Featured How many Looking toward the Legacy Nasb version?

Never-ending updates.

Most of all, I do not trust that current academia knows Greek as well as Colonial period academia. Those men learned Latin and Greek grammar in grammar school, and played games on the playground in those languages, acting out their lessons, as children do.

I do not trust that older is always better for scripture. I do not always trust secular methods of deciding between 2 scriptures. I do not distrust the church fathers as much as some academics distrust them. The Bible repeatedly warns youth not to disregard the advice of their elders.

And for ME, I can no longer afford to keep up, as the number and speed of revisions accelerates. There are a growing number of people that are being denied access to the fruits of academia, purely because of finances. Offering short-term full access to a translation, long enough for people to begin to embed into lives, and then pulling that full access, weakens the church, and is worse than no access at all. People are hopping off the speeding train. I am hopping off the train, or rather have been pushed off the train for lack of ability to pay the fare.

 

My friend,
Has God preserved His words, or not?

If He has, then we have what represents the inspired originals.
If He does not, then we have no foundation to point to and declare that His words are inspired.

IMO,
Without Divine preservation, no believer can have the confidence to point at anything and say, "thus saith the Lord"...
Because there will always be a modicum of doubt as to whether or not we actually have the preserved words of God.

Question:
If you believe that He has indeed preserved it, then where do you believe that is it preserved?

 

Dave,
Are you suggesting, for example, that 1 John 5:6-9 in the AV infallibly reads the exact same way ( or perhaps close to it, in as modern a form of English as possible ) as 1 John 5:6-9 in the NASB?

On a side note:
I'm quoting from the NASB 1971; For that is what I see the OP regarding...
Basically the "Legacy" or 1971 version of it ( as opposed to the 1995 or 2020 version of it ).

Let's compare:

" This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
9 If we receive the testimony of people, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son." ( 1 John 5:6-9, NASB,1960 )


" This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son." ( 1 John 5:6-9, AV ).

 

Galileo's telescope: This innovation opened the opportunity for humankind to gain knowledge about the majesty of creation. In a very similar way, translation has opened the opportunity for more of humankind to gain knowledge about the majesty of redemption. Now the computer age, and the search and expose software has opened the opportunity for humankind to gain knowledge about the majesty of God's revelation. Praise God...

 

@Yeshua1 :

Here are the differences that I see when I read the passage:

6) This is He ( referring to Christ, which the NASB inserts "the One" in place of ), that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water only ( the NASB inserts "with the" in place of "by" ), but by water and blood ( again, the NASB inserts "with the " before both "water" and "blood" ).
7) I feel that I shouldn't even have to point out the differences here, as to me, they are glaringly obvious.
8) Again, same as above.
9) Essentially the same except the NASB substitutes "testimony" in place of "witness", "people" in place of "men", and "concerning" in place of "of".


My question to you is...
How "infallible" is it if one translation has a significantly different reading of a passage, versus another?

Do you really believe that we have the infallible word of God in both translations?

I disagree, Dave.
To me, it's not even close to the same way.

 

That's called "faith", Dave.
I believe that I have what God has intended for me to have.

If even one word is missing, then I don't have everything that He wanted me to have as His child.

How do you know that "the long version" of 1 John 5:7-8 is not the original in the Greek?

 

It's in the Old Latin, Dave, as well as other old witnesses outside the few Greek texts that do have it.
Plus, I know in my heart and in my spirit that they are His words.

As in other threads, this is why I tend not to reply to you on this subject...
Because you seem to believe that "it's all good", when my perspective is that "it's mostly been corrupted".
Especially nowadays.

I'm sorry, sir, but His words are just a little more important to me than they apparently are to you.
My opinion is that the NASB, "Legacy" or other wise, does not represent all of God's words that can be had or that have been preserved for His people.


I wish you well, and a good evening.

 

It is a good thing God is even bigger than the Bible: the people groups with the worst translations are often the ones with the fastest growth and strongest faith. God is always in control.

Does that mean what is happening is okay? No! But God is in control and bigger than the Bible.

 

He left it out of the first two editions because it was not in the Original Greek, but put it in the third because of heavy Roman Catholic pressure!

The Text of the Gospels: Comma Johanneum

 

Exactly!