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 bible

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by brobobby, Mar 29, 2004.

  1. brobobby

    brobobby New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Ratings:
    +0
    Is the king james bible the only bible worth reading? Are the others corrupt?
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    This question should really be in the Versions forum where it can get a proper discussion.
     
  3. Watchman

    Watchman New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,706
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hello brobobby. As you can see in the topics on the board, there is a whole forum, the versions forum, that has, as it seems, the primary discussion on just this very thing.
    The KJVO (King James Version Only) debate is a relatively new thing with the proliferation of newer versions.
    You are going to make up your own mind on this, so I can only give an opinion here:
    All of them are the word of God.
    However, there are those that I prefer over others, and when I discover a new version, I find myself going to certain passages in them to see how they read and if I don't like the reading of those passages, I won't read them again.
    What seems, to me, among members here is that many seem to like the NKJV (New King James Version), and I will add my voice to them. It keeps a lot of the beauty of the KJV, while doing away with the archaic and outdated words. For example, doesn't it make sense to convert "furlongs" to miles? "Firkins" to gallons?
    The NKJV keeps a lot of what the KJV does right,
    Example: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" is the very best way to say that passage.
    The NKJV changes some things that the KJV gets wrong,
    Example: "The love of money is the root of all evil", which cannot be, is changed to: "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."
    But, dispite being a good and reasonable upedate, the, shall I say, rabid KJVO's have attacked it, for no other reason, really, than that it is different.
    I have rambled on here, sorry. You will make up your own mind, but, IMHO, the KJVO's have a weak arguement.
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Ratings:
    +0
    Brobobby
    I agree that you should be in the Bible Versions forum. We have a lot of fun over there. Come on over and visit with us. You will like it.

    Watchman
    In answer to their reason is they claim it was really made from the same texts used by the Modern Versions; however, the Bible is clear as to what it uses. I think what they dislike most are the footnotes that may say something to the effect: "certain manuscripts do not contain verses so-and-so". They see this as part of the Bible. ;)

    The problem is that at least one revision of the KJV have the same footnote, so they now dislike one of their own "editions", not "revisions" to them!
     
  5. Watchman

    Watchman New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,706
    Ratings:
    +0
    Brobobby
    I agree that you should be in the Bible Versions forum. We have a lot of fun over there. Come on over and visit with us. You will like it.

    Watchman
    In answer to their reason is they claim it was really made from the same texts used by the Modern Versions; however, the Bible is clear as to what it uses. I think what they dislike most are the footnotes that may say something to the effect: "certain manuscripts do not contain verses so-and-so". They see this as part of the Bible. ;)

    The problem is that at least one revision of the KJV have the same footnote, so they now dislike one of their own "editions", not "revisions" to them! [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Thank you Phillip for the clarification.
     
  6. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Ratings:
    +1
    Let's move this to the version forum.
    Murph
     
  7. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Ratings:
    +0
    Why not?
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Ratings:
    +0
    Why not? </font>[/QUOTE]Why?
     
  9. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ok, I'll play,

    Because they aren't.
     
  10. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes and Yes.
     
  11. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes and Yes. </font>[/QUOTE]No and No.
     
  12. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes and Yes. </font>[/QUOTE]No and No. </font>[/QUOTE]Homebound is right because are you a CT man?
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes and Yes. </font>[/QUOTE]:D [​IMG]
     
  14. TC

    TC Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,238
    Ratings:
    +33
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No and No. There are many good translation worth reading. NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV(1769), AV1611, GENEVA, TYNDALE'S NT, NIV, NLT, HCSB, ect - All are worth the time and effort to read and study.
     
  15. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Ratings:
    +0
    No and No. There are many good translation worth reading. NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV(1769), AV1611, GENEVA, TYNDALE'S NT, NIV, NLT, HCSB, ect - All are worth the time and effort to read and study. </font>[/QUOTE]Why waste good quality time looking at a counterfeit when you can look at the real thing. [​IMG]
     
  16. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes and Yes. </font>[/QUOTE]No and No. </font>[/QUOTE]Homebound is right because are you a CT man? </font>[/QUOTE]That are other BV's that I trust, along with the KJV. The other BV's are equally as valid as the KJV.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,579
    Ratings:
    +22
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes and Yes. </font>[/QUOTE]Proof, please?
     
  18. TC

    TC Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,238
    Ratings:
    +33
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Proof please? Where (chapter and verse) does any Bible say that any of these - NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV(1769), AV1611, GENEVA, TYNDALE'S NT, NIV, NLT, HCSB - is a counterfiet?
     
  19. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Ratings:
    +0
    Proof please? Where (chapter and verse) does any Bible say that any of these - NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV(1769), AV1611, GENEVA, TYNDALE'S NT, NIV, NLT, HCSB - is a counterfiet? </font>[/QUOTE]Believing that the King James Bible is the standard, and the rest is not is my proof.
     
  20. TC

    TC Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,238
    Ratings:
    +33
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since you call other versions that are not the KJV counterfiets, it is up to you to prove it. Otherwise, retract you allegations.
     
Loading...