Featured How is the KJV a Bible translation in any different sense than the NKJV is?

I believe it goes even further, “thou” and “ye” are always subjects, while “thee” and “you” are always objects.

 

I heartily agree with all that you've said.

The question I see, then, is, if modern English has dropped the usage of these words, aren't there ways to convey the meaning using modern English?

Granted, it may require more than one English word per Greek word, which some find objectionable.

 

His definition of scripture being preserved seems to be we have in the text behind the Kjv 100 % agreement with the originals!

 

What about the 1977 Nas, as mine still has the thee and thous in it?

 

They used several different versions of the TR, and even brought in some from the latin Vulgate, so was the Vulgate also perfect?

 

My definition as well.


Y1,
I can't help this, I have to do it....

Here's a comparison for you to see from the NASB:

" Have this attitude [e]in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be [f]grasped,
7 but [g]emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, [and] being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death [h]on a cross." ( Phillippians 2:5-8, NASB )


" Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." ( Philippians 2:5-8, AV )

Do you see the differences?
It's because of the manuscript differences that you see the translation differences.


Now, which passage glorifies Jesus Christ as God, and which one calls Him a liar and a pretender?

 

Perhaps the Holy Spirit has guided almost 70% of American Christians not to read the KJV.

 

A valid interpretation of the data.
Although it would then also point to the HS not having a strong translation preference.

 

there is NO Greek source text 100% accurate to the originals, and there are no English translations perfect, without any errors/mistakes in them.
One can use the Nas/Nkjv/Esv among others, and there are NO watering down of doctrines to be found in any of them.

 

And i would suspect that many Greek scholars would actually see the Nas as being more formal/literal in those passages!

 

Both Translations honor and glorify God though!

 

You've seen the CT versus the TR in the Greek?

 

The differences are in fact translation differences. I believe the Nasb translation is not nearly as accurate as the KJV.

 

To me, a fairly bad attempt at translation then, if the NASB committee ended up with "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" ( which means that Jesus thought that equality with God was out of His reach ) instead of " thought it not robbery to be equal with God" ( which means that He thought that it was not stealing from God's glory to consider Himself equal with God ).

Comparing most of the newer English translations, I find the same or a similar rendering of the NASB in nearly all of them, except the NKJV and a very few others )...which makes Jesus out to be a liar and a pretender when compared to passages in the Gospels which clearly show Him as being God in the flesh.


Here's the same passage in the ESV, which I've shortened to just verse 6:

" who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ( Philippians 2:6, ESV )


Now let's add some other translations:

" Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;" ( Philippians 2:6, NIV )
" who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage." ( Philippians 2:6, HSB ( Holman ) )

" who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ( Philippians 2:6, RSV )

" who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped. " ( Philippians 2:6, ASV-1901 )



So how it is not a manuscript problem?

 

Perhaps in some areas, Y1, but to me, it's been gradually eroding ( over the past 150 years or so ) in most of the more modern translations since the ASV was translated.

 

I am KJO and use to often say the same thing. But looking at the NASB and ESV honestly it seems to be saying that Jesus did not consider equality with God to be grasped, because he already is God. You don’t have to grasp at something that you already have. I prefer the KJV because it’s more clear.

For example, Lebron James does not consider professional basketball status as something to be grasped.

 

It's not a manuscript problem SFAIK. It's a question of how to translate the Greek word harpagmos. It occurs only here (Phil 2:6) in the NT so it has been hard to know how best to translate it. It was known from the verb harpazo that it has to do with robbery,grasping, seizing or holding, hence the different translations. My rather ancient Liddell & Scott Lexicon gives 'robbery.'

Recently, however, some bright chap has analysed all its appearances in Greek literature and shown that it means something held to one's advantage, like a 'get out of jail free' card in Monopoly. It pains me to say it, but only the NIV 2011 (being the most recent translation) gets it more or less right.

As usual, I am open to correction by those whose knowledge of Greek is either better or more up-to-date than mine.