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. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Homebound:psalm 12:6 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.


    The very same verses are found in older as well as newer BVs. The Geneva Bible has HIM rather than THEM in V.7. BY WHAT AUTHORITY did the AV translators change it?

    Also, it's been a L-O-O-N-G time since the "this generation" of David. Now, since God has preserved His word since at least that generation of C.1K BC, where was it in English in 1610? And does "for ever" include all the time from 1611 to date or not?


    The King James Bible has been around for over 400+ years claiming that it alone is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God and I think that has some weight as it being the word of God preserved.

    Please show us the Scripture for that claim, which will NOT be a Scripture of general preservation. And please show us, from the extra-Scriptural writings of the AV translators, or those makers of subsequent KJV editions, where this claim is written. That shouldn't be too hard, should it? Perhaps I've missed it in my eight KJV copies or my two replica AV 1611s.
     
  2. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    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. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmmmm! I must have lost something somewhere. I always thought that the original manuscripts were the standard. . . I'll use my parallel Bible as a better standard---not only does it contain the KJV it contains Bibles that "I" can understand; written in a language much closer to what I speak. Thus sayest methinks! ;)
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Psalm 12:6 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.

    The King James Bible has been around for over 400+ years claiming that it alone is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God and I think that has some weight as it being the word of God preserved.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Along with its textual variants too? So you say that nobody had a Bible until the 1611 KJV translation of the Bible came about?
    </font>[/QUOTE]No, what I am saying is that when the King James Bible was published, it was/is the final authority.

    1 Cor 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, Homebound, a question for ye, please:

    Which version of the KJV is the "complete and correct one"? 1611, 1769, other
    (I'll make it easy and give you multiple choice on that.)

    Oh, and one more, plase:

    Why is the Apocrypha not considered part of our Bible if it was in the original KJV?

    In all seriousness, could you answer these please?
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quote from "The Journey from Texts to Translations" partial quote according to the Fair copyright laws of the United States copyright and trademark code:

    Title of Chapter (The New King James Version Its history)
    "Sam Moore, president of the Thomas Nelson Corp, which claims to be the world's leading bible publisher, believed that the vast majority of Americans prefer the King James Bible, and thus he proposed a new revision of it. ............

    ..............(left out--unrelated)...............

    (my note: this became NKJV)............
    ...............Advertising for the New King James Version claims that it is the fifth major revision of the King James Version and the first since 1769. To arrive at this number the publishers counted only the revisions of 1629, 1638, 1762 (by Thomas Paris), and 1769 (by Benjamin Blayney) as legitimate, discounting many other revisions, namely, the Revised Version (1881-1885), American Standard Version (1901), Revised Standard Version (1952), New American Standard Bible (1971), and King James II Version (1971)."

    haha, Boy the guy who wrote this wouldn't be welcome around here. The ASV, RSV and NASB. . . a revision of the KJB. yuk yuk yuk :eek: :rolleyes: [​IMG]
     
  5. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    You know the one that is translated correctly.
     
  6. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK YOU guys I think that is quite enough.When referring to a KJVO person asking questions like where is your evidence and stick with the facts is considered unfair tactics. So stop it right now.
     
  7. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    and while I'm add it knock off this stuff about keeping things in context.

    O.K. the rules of discussion are :
    When referring to KJV only discussions, no facts,no evidence, and no keeping things in context.
     
  8. computerjunkie

    computerjunkie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,827
    Likes Received:
    0
    This thread is great!
    Thread title: nasb bible
    Original post: Is the king james bible the only bible worth reading? Are the others corrupt?

    Definitely not keeping things in context!

    I have a NASB. It's burgundy, large print. I like it. (Just thought I'd throw that into the mix!)

    CJ
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know the one that is translated correctly. </font>[/QUOTE]:D :D :D
     
  10. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why? :confused:
     
  11. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Why? :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]Just because.
     
  12. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    quote from Preface to the New American Standard Bible A.D. 1963:

    "
    The following observations are advanced as justifiable encouragement:

    1. The American Standard Version of 1901 has been in a very real sense the standard for many translations.

    2. It is a monumental product of applied scholarship, assiduous labor and thorough procedure.

    3. It has enjoyed universal endorsement as a trustworthy translation of the original text.

    4. The British and American organizations were governed by rules of procedure which assured accuracy in the completed work.

    5. The American Standard Version, itself a revision of the 1881-1885 edition, is the product of international collaboration, invaluable for perspective, accuracy and finesse.

    6. Unlike many modern translations of the Scriptures, the American Standard Version 1901 retains its acceptability for pulpit reading and for personal memorization.
    "


    My observation:
    Wow, the ASV has been around over 120 years! Isn't longevity a KJVo argument? :rolleyes:
     
  13. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    They don't recognize facts, evidence,or context in thier arguements or reasoning. It is a faith thing with them, so all reasonable discussion is futile.
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why? :confused: </font>[/QUOTE]Just because. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, if I were a KJVo, I would just leave the playground......I would tell the teacher on you, too! :rolleyes:
     
Loading...