoke with a representative. This person, upon my request, emailed me the Foundation’s official list of all of the original NASV translators. Dr. Logsdon’s name does not appear anywhere on this list.
    I had also asked for information concerning any involvement of a Dr. Franklin Logsdon with the original translation of the NASV. Regarding Dr. Logsdon was the following information in the same email message I received from the Lockman Foundation:
    "The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the NEW AMERICAN
    STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late 1950’s following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman’s death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered ‘co-founder’ of the NASB, nor part of the Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward to the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions -- once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an ‘inspirational thought.’
    "Mr. Logsdon last wrote to Mr. Lockman in fall of 1973 that he was moving to Florida. Mr. Lockman replied that he was surprised and saddened by his decision to leave the area. Mr. Lockman passed away in January of 1974, and no further correspondence was exchanged between Frank Logsdon and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago."
    (Carole Holdinski, The Lockman Foundation; email, 9/26/00, to Gary Hudson; emphasis mine).
    The above represents a most unambiguous statement on Logsdon’s true involvement with the NASB and the Lockman Foundation, i.e., zero! On his testimony tape, Logsdon claimed to be the author of the NASB’s preface, as he also claims in the above quote taken directly from Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions. The Lockman Foundation says that Logsdon most certainly did not "write the forward to the NASB," that Logsdon never was "part of the translation team," and that "he cannot be considered ‘co-founder’ of the NASB."
    The paper trail of propaganda and deceit from the major players in King James Onlyism continues to abound. To the deliberate deception and distorted editing of David Otis Fuller, the plagiaristic writing of J. J. Ray, the inaccuracies of Ruckman, Chick, Riplinger, Gipp, Maynard, Cloud, Wilkinson, and Grady et al., we must now add the fraud and deception of S. Franklin Logsdon, the so-called "ex-NASV translator." Frank Logsdon, the one heralded by Fuller for so many years as "renouncing his work with the NASB" and turning to King James Onlyism is now on record as having misled many as to his alleged involvement. No doubt, Ruckman and Riplinger will continue to sell Logsdon’s tape to the masses of unsuspecting, uninformed King James Onlys who will go right on believing Logsdon’s deliberately fabricated "testimony."
     
  11. Jason Evers

    Jason Evers
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    First off i want to apologize for posting the title to the quote. I DO CHECK FACTS before posting. But i was under the consideration that he was a committee member. However he only helped a friend in the matter of launching the NASV. The problem i see going more indepth after posting this is that both sides do not have total facts.

    But as i do check facts before posting, i have found facts on the NASV. The facts that it attacks the blood of Christ, attackes the virgin birth, the deity, the Christ-ship of Jesus, etc. For instants Luke 2:33 the NASV changes Joseph to father reading "And His father and mother were amazed at the thingswhich were being said about Him." the KJB reads "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things that were spoken of him."
    Now Joseph was not Jesus' father. If your continue to read in the chapter verse 48-49 Jesus himself corrects Mary on the same thing! Mary asks "......Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Verse 49 Jesus tells "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" Basically Jesus said i was about my Father's business how could Mary and my father not know where i was?
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Jason,

    Please more carefully check out your claims regarding the NASB. For example, the Greek text of Luke 2:33 varies considerably from manuscript to manuscript giving us four readings, each one of which is found in several or more manuscripts. The reading chosen and translated by the NASB translators has by far the best manuscript evidence in support of it. Check this out for yourself! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  13. Jason Evers

    Jason Evers
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't take this the wrong way, but i just love when you brig out obvious faults in the new versions people say, well the translators of those versions have the best manuscripts available. So instead of answering to this verse in the NASV, the manuscripts the translators choose....which by the way conflicts thousands and countless times with each other. Don't for get the Serpent in the garden of Eden when he said "Yea hath God said?" The first time God's word was preverted.

    I have carefully checked out these "new" versions. And they are corrupt and not of God! Either God perserved his word or He didn't. My Bible (KJB) says that God is Jesus' Father. The NASV and others say Joseph was his father. Do you not see that Jesus corrected Mary when she called joseph his father?
    And just now, checking out the NASV....Reading 1John 5. The NASV totally omitts verse 7 that reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." They skip this verse 7 and make verse 8, verse 7.
    The NASV bares very closely to the JW's Bible, now what a group to agree with!
    Another example..... My Bible tells me to study the Word of God. You will only find the word study once in your NASV and that is in the book of Ezra 7:10. In my Bible i am told in 2 Tim. 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." The NASV says "Be diligent to (37) present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling (38) the word of truth. " Be diligent? Any one can be diligent.
    I doubt that i am going to move those who are stuck on the false manuscripts and such. But i pray that someone that is searching for the truth comes across just these few mistakes in the NASV and see that it can't be of God, God doesn't make mistakes, God did preserve his Word!
    If there are any Independent fundamental baptist here, please contact me by my profile. And if your are not an independent fundamental.....well contact me any way. I always enjoy talking to fellow Christians!

    Jason
    1Cor. 15:58
     
  14. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Hi Jason! [​IMG]

    I didn't notice till last night that you were even newer to this message board than I am, and that you are a very young man. Upon learning these things, I felt very badly because of the lack of love toward you that I expressed in my posts. :( Please forgive me. I truly want to be your friend and I have added you to my daily prayer list. [​IMG]

    You seem to have very strong negative feelings toward the NASB and you say things about it which I have seen many times in KJBO literature and posts on message boards. But Jason, these things are not true.

    My knowledge of the NASB did not come from books or posts on message boards. My knowledge of the NASB came from very many fruitful hours of reading it and studying it, and from using it as the Bible text in my young adults Sunday school class where the students were very much blessed by it.

    The NASB was produced by a non-profit organization (the Lockman Foundation) made up of very fine people who love God and love His word. They also love the King James Version and the translation philosophy behind it. The Hebrew and Greek texts from which they translated the NASB is nearly identical to the Hebrew and Greeks texts from which the King James Version was translated.

    I know that King James Bible Only advocates make many claims to the effect that the NASB is not the word of God and that it is a horrible distortion of the truth. But Jason, I ask that you continue to check out these claims for yourself, very carefully and prayerfully. As a young man I learned the importance of praying earnestly every day that God would teach me His truths and protect me from error. Today I began praying that prayer for you also, and I hope that you will begin praying that prayer for yourself and your wife.

    And Jason, in the mean time I want to be your friend and help you in any way that I can. Please send me an e-mail if you need anything or have needs for me to pray with you about. Or if you just want to chat, that is fine too. Again, please forgive me for not being a better friend sooner. :(

    Jesus loves you, Jason, a whole lot more that you could possibly even begin to imagine. Take care! [​IMG]

    Your friend and brother in Christ,

    Craig
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Prob is, Jason, you haven't gotten past the BASICS of the KJVO myth. Let's look:

    Do you believe God has preserved His word in every language in which He's presented it, from the time He first presented it till now?

    If "Yes", does this include English?

    If "Yes", let's assume, for this discussion, that the first "modern English" complete Bible is the Tyndale. Not counting differences in spelling, is the Tyndale Bible different from the AV 1611?

    If "yes", then how can you say that God is limited to just the one version in English, unless it's the Tyndale Bible, the FIRST one?

    See? This alone shows KJVO to be a lie.

    Now-Do ONLY modern versions call Joseph Jesus' father? Newp! Look at Luke 2:43 in the KJV for starters. And I DID read your comments on that matter. Let me now make MY comments:

    First, J&M knew exactly who Jesus was. Gabriel had explained it to Mary, Joseph had several visions from God, and it's very improbable that they didn't exchange their info, seeing as how they were married. Speaking of marriage, J married M BEFORE jesus was born, making him Jesus' father by the laws & customs of man. Reinforcing this is the fact that Joseph was the man who raised & provided for Jesus during His human childhood. And, did Jesus correct Mary in Luke 2 for calling Joseph His father? Newp! He simply reminded her of who His HEAVENLY FATHER is. Not once did He say, "Joseph is not My father; he's merely your husband."

    As for "study"-The Greek word in 2 Timothy rendered "study" is 'spoudazo', which means, "try hard, endeavor, work diligently, or to make haste". Look it up for yourself, or, better yet, if you know a Greek speaker, just ask him/her. As for "study", we NOW generally define it as a verb to apply one's mental faculties to the acquisition of knowledge. In Elizabethan English, it also meant to apply oneself or work diligently.

    Also, the KJV renders 'spoudazo' as "be diligent" in Titus 3:12 and in 2 Peter 3:14. See, you MUST check out the "facts" presented by KJVOs for yourself. Many of them have a habit of using double standards such as the one above, or just plain LYING sometimes. You just cannot safely believe a word they say at face value.

    As for "Yea, hath God said?", I suggest you check out, "Yea, hath KJVO said?" They sometimes substitute THEIR ideas for God's words, saying things God hasn't said nor hinted at.

    Actually, it's the other way around with the Jehovah False Witness "bible", the New World Translation. IT RESEMBLES A REAL BIBLE. One of their big shots, Fred Franz, and his buddy George Gangas, sat down with a copy of the RV and "corrected' it to fit JW doctrine. They rendered "God" and "Lord" as "Jehovah" throughout, and added, subtracted, or twisted various verses to suit themselves, such as rendering John 1:1 as " ...the Word was **A**god".They finished their piece of work in 1950. Significantly, Franz & Gangas knew little Greek and virtually no Hebrew at all, yet they made a "translation". Outstanding.

    Now, please ask yourself this: IS KJVO OF GOD, OR MAN??????? If from God, WHERE'S THE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT????????

    Methinks you've been deceived from reading some groddy KJVO article such as those written by Terry Watkins, full of misstatements easily proven false with about an hour's study time. Please study BOTH SIDES of the issue, and never,NEVER take any KJVO's word for anything concerning Bible versions!
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Robycop... but even further Jason, never, never take a non-KJVO's word without "proving" it.

    Don't put your trust in us or them. Put your trust first and foremost in the scripture. If someone is telling you to believe something or that God said something that is not proven by the Bible (KJV or otherwise) then red flags should go up everywhere. Learn the facts. Listen honestly and openly to both sides... not only what they believe but the evidence and logic used to refute the other side.

    Additionally, weigh the general spirit of those who argue for each side as compared to what the Bible teaches you. None of us are perfect and this debate seems to bring out the worst in many of us. But in general, you should see a difference in how adherents of one belief treat those that disagree with them.

    I used to be KJVO. A number of things contributed to changing my mind... not the least of which was the attitude of KJVO's that I knew personally and through their writings.

    If KJVO is true, I am completely and totally willing to accept it. But scripture commands that we prove all things and hold to that which is true. In that spirit, I request biblical or factual proof of what KJVOnlyism claims. The responses have many times been argumentative, emotional, and even personal... but they have never lined up as true.
     
  17. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Robycop3,

    Thank you for your outstanding post and your distinctly Christian manner. [​IMG]
     
  18. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Scott,

    Thank you for your outstanding post and your distinctly Christian manner. [​IMG] . And thank you for encouraging Jason to study both sides of the issue and weigh them carefully in the light of the concerns that you addressed. [​IMG]
     
  19. Jason Evers

    Jason Evers
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop3,

    "that the first "modern English" complete Bible is the Tyndale. Not counting differences in spelling, is the Tyndale Bible different from the AV 1611?"

    Was the Tyndale Bible the "complete" Word of God? According to Amazon.com Tyndale Bible's old testament contained the first five books of Moses, and included the Matthew's Bible old testament of "The Book of Joshua, The Book of the Judges, The Book of Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of the Kings, The Second Book of the Kings, The Chronicles of the Kings of Juda. The First Book, The Chronicles of the Kings of Juda. The Second Book, The Prologue to the Prophet Jonas, The Story of the Prophet Jonas--" The reformation bible were not a complete Word of God in english language.

    I will say you are right on the word study. I just read the NASV and the KJV and didnt check the greek like i normally do. That is my fault. But i do have a few problems with somethings you said....such as
    --"Many of them have a habit of using double standards such as the one above, or just plain LYING sometimes. You just cannot safely believe a word they say at face value." Am i to safely take your word at face value? Like when you say my KJB says "Now-Do ONLY modern versions call Joseph Jesus' father? Newp! Look at Luke 2:43 in the KJV for starters." Please everyone read Luke 2:43 with me here "And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it." Funny i dont see the KJB calling Joseph, Jesus' father. But i should take your word for it right?

    Is KJVO of God or man? Obiviously as you have shown it is of Man. It is a label men give me for believing the KJB to be the pure Word of God in english. I have even been called a ruckmanite...by the way i have never read or heard anything about ruckman, until i was called one and had to see what people were calling me! Please note i will not label someone for using another version....nor do i call them liars for using them.

    If you think i have been deceived from reading some "groddy KJVO article"..... you're wrong! I looked at key doctrinal verses out of these "new versions" and saw that these new versions are perversions. And when i got labeled names....i went and searched what these names were. So since you seem to speak bad about Terry Watkins articles i will have to find out how he is. I have never heard of him before. But i guess i was deceived by his articles. I noticed when i stand for the KJB that you went all out on the group "KJVOnlyist" If that is a label i must wear so be it. Just like i wear the label Baptist because of the doctrines i hold, but I am a follower of Jesus Christ!
    Robycop3 i have a question for you, (hate me for this if you will, i do read articles, but his is from www.Chick.com) if you use other versions as well. What do you do when you are faced in a "debate" with a JW? When you try to tell him that Jesus Christ is not a created God. When he shows you John 1:18 and it reads "only begotten God" and you pull out the NIV and it says the same thing?! Or the JW argues the trinity with you and you pull out the "Good News for Modern Man" and it says "There are three witnesses?! And so you pull out your NASV and it says "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth"?! So you go for the New King James.....and its there! only with a huge footnote attached to it casting doubt that it should even be there!

    I do want to thank Scott and Craig for your sincerity. Craig i love to chat with people on anything....my AIM is: Unmovable1611 if your up for a chat, or anyone for that matter. But please don't let my age or newness to this message board effect how you see my knowledge of the Bible. The Holy Spirit just moved me to post on this topic...i myself don't plan on posting much here because of the many liberal baptist and other things. I don't have strong negative feelings for the NASV, but its for all the new translations. I just didnt see any other topics on other versions that led me to post on. And just for the record i believe the NASV may contain words of God, but is not the Word of God in the english language.
    Sorry for the long post. I usually try to keep them short.

    Jason
    1Cor. 15:58
     
  20. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Jason, [​IMG]

    Thank you for continuing to share with us. I read your post very carefully and it blessed me to read about your love for God and His word. It also blessed me to read about your diligent pursuit of the truth. When I was your age I thought that the Bible was nothing but trash and that Jesus was no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. So you see, you have a very big head start on me. [​IMG]

    And Jason, if it was not for a 20 year old Baptist man named Ricky who befriended me and spent hours sharing his faith with me I may not be a Christian today. Your love for God and His word is truly inspiring and I am very thankful for you and for what our Savior is doing in your life. Keep up the good work. I am going to continue to pray for you, and if you want to, you can pray for me. God is awesome! Thank you again for your post. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...