Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | why do the NASB and KJV differ | Bible general Archive 1 | hcw | 62169 | ||
when reading from both the NASB and the KJV, i find that some key phrases and words are included in one version but not in the other. I have maintained for many years that the NASB is the most accurate translation but need some assistance in explaining to my sunday school class why these differences exist. | ||||||
2 | why do the NASB and KJV differ | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 62198 | ||
Almost all NASB and the KJV (also NKJV) differences occur in the NT. This is because, as Ed has pointed out, of the differences in the manuscripts they were translated from. Usually the differences are that the KJV has a longer verse ending here and there. Most here would say that this is a result of scrible additions in the manuscripts that the KJV was translated from. Some would say (as I would say) that the differences occur from scrible omissions in the manuscripts that the NASB is translated from. While the differences are slight, there are places where I, personally, have to make a decision of which Bible is God’s WORD, as He only wrote one Bible. I have posted before (post ID# 6847) as to why my conclusion goes against the norm here on the NASB forum (that’s OK, they love me anyway!). I usually go with the KJV and the NKJV when verses are called into question when compared to a different reading in the NASB. I have also discovered, since that post, that the early church fathers quotes will almost always quote the longer KJV verses, rather than the shorter NASB verses. This has strengthened my conclusion as being correct. The web site www.dtl.org is a good source of information that reflects my bible translation views (I take exception to some of the other views expressed there tho). The amazing thing to me is not the few differences in the thousands of thousands of manuscripts found in all parts of the world, but their supernatural agreement that prove that God has preserved His WORD thru His divine providence! retxar |
||||||
3 | why do the NASB and KJV differ | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 62216 | ||
Retxar, one of the things that endears me to the New King James Version, which I know you also are very fond of, is its close kinship to the peerless linguistic beauty of the King James Bible. But there is an additional reason as well that I have become rather attached to the NKJV, which is this, and I quote from the Preface to this version: "The textual notes reflect the scholarship of the past 150 years and will assist the reader to observe the variations between the different manuscript traditions of the New Testament. Such information is generally not available in English translations of the New Testament." ...... Regarding the New Testament manuscripts, the same Preface offers this useful information to its readers: "The King James New Testament was based on the traditional text of the Greek-speaking churches, first published in 1516, and later called the Textus Receptus or Received Text. Although based on the relatively few available manuscripts, these were representative of many more which existed at the time but only became known later. In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. It is now widely known that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexanderian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament. Those readings in the Textus Receptus which have weak support are indicated in the center reference column as being opposed by both Critical and Majority Texts. Since the 1880's most contemporary translations have relied upon a relatively few manuscripts discovered chiefly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Such translations depend primarily on two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, because of their greater age. The Greek text obtained by using these sources and the related papyri (our most ancient manuscripts) is known as the Alexanderian Text. However, some scholars have grounds for doubting the faithfulness of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, since they often disagree with one another, and Sinaiticus exhibits excessive omission." --Hank | ||||||