PDA

View Full Version : Which is most accurate, the KJV or the NASB?



Tbone
Oct 8th 2008, 09:48 PM
The other day I overheard a conversation between two people who were discussing whether the KJV or the NASB was the most accurate.

Both sides gave numerous examples to support their individual views.

What is the verdict here about the relative merits of these two fine Bible versions? Which do you think is the most accurate, and why?

Rufus_1611
Oct 8th 2008, 09:58 PM
KJV as it is true in every way.

Here's an opinion on the NASB that should be strongly considered...


..."But I finally got to the place where I said, 'Ann, I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?' Well, I went through some real soul searching for about four months, and I sat down and wrote one of the most difficult letters of my life, I think.

"I wrote to my friend Dewey, and I said, ‘Dewey, I don't want to add to your problems,’ ... ‘but I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The only thing I can do--and dear Brother, I haven't a thing against you and I can witness at the judgment of Christ and before men wherever I go that you were 100% sincere,’ (he wasn't schooled in language or anything; he was just a business man; he did it for money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right; I guess nobody pointed out some of these things to him) ‘I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard.’ - Dr. Frank Logsdon, Co-Founder NASB (Source: Rejecting the American Standard Version (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6260443325) by Frank Logsdon - Sermon Audio)

Richard H
Oct 8th 2008, 11:26 PM
KJV as it is true in every way.

Here's an opinion on the NASB that should be strongly considered...

..."But I finally got to the place where I said, 'Ann, I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?' Well, I went through some real soul searching for about four months, and I sat down and wrote one of the most difficult letters of my life, I think.

"I wrote to my friend Dewey, and I said, ‘Dewey, I don't want to add to your problems,’ ... ‘but I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The only thing I can do--and dear Brother, I haven't a thing against you and I can witness at the judgment of Christ and before men wherever I go that you were 100% sincere,’ (he wasn't schooled in language or anything; he was just a business man; he did it for money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right; I guess nobody pointed out some of these things to him) ‘I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard.’ - Dr. Frank Logsdon, Co-Founder NASB (Source: Rejecting the American Standard Version (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6260443325) by Frank Logsdon - Sermon Audio)

Clarification request:
Was he renouncing the ASV (and said "attachments") or the NASB?

Emanate
Oct 9th 2008, 12:50 AM
Clarification request:
Was he renouncing the ASV (and said "attachments") or the NASB?


Good point, they are two very distinct interpretations.

Rufus_1611
Oct 9th 2008, 04:06 AM
Clarification request:
Was he renouncing the ASV (and said "attachments") or the NASB? NASB....‘I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard.’ - Frank Logsdon

Literalist-Luke
Oct 9th 2008, 05:01 AM
The other day I overheard a conversation between two people who were discussing whether the KJV or the NASB was the most accurate.

Both sides gave numerous examples to support their individual views.

What is the verdict here about the relative merits of these two fine Bible versions? Which do you think is the most accurate, and why? Oh boy, let the shooting war begin......

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/5822015413.gifhttp://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/rocketwhore.gif

Literalist-Luke
Oct 9th 2008, 05:06 AM
The KJV has some material that appears to have not been included in the original manuscripts and is suspect as to whether it was actually divinely inspired. In addition, there are numerous translation errors that modern versions have had to correct, including Ezekiel 39:2 and Revelation 5:9 to cite just two example off the top of my head.

That's not to say that you should throw away your KJV Bible by any means, but most people would probably agree that the NASB is the more accurate and reliable of the two. :yes:

ConservChrist
Oct 9th 2008, 05:40 AM
The KJV has some material that appears to have not been included in the original manuscripts and is suspect as to whether it was actually divinely inspired. In addition, there are numerous translation errors that modern versions have had to correct, including Ezekiel 39:2 and Revelation 5:9 to cite just two example off the top of my head.

That's not to say that you should throw away your KJV Bible by any means, but most people would probably agree that the NASB is the more accurate and reliable of the two. :yes:


I agree as well. I have both versions.

In all honesty, I think that, for exposition purposes, it is good to have, no matter which version you own, a concordance. I have both a KJV and an NASB concordance.
Both versions have certain 'faults', so to say, but in my sincere opinion, the NASB is most reliable.

:::


"While preserving the literal accuracy of the 1901 ASV, the NASB has sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention has been given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. In 1995, the text of the NASB was updated for greater understanding and smoother reading. The New American Standard Bible present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1995 printing.



Recent research on the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament has been reviewed, and some passages have been updated for even greater fidelity to the original manuscripts.
Parallel passages have been compared and reviewed.
Verbs that have a wide range of meaning have been retranslated in some passages to better account for their use in the context"


reference from: http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=49

*Hope*
Oct 9th 2008, 05:43 AM
If it's between just those two, I'd choose the NASB.

scourge39
Oct 9th 2008, 06:24 AM
Clarification request:
Was he renouncing the ASV (and said "attachments") or the NASB?

Read the backstory on Logsdon's supposed connection to the NASB and the Lockman Foundation before you accept wholesale what was posted earlier on this thread. He wasn't as closely tied to either as some allege:

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm

9Marksfan
Oct 9th 2008, 12:31 PM
There's also the whole Antioch -v- Alexandrian texts - I would say that the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV on the Antioch side - and the ESV is more accurate than the NASB on the Alexandrian side.

Rufus_1611
Oct 9th 2008, 01:36 PM
Read the backstory on Logsdon's supposed connection to the NASB and the Lockman Foundation before you accept wholesale what was posted earlier on this thread. He wasn't as closely tied to either as some allege:

http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon2.htm

I will recant my statement of "co-founder", though this can be argued effectively I believe (one who is in on the inception of the translation and writes the preface has a significant role what ever that title might be, perhaps, "co-launcher"?) Bottom-line, Logsdon was a friend of Dewey and Logsdon was involved with the NASB. Once he had peers asking him questions about the translation that he could not explain away, Logsdon recanted his involvement for "he was in trouble with the Lord." I do thank you for the link to a supportive article as the article, overall, corroborates my position and I encourage all to read it.

Rufus_1611
Oct 9th 2008, 01:45 PM
There's also the whole Antioch -v- Alexandrian texts - I would say that the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV on the Antioch side - and the ESV is more accurate than the NASB on the Alexandrian side. The NKJV is Alexandrian.

Leemara
Oct 9th 2008, 03:53 PM
Hi new here,

I will give my 2 cents anyway.
I think it depends on the intended audience.
If I was witnessing to a mormon then I would use the KJV but for someone unfamiliar with this text I would use something easier to understand.

Hebrews quote "Scripture is alive and sharper then a two edged sword."
I don't think that this description is meant for the scrolls they had back then to be used as weapons but the spoken word.

I have had the Holy Spirit speak to me out of the children's bible version so I believe that the Holy Spirit is not limited to the copy of the bible that one has.

IBWatching
Oct 9th 2008, 04:03 PM
The NKJV is Alexandrian.

Actually, the NKJV hankered toward the Majority but instead based itself on the "traditional" KJV Greek text, the Textus Receptus, which is in turn based on the Byzantine family of texts, not Alexandrian. If you are going to insist on other people only using the KJV, then you should be more careful what you say about other versions/translations. If you had read the preface to the NKJV, you would have known that what I am saying above is true.

In regards to the OP, I cannot agree that either the KJV or the NASB (or any other major English translation for that matter) is more "accurate" than the other(s) because it leads to these kind of fights. I can only say that my personal opinion is that the NASB is the most "literal" major English translation, and I'll leave it at that.


If I was witnessing to a mormon then I would use the KJV but for someone unfamiliar with this text I would use something easier to understand. ...

Excellent point!

Rufus_1611
Oct 9th 2008, 04:23 PM
Actually, the NKJV hankered toward the Majority but instead based itself on the "traditional" KJV Greek text, the Textus Receptus, which is in turn based on the Byzantine family of texts, not Alexandrian. If you are going to insist on other people only using the KJV, then you should be more careful what you say about other versions/translations. If you had read the preface to the NKJV, you would have known that what I am saying above is true. I have read it and I...don't believe them. Further, the Nestle Aland/UBS manuscripts are clearly not Byzantine and it is these texts the NKJV folks used to ask "hath God said" over and over again throughout their book.


In regards to the OP, I cannot agree that either the KJV or the NASB (or any other major English translation for that matter) is more "accurate" than the other(s) because it leads to these kind of fights. I can only say that my personal opinion is that the NASB is the most "literal" major English translation, and I'll leave it at that.



Excellent point!

keck553
Oct 9th 2008, 04:28 PM
I love the NKJV with the apocrapha. And the added words are clearly identified, which prompts me to the Greek or Hebrew. Plus it's easier to read. NASB is usually my main read though. As far as accuracy, there's nothing better than the Greek or Hebrew to reference any english translation against.

Emanate
Oct 9th 2008, 04:47 PM
My two cents and a quarter.

I strongly prefer the KJV. Not because of the many KV only arguments. I just like the language more than other translations. I also like the NASB and Fox's translation. I just always prefer KJV for language alone. They all have their faults, KJV included.

maasive10
Oct 9th 2008, 04:48 PM
I am not very familiar with the NASB - my church is pretty firm on the KJV - but you have all peeked my interest - May I ask - does the NASB version use the word Hell??? I know that NKJV for some reason has taken the word Hell out of their translation and replaced it with Hades.

Emanate
Oct 9th 2008, 04:51 PM
I am not very familiar with the NASB - my church is pretty firm on the KJV - but you have all peeked my interest - May I ask - does the NASB version use the word Hell??? I know that NKJV for some reason has taken the word Hell out of their translation and replaced it with Hades.

Hades is the Greek counterpart of Hell.

maasive10
Oct 9th 2008, 04:58 PM
Hades is the Greek counterpart of Hell.

I realize this - it just seems that if you were trying to make simpler version, with up to date language - why replace Hades with Hell?? Hell is used more in society now and would be understood directly by a searching unbeliever - I thought that taking out the "thees, thous, believ"est" etc. were to make things more clear - if you were an unbeliever searching for answers about Hell? Would the term Hades not confuse them - maybe even make it seem less of a serious matter?

IBWatching
Oct 9th 2008, 04:58 PM
I have read it and I...don't believe them.

That's your choice.

There are two kinds of KJV only people. The kind that prefer the KJV for themselves, and the kind that prefer it for themselves and for everyone else. The latter camp has little admiration from me.

Tbone
Oct 9th 2008, 05:12 PM
Sorry people, I wasn't trying to start a war, really. I have copies of both the KJV and the NASB and I use them both when I'm studying. That's why in the OP I said "either of these two fine versions" because they are just that.

I agree that it depends on which audience you are trying to reach and for what purpose.

For the record, I am KJVpreferred but when I need to look up something or I'm studying the Scriptures I'll use both the KJV and the NASB. IMO it is the very height of arrogance to tell somebody that their personal choice of a Bible version is incorrect, or not really The Word of God.

keck553
Oct 9th 2008, 05:13 PM
That's your choice.

There are two kinds of KJV only people. The kind that prefer the KJV for themselves, and the kind that prefer it for themselves and for everyone else. The latter camp has little admiration from me.

Great point......

Richard H
Oct 9th 2008, 05:21 PM
I am not very familiar with the NASB - my church is pretty firm on the KJV - but you have all peeked my interest - May I ask - does the NASB version use the word Hell??? I know that NKJV for some reason has taken the word Hell out of their translation and replaced it with Hades.
Welcome Maasive, :)

Yes. 13 times.

Rufus_1611
Oct 9th 2008, 05:29 PM
That's your choice.

There are two kinds of KJV only people. The kind that prefer the KJV for themselves, and the kind that prefer it for themselves and for everyone else. The latter camp has little admiration from me. Edit: Recanted.

Br. Barnabas
Oct 9th 2008, 05:31 PM
I realize this - it just seems that if you were trying to make simpler version, with up to date language - why replace Hades with Hell?? Hell is used more in society now and would be understood directly by a searching unbeliever - I thought that taking out the "thees, thous, believ"est" etc. were to make things more clear - if you were an unbeliever searching for answers about Hell? Would the term Hades not confuse them - maybe even make it seem less of a serious matter?

The only problem is that Hell is not what is being referred to there it is really more like She'ol/Hades. Hell at least in our society carries a lot of pre-conceived notions with it. People don't let the text speak for itself; they add Dante and Milton to it, to give a better (ie more terrifying) image.

Rufus_1611
Oct 9th 2008, 05:33 PM
Sorry people, I wasn't trying to start a war, really. I have copies of both the KJV and the NASB and I use them both when I'm studying. That's why in the OP I said "either of these two fine versions" because they are just that.

I agree that it depends on which audience you are trying to reach and for what purpose.

For the record, I am KJVpreferred but when I need to look up something or I'm studying the Scriptures I'll use both the KJV and the NASB. IMO it is the very height of arrogance to tell somebody that their personal choice of a Bible version is incorrect, or not really The Word of God. Do you tell Russellites/ JWs that they should continue to read from the NWT? Muslims think the Qu'ran is the Word of God. If you stand against those books are you being arrogant when you tell them that their personal choice isn't the word of God?

Emanate
Oct 9th 2008, 06:22 PM
Do you tell Russellites/ JWs that they should continue to read from the NWT? Muslims think the Qu'ran is the Word of God. If you stand against those books are you being arrogant when you tell them that their personal choice isn't the word of God?


I was not aware the Koran contained Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim and the NT.

Rufus_1611
Oct 9th 2008, 06:27 PM
I was not aware the Koran contained Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim and the NT. The NWT does...is it the Word of God?

Rufus_1611
Oct 9th 2008, 06:30 PM
Yet you also implicity stated that you were more concerned about pleasing God and that people who do not believe the KJV is the only word of God do not. That's not what I intended. I have removed the statement.

Emanate
Oct 9th 2008, 07:09 PM
The NWT does...is it the Word of God?


To be honest I am not familiar with the NWT

My heart's Desire
Oct 10th 2008, 04:34 AM
I love and enjoy the NASB. If I have doubts I do occassionally check the KJV. Since I don't read Greek and Hebrew and have Never personally read the scrolls that have been translated and have never seen the parchments, nor known the ones who found them, nor have I had any experience translating them myself, I have to trust someone who has. So unless it is a thought by thought translation or a translation used by a group whom I consider a non Christian group or cult I have to go by the ones that have been around quite awhile. Therefore I find the NASB (which used to be popular before the NIV) and KJV both worthy as well as the ESV.

The Preacher
Oct 10th 2008, 07:31 AM
The other day I overheard a conversation between two people who were discussing whether the KJV or the NASB was the most accurate.

Both sides gave numerous examples to support their individual views.

What is the verdict here about the relative merits of these two fine Bible versions? Which do you think is the most accurate, and why?


If you believe Jack Chick he will tell you how the KJV is the inspired version.

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/

However it is based on the Textus Receptus compiled by Erasmus in 1516. The oldest greek text he had access to dated from the 10 century. Many of the Modern versions we now have are based on The more recent manuscripts such as the vaticanus and sinaiticus which date from the fourth century. One is even based in large part on the Chester Beatty papri from the second century . It can be purchased here:

http://www.logos.com/products/details/2122


Here is a brief and easily read article on the earlier texts:

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

9Marksfan
Oct 10th 2008, 10:19 AM
The NKJV is Alexandrian.

Sorry, have to disagree - it is the ONLY modern translation to include the Antiochan texts included in the KJV - do you deny this?