Featured I am a KJVOs

The Masoretic Hebrew text does indeed reflect the originals to a very high degree, as shown by the book of Isaiah of the Dead Sea scrolls reflecting that to us!

 

not superior, but just as accurate to the originals as the other Greek source texys are!

 

I was speaking about the NKJV, which did not use the Masoretic text but used the Biblia Hebraica StuttgartensiaText

 

I would be ashamed and embarrassed to be in the Bible translation business for money. "The Bible even condemns that: For we are not as many, which corrupt (καπηλεύοντες, diluting to make money) the word of God" (2 Cor. 2:17). It's God's Word, not Man's, not ours to make money from.

God's business is to reach the world for Christ. In order to fulfill the Great Commission, missionary Bible translation is absolutely vital, but new English translations are not. In the copyright statement of our Japanese versions we say, "Anyone is permitted to print, post on Internet websites and include in software this text or portions of it. Changes may not be made to this translation without permission. Permission is not granted to profit monetarily from this translation."

 

How accurate is that text compared to the originals ? Doe sit change any major doctrines?

 

Copyright Laws and Bible translations

 

I was just suggesting that would be a reason they decided to make and push it so hard!

 

So only major doctrines are important in your mind? Individual words or verses are not?

 

None of the source texts used are 100 % of the originals, but any and all of them are very high degree!

 

L.R. is not a New Testament Bible scholar and is as inconsistent as can be when he speaks of translational issues.

That's true. What they stated in their intro (with one or two exceptions) did not match their actual translation practice.

 

Boy is that ever a foolish statement. Every Bible version uses dynamic equivalence --not exclusively --but DE is certainly present in all three. Even more in the CSB and ESV than in the NASB.

 

Still produced a fine translation though!

 

Not as much though as in your Niv!

 

The term "essentially literal" is simply a marketing ploy as much as "optimal equivalence" is for other translations.

 

It's serviceable.

 

Just means the Esv and especially Nkjv were both more formal than the Niv...

 

Many see the Esv/Niv/Csb as being in the same ball;park translation wise!

 

The point being, as I said, all versions use dynamic equivalence. There is no translation that doesn't use it.
Saying "Not as much as the NIV" is acknowledging that it is a matter of degree --not a black and white broad brush generalization.

 

True.

 

You are sinning with that kind of language Jordon. Read and apply what the KJV teaches.