Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | NASV translation accuracy | Bible general | DocBlue | 239724 | ||
Since discovering the NAS while in high school I have been using the it as my primary Bible text. That was before the OT translation was published. I have complete confidence in its accuracy as a translation and I have used it often and extensively when discussing matters of faith, trying to open hearts to God's Word and in personal study because the language is clear and unambiguous. I have a deep knowledge of and an appreciation of the Elizabethan writers, gained in college, so I can make my way through the ''Authorized'' (King James) version if I must. Often I now use the English Standard Version (ESV) for serious study help along with the NASV. When privileged to preach from the pulpit or at the graveside I extensively use the Phillips translation of the New Testament, and paraphrases the Living New Testament and The Message (MSG) from Eugene Peterson. However, listening to a recent Sunday School lesson aimed at establishing the KJV as the only correct interpretation of the Bible, the name Frank Logsdon was raised in conjunction with a knock on the NASV. The reference stated that this man was on the translation team but disavowed his work and the whole project in a letter to D. Lockman (or the Foundation) which also asked that his name be removed from the NASV credits. This is the second time in the past decade that I have heard a KJV partisan dismiss the whole work of 54 translators based on this recanting of one man, although this is the first time I have been able to get a name to put with the claim of total failure/inaccuracy of the NAS. I can find no reference to this man anywhere apart from the citation of his letter in (as yet) unnamed book supporting the claim of KJV being the only true translation of God's Word. (At the extremity of this position, I have been told that instead of translating Scripture into native tongues we must rather teach English to the whole world-presumably Elizabethan English at that.) What is known of Mr. Frank Logsdon? Or is this Just an apocryphal story? And if the defection of one man would invalidate the NASV, what do we make of our Declaration of Independence, since two of the signatories returned to allegiance to the English King and Crown before the end of 1776? DOC out |
||||||
2 | NASV translation accuracy | Bible general | Jalek | 239725 | ||
Greetings, I've heard of Frank Logsdon, but only barely. I've not read any of his works. As far as the claim about the defection of one man invalidating the NASB, that seems a little far fetched to me because the NASB wasn't translated by one man. However, I am familiar with the KJV only movement, and have studied it to a good degree to know the basic premises of the belief. First, KJV only activists claim that since the NASB, and other modern translations for that matter, are based off of greek manuscripts other than the Textus Receptus, then they are untrustworthy. This is specifically directed towards the Alexandrian textform manuscripts. Apparently, there is an obscure warning in the Bible not to trust anything that comes from Alexandria. Thing is, the only passage I find that says something negative about the place is Acts 6:9 when men from Alexandria and other places stoned Stephen. Thing is, other places are mentioned also, and it is my belief that the KJV claim about the Alexandrian text forms are based off of passages taken out of context. Now, aside from this, there is one question that so far every KJV only supporter has yet to answer. If the King James Version is the only inspired word of God, then what was the inspired word of God before 1611? Paul says in 2 timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is God breathed. How can this be referring to the King James Version only if Paul wrote it some 16 centuries before? Second, another common claim, and misconception, is that the modern translations leave out passages or change the meanings of the words. That simply is not the case, and shows the ignorance of the King James Version Only believers in terms of Textual Criticism. Take 2 Timothy 2:15 for example. Now, in the King James, it says "Study to Show thyself approved". However, the NASB has it rendered as "Be diligent to present yourself approved". KJV only people will turn to this and say that the NASB is saying to no longer study the Bible. However, that's not what Paul was saying to begin with. The term "study" and "be diligent" in the greek comes from the same root word that means "hasten" or "Be eager". Paul is advising his pupil to always be ready and always handle the word of God accurately. So, the NASB actually has the more accurate translation. So, what about the King James? Well, it too is correct from a certain point of view. This passage shows the second primary flaw in the King James Version Only belief: Age. The English dialect used in the King James is no longer spoken actively anymore. Thus it is a dead dialect. Words have changed meaning across cultures and time. 400 years ago, "Study" actually meant "to devote oneself to" or "to be busy with". It didn't mean then " to acquire knowledge through reading and investigation", which is what you'll find in the modern dictionary. So, from the old English definition of "study", the King James is correct also, but it isn't correct with the modern definition of "Study". The final part about this is that not only does the age of the King James show differences in meanings of terms used, but older manuscripts have been found in the past 400 years that are far older than the manuscripts used to translate the King James. As a result, these older ones are closer to what the original texts would have included, and shows passages that appear to have been edited in by copyists and scribes. The perfect example is Mark 16:9-20. This passage is not included in the oldest existing manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. However, this doesn't change any doctrines or beliefs we as Christians hold to because the teachings and events found in this passage are reflected in other places throughout the Bible. I'm sorry I wasn't able to answer your primary questions, but I do hope that I provided some insight into the KJV only debate. There are other issues and concerns not addressed here, and there are further details in the issues I covered that I didn't address simply due to time sake. I merely intended to give an overall summary of what the KJV only view was all about from an objective and unbiased viewpoint. Jalek |
||||||