1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

NASB or NJK users

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Rich_UK, Mar 6, 2005.

  1. mcgyver

    mcgyver New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am in agreement with the majority consensus:

    The NKJV "flows" better and is easier to read, and the NASB is IMO more literal.

    I like them both....I find myself using the NKJV more of the time for preaching and witnessing as I simply like the way it is written.
     
  2. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
    Hi Nathan,

    Welcome to the Baptist Board! [​IMG]

    I pray that we will be a blessing to you, and you to us.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. new

    new New Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you Craig. I've been lurking for quite a while but finally decided to get a userid and start posting.
     
  4. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz Guest

    Too many "stumps" in either. But then to say the nKJV is translated by the same under"LYING" texts as the KJB? "LYING", Not TRUE, else they would say the same thing, and they don't.

    We are talking about the Word of God here, and not a storybook.

    Much of the nKJV is based upon totally different texts from the KJB
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Do you have proof or clear examples of this statement?

     
  6. WallyGator

    WallyGator New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Likes Received:
    0
    mcgyver,
    I'm with you on this. I'm using NKJV more and more for preaching; but, still use NASB for personal reading. WallyGator
     
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry but that is an all too often retold lie. The NKJV OT is based on the Stutgartensia Hebrew text, which represents the Ben Asher Hebrew textform. The KJV is based on the Bomberg text, which represents the Ben Chayyim Hebrew textform. There are only 8 differences between the two texts which would affect translation, and in all 8 instances the NKJV followed the KJV reading.

    The NKJV NT is based on the same TR the KJV is based on (Stephens 1551 TR). The difference is that the NKJV translators actually followed the TR while the KJV translators departed from it in favor of the Alexandrian text on one occasion and the Latin Vulgate on several occasions. [​IMG]

    [ May 16, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: TCassidy ]
     
  8. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey TCassidy,

    Don't confuse people with the truth, what is wrong with you? [​IMG]

    Bro Tony
     
  9. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NKJV NT is based on the same TR the KJV is based on (Stephens 1551 TR). The difference is that the NKJV translators actually followed the TR while the KJV translators departed from it in favor of the Alexandrian text on one occasion and the Latin Vulgate on several occasions. [Smile]

    Alexandrain text in the KJV! Say it ain't so!
     
  10. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz Guest

    Not so! it's made up, the ONLY place the KJB follows the AT is when the Byzantine and the AT are the same.

    More mv hanky panky
     
  11. FrankBetz

    FrankBetz Guest

    Sorry but that is an all too often retold lie. The NKJV OT is based on the Stutgartensia Hebrew text, which represents the Ben Asher Hebrew textform. The KJV is based on the Bomberg text, which represents the Ben Chayyim Hebrew textform. There are only 8 differences between the two texts which would affect translation, and in all 8 instances the NKJV followed the KJV reading.

    The NKJV NT is based on the same TR the KJV is based on (Stephens 1551 TR). The difference is that the NKJV translators actually followed the TR while the KJV translators departed from it in favor of the Alexandrian text on one occasion and the Latin Vulgate on several occasions. [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]UIf your assumption was true, then why didn't the nKJV tramslators know the difference between God and the antics of the wicked? And then why is it so many equate God with actually doing "evil" as assummed to be an attribute of satan? That fallacy too is derived from nKJV readings, they are NOT the same.
     
  12. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quick question for you Frank.

    Have you ever read a reprint of the AV1611?

    If not then the 1611 will answer some of your questions.
     
  13. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry but that is an all too often retold lie. The NKJV OT is based on the Stutgartensia Hebrew text, which represents the Ben Asher Hebrew textform. The KJV is based on the Bomberg text, which represents the Ben Chayyim Hebrew textform. There are only 8 differences between the two texts which would affect translation, and in all 8 instances the NKJV followed the KJV reading.

    The NKJV NT is based on the same TR the KJV is based on (Stephens 1551 TR). The difference is that the NKJV translators actually followed the TR while the KJV translators departed from it in favor of the Alexandrian text on one occasion and the Latin Vulgate on several occasions. [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]UIf your assumption was true, then why didn't the nKJV tramslators know the difference between God and the antics of the wicked?</font>[/QUOTE]
    Where have you proven that they didn't? At least to as great a degree as the original KJV translators.
    Does anyone know what Frank is saying here? Frank, Can you clarify what your point is here?
    What fallacy are you referring to?
    So? That isn't proof that the NKJV is not an accurate translation of the same underlying texts as the KJV.

    BTW, You might want to "gird up your loins" before taking Doc on. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, no one can argue that he doesn't have a very good grasp on the facts of this issue.
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    </font>[/QUOTE]I am interested in this perspective Frank. I have tried to find specific examples of where the NKJV uses totally different texts than the KJV, especailly if they use the Alexandrian textual body as opposed to the Byzantine body. I would love to see some clear examples of that. Would you care to share that with us please?

    [ May 17, 2005, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  15. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,535
    Likes Received:
    21
  16. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Craigbythesea. That source says:

    //The New King James Version is a conservative revision
    of the King James version that does not make any alterations
    on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text,
    but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie
    the King James version
    .//

    Note that to determine the readings "presumed to underlie
    the King James version" requires textual analysis. Most KJVO
    don't think that anybody but the KJV1769 revisers were allowed
    to do the proper textual analysis.
     
  17. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    DocCas, You know most of us would rather believe our preconceived ideas than truth. One has to read to find the truth.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Blue Falcon:You really recommend the AV 1611? With all the middle "s"s looking like "f"s and "J"s being "I"s, etc., it's a fun read but not a very practical one. "Almoft thou perfuadeft mee to bee a Chriftian."

    According to ye KJVOf, they're identical in their readingf. Anyone who readf the KJV with clarity fhould haue no great contention reading the AV.

    Also, the AV debunks many of the KJVO notions.

    Its preface and other works by the translators, as well as the Apocrypha, are great study tools.

    I SHOULDA mentioned that I also use the KJV currently in use, especially when witnessing to the elderly.

    Trow ye aleays true, BF!
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    NASB is more literal and is from the best manuscripts. However, the NKJV is more readable than the NASB.
     
  20. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, Tom, for putting things back on track!
     
Loading...