Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by LanceA, Mar 14, 2014.

  1. Well I have a bible I haven't used yet since my other one has more translations in it. I decided to read this one and I find a bunch of thee's and thou's in it. I turn to look at the outside of the Bible and see NASB. I continue reading and compare it to my other Bible with the NASB in it and they don't match. I think someone sold me a KJV with an NASB outside. KJV only people trying to be funny haha.
  2. Don't you know God can only speak in Old KJ English? :mad:
  3. Well I did some research and earlier versions use old English for any prayers.
  4. I was enjoying fellowship in a congregation, and I used to borrow their Bibles. Finally, I decided to get my own Bible.
    I went to a little bookstore, and it was really full of good stuff...Bibles, too. So I started asking the Lord which Bible to
    buy, and to please show me I had been in fellowship for about a month, and didn't call Him "God" anymore). Anyway,
    I browsed through a few version, and finally took one from the Nelson family: red letter edition. When I opened it, I felt the blessing of the Lord, so I bought it. It was the Authorized King James version. Never had any problems with it: and you
    know the funny part? I can't understand any other version!
    TalkJesus and Mitspa say Amen and like this.
  5. This is one of the reasons why I prefer the KJV over the NASB. Note how the NASB dropped "without a cause".

    Matthew 5:22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. KJV

    Matthew 5:2222 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. NASB

    NASB led me to think that it was a sin to be angry.

    My Sunday school teacher at that time tried to convince me in my NASB that it was not a sin to be angry, by referring to this verse.

    Ephesians 4:2626 Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, NASB

    Ephesians 4:26Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: KJV

    BUT yet Matthew 5:22 in the NASB was pretty plain & clear to me, and so to err on the side of caution, I had continued to believe that it was a sin to be angry, until later when the Lord had shown me that the KJV kept the actual meaning of His words in regards to that verse as well as other key verses like Romans 8:26-27 & 1 Peter 4:19 for me to know the truth.

    At any rate, NASB & other versions have sown doubts in me towards God's words, but the KJV came through for me every time for discerning false teachings which, of course, was & is being done by trusting Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd in enabling me to be His disciple by abiding in Him & His words.
  6. The NASB did not "drop" that word. It is not in the text that they translated their version from. And the NASB really made you think it was a sin to be angry? Come on? I understand your point but that seems a little overblown? And the Lord showed you the KJV was right? Well He showed me just the opposite? Not that the NASB is a better translation but that the Greek text that are 1000 years older are more accurate.
    most likely someone added "without cause" in the later text. (which is very common) I read and study the KJV and NKVJ and like and understand that translation, but the older Greek text (1000 years older) are without doubt the more accurate text.
  7. I use the KJV and others. We can be angry toward someone as long as it is a righteous anger. Reading the entire verse in math I can get a feel that this isn't a good anger. I will have to investigate that verse further. The NASB has always been considered one of the closest translations out there, just not very fun to read.
  8. You know its very likely that the Lord did say "if your angry with your brother" and did not qualify it, much the same way He said "pluck out your eye" and did not qualify that either.

    For He is doing what He often did, in regards to the true standard of the law. He was bringing the law to its highest level, to its true standard, for the purpose that those under the law would see their sin and there need for His Grace. So in that context the scripture is as it should be without adding that escape clause that many try to add to the law.
    LanceA likes this.
  9. Actually the "older text" that the NASB was translated from are the Alexandrian manuscripts as in the source material was from Alexandria where poetic licensing & gnosticism was known to exist back in theor hey days whereas the source material for the KJV was from Antioch wherein the accepted texts or the Textus Receptus originated from. I'll take the source material from Antioch any day over the ones from Alexandria when "questions" arises over which kept to the actual meaning of His words.

    Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

    And yes, because of the Ryrie Study Bible which was in the NASB, I had doubted Paul's words & played it safe in taking how the NASB cited His words instead until the Lord had shown me other errors in the modern translations that was contrary to the truth as the KJV had it by which the modern translations were supporting false teachings. Just as I had doubted God's words, so too has Romans 8:26-27 & 1 Peter 4:19 has made readers not see how other parts of scripture even in that modern Bible they are using opposes the truth in His words as kept by the KJV. It causes many believers to gloss over those reproving verses in the modern translations as if they do not apply or hardly seen as contrary at all.

    In our walk with the Lord, the Good Shepherd will prune us so that we may bear more fruit. I thank Him for enabling me to trust Him to even question what my Protestant church had taught me & not just the errant modern Bible versions. One has to wonder with all of these modern Bibles being churned out that man has been looking in the wrong direction for the wisdom in understanding His words as kept in the KJV.

    1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.
  10. Well my friend Im sorry that you feel that passage read in the NASB caused you some grief, but I wonder if you read my last post? When the Lord said "pluck out your eye" or when He said "not one jot or tittle" etc.. did not many of the things said by the Lord and others cause you to some discomfort? I know they have me at times, until I understood why the Lord was bringing the standard to a level that no man could keep. Also I have heard those who are defenders of the KJV use the Alexandria issue as if that makes any point against these text that are 1000 years older. I would remind you and others that God the Father sent His Son (The Word) to Egypt to protect Him, from those who would destroy Him. Now think about this, if we found a copy of the law of Moses from the time of Joshua and then a copy from the time of Herrod, we would have no doubt that the older copy was more accurate. Even if the later copy was found in Jerusalem itself? And the older was found near Sodom, it would not make a difference, unless it disagreed with some of what the religious class was trying to teach. Then they would say "they found it in Sodom" it cannot be trusted. In my view and opinion, that sort of blindness can only come from false forms of religion, that do not allow for folks to use the good common sense God gave us. Now do you understand how much difference 1000 years is, in relation to the source of truth? The text you are trying to promote as more accurate, basically still had wet ink compared to these much older text. No my friend, I do not question your heart or intentions but your judging these things based upon KJV propaganda.
  11. I understand the common sense validity of resorting to the older manuscripts, but let's take a look at His words for which source material we should be using: the ones that are more recent and thus hence used & need to be renewed because they love His words or the ones sitting on a shelf the longest, evidence of lack of use?

    John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

    We also have a prophecy of what is to come in regards to the keeping of His words or the words of His disciples.

    John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

    Now regardless of the place of Egypt in how it served in OT times, the times wherein the documents at Alexandria had been kept are circumspect because poetic licensing & gnosticism has been known in the area. Now between the two source material, I would lean towards the ones from Antioch where the disciples studied in His words & were first called christians there. Comparing the NIV with the KJV, seeing how many references to the deity of Jesus has been dropped is teltaling enough. No one memorizes the whole Bible, but gnosticism will recite those passages that dropped reference to His deity to support their false teachings. Yes, we can find references in the NIV testifying of His deity, but you have to wonder how gnosticism thrived if they really loved His words in keeping them as they should have.

    Anyway, my advise to brothers & sisters in these latter days is to compare their modern version with the KJV when discerning false teachings because I have found modern versions supporting false teachings & false practises whereas the KJV does not, but reproves them & exposes what is not of God... even spiritual matters, but again, only God can cause the increase.
  12. You say God led you to use the KJV? I completely relate to that because when I was looking for a translation and prayed about it, God led me to the NASB. I used an NIV growing up and a NKJV while in the military before my pagan days. When I re-dedicated my life to the Lord I truly wanted the closest translation. I prayed and did my own research. Without a doubt God pointed me to the NASB. I now use many versions but will always turn to the NASB and the Holy Spirit for guidance when questioning anything.
  13. You say things as if they are true and expect others to believe they have some basis in fact?
    There is no evidence of "lack of use" in these "much" older manuscripts, in fact there is clear evidence of much use, as a foundational source for the many other text that have been found, having this text as the source. The fact that this text was guarded (honored) and kept in a condition that it could be a source for the truth, only makes this text more trustworthy not less. And again there is absolutely no evidence that any wickedness in Alexandria in any way effected these text. That's just KJV propaganda. Nor is there any evidence that the gnostics are in anyway related to the text. That's just more made up nonsense. That's like saying a church in a bad city, must be a bad church? Come on?
  14. Let's examine the use of modern Bibles in your walk with the Lord.

    Give verses as to prove that the Lord requires you to re-dediciate your life to the Lord. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean you are keeping your commitment to the Lord in following Him as in doing the best you can in keeping that commitment to follow Him or are you referring re-dedication in a different manner?
  15. You really can't discuss this with the KJV only crowd. I love them for their dedication but they fail to see that the KJV has some bad translations itself but don't point that out at all.
  16. Do people who honor the scriptures just throw them into the trash, or misuse them? At the time of these much older text, these would have been valued beyond belief by those who held them. The fact that they where preserved, in no way suggest that they where not used or was were corrupted in some way! What kind of logic is this? Only those who are in this KJV blindness could reason in a such a manner.
  17. #17 Mitspa, Mar 16, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2014
    Come on? The man is using a common term to describe a point in his life to which he renewed his trust in the Lord. Why would you even question this term as if you are going to judge his faith? No doubt, in your zeal to defend this translation, you are willing to question the walk of others and set as a judge of your brother? Its is sad thing what these KJV defenders are willing to do to defend this work of man. They would destroy Gods work and with gladness if it promoted this translation.
  18. Explain the differences in this comparison between the KJV & the NIV. How can it be that far different? And then remember John 14:23-24 & John 15:20. By His words, evidence of wickedness because they did not keep His words & thus they did not love Him as Jesus has said & testified that the Father says the same thing.
  19. Because in this day & age, many believers testify of themselves in living the christian life by keeping that commitment to follow Him and that is not the same thing as living by faith in the Son of God in living the christian life. I do not know if that is my brother's way of thinking or not, and so the need for clarity in his testimony.
  20. Please try to understand, I am not defending a "translation" I am saying what is absolutely clear to any honest, thinking person. The text that are 1000 years older, are more accurate. Plain and simple fact, that only the blindness of mans religion could keep someone from seeing.

Share This Page