In the Bible study I attend, we have people with both.I prefer the nasb,others prefer the nkjv.We have observed that sometimes the nasb is more exactly the same as the Greek,and a few times when the nkjv is.All I am interested in is the truth,whether it challenges my opinions or not.If you do not have truth, you have nothing.All else is useless.

_________________
Darin

[url=http://www.kjvonly.org/ ]KJV-Onlyism[/url]

_________________
Jordan

Interesting link. Are you trying to tie me to the KJV-Onlyism crowd? Can't do it, my friend, even if you really really want to really bad.

Krispy

_________________
Jordan

it is wrong to try compare NKJV and NASB, since in a sense they are two different bibles. They come from two different sources.

Your problem is not NKJV or NASB, what you need to study and decide on, is wich source you prefer.

A good start would be this

[url=http://wiki.biblebase.com/index.php?title=The_Bible:_Inspiration_and_Interpretation]"Which Bible?" Ron Bailey and Bob Oakley [/url]

_________________
CHRISTIAN

[color=0033FF]Been a long time since I posted this, but I think it needs to be posted again... Instead of actually discussing the issue, those who are ignorant just want to paint me and other supporters of the KJV as belonging to a cult. To be sure, as with any topic, there are those who take an extreme position. As a result they can be cult-"ish". But there is a reasonable, intelligent and well thought out position that does come down on the side of the KJV.

So rather than post a link to some obscure website to "proove" everyone wrong, why not explain and discuss your position?

Anyway... reposting this for those who care to understand where I am coming from on Bible versions. [b]Krispy[/b][/color]

[color=FF0000]During my time here on the SI forum I have been involved in numerous conversations concerning the KJV vs. Modern Versions. As a result of these conversations I have been labeled “King James Only”, and informed that I am part of a cult. (I also want to state clearly that I have also made several good friends on this forum who have debated this issue with me, and disagreed with me)

I found the following article today, and I believe this is an excellent explanation of my own position. I agree with this article completely and it states clearly where I stand on the issue of the King James Bible. It is well balanced and wise.

So… for anyone who is interested in knowing precisely where I stand on the KJV, please read the following!

Krispy[/color]

[i]There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Onlyism." This term has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about an alleged dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define this term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are lumped together and labeled with a term the meaning of which is nebulous.

The term "King James Only" was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of the extremism.

I have been labeled "King James Only" because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions and my defense of the King James Bible. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF "KING JAMES ONLY" IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me "King James Only."

If "King James Only" defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me "King James Only." I have spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. Most of them are unbelievers, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don't have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me "King James Only." The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense, and if that is "King James Only," count me in.

Similarly, if "King James Only" defines one who rejects the theory that the "preserved" Word of God was hidden away in the Pope's library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me "King James Only."

If "King James Only" defines one who believes it is important to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God in this century, call me "King James Only."

I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF "KING JAMES ONLY" IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not "King James Only. The King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term "inspiration" refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, "We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have 'the words of the Lord.'" To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not "King James Only." In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English Authorized Version is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek text that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not "King James Only."

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not "King James Only." God's people should learn Greek and Hebrew if possible and use (with much caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," we know that the words they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. I encouraged my youngest son to begin studying Greek in high school, and he is scheduled to have four years of Greek and two of Hebrew when he graduates from Bible College. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the Received Text.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only in English, I am not "King James Only." The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not "King James Only." (I also believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in the use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat antiquated language of the KJV properly.)

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not "King James Only." It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the Gospel.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the King James Bible's antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not "King James Only." I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my estimation. Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as a 2nd or 3rd language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were the scum of the earth because they refuse to follow his peculiar views, I am not "King James Only."[/i]

its a good one krispy, i prefer KJV, because it is a good translation from the original. I do also read much from NKJV. You lose the THEE and THOU but since these are used still in my native tongue i dont lose that. Since I read both :-)

the real issue is the text source. We do not have many from in my opinion the better texts, KJV, NKJV and Tyndales NT.Maybe there are some more?

then we have 80? from the Text NASB is translated from. That text seem hard to translate :-P

the problem, or one of them is. if the alexandrian text is better, then we had a corrupt bible, or a faulty Gods word until 1881 or when they made the first translation.


dont get me wrong, i think one can feed from NASB or whatever version one chooses, all important doctrines can be found. But as Ron points out in a sermon in the link above, it is almost impossible to teach regeneration from these new translations, unless you say "this really means this in greek"

i really recommend brother rons teachings in the link above, he really shows in a good way some very important things to consider when choosing what bible we should use.

_________________
CHRISTIAN

I do use the living bible at times, and have been blessed. But i dont think a paraphrase should be your "main" meal. I do confess i have a hard time with KJV in the OT. I lose the "plot" so to speak. That is why i read some in NKJV also. If someone is thinking why that swedish guy just cant read a swedish bible? then that is because we do not have one single version from the "better" text. But a whole line-up from the other, so i prefer the Textus receptus, sadly we have none in swedish yet.

_________________
CHRISTIAN