No they represented alterative renderings that could also be taken as being valid as they made a decision to use their renderings instead
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do the KJVO accept any other Translation really then?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
the 1611 translators disagreed with your take, as they did NOT see their translation as neither being perfect nor inspired, as they all saw that reserved ONLY towards the Originals as penned down by writers inspired by the Holy SpiritHello Bob,
All translations are man made but not all are inspired by God.
The KJB is the inspired word of God and dosen't include printer errors.
Kindly note the very diligent work needed to manual print the Bible.
Also, please remember there are countries where its not possible to get a KJB.
Its not just me but before Ruckman, there were people believing a perfect Bible.
God is a lier if no perfect Bible. We don't need to keep searching.
I use the Pure Cambridge Edition.
The 1611 had printer errors, and no one useth the 1769.
There is a missing portion of a verse in 1769 edition.
I believe the KJB is the word of God in English and its 100% perfect. Its also mathematically perfect.
Which text though, as there has never been a standard Kjv text or Greek text underlining its textual basisNo, as I said the text overrides scholars.
1611 translators never claimed inspiration, not to have a perfect final product, as they knew in the future others would come to build upon their translation and create a better oneRead what the KJV scholars said in their Bible. They are the People who Translated the KJV. Do not be afraid. This fear you have of reading the word of God is not good for you. Read the notes for yourself. Read the Preface God caused the translators to have printed in the KJV. Do not be afraid.
Kjvo holds to a position regarding 1611 kjv that its own translators would have deniedYou choose to believe your human, non-true, and non-scriptural KJV-only opinions concerning the KJV that the KJV itself does not teach.
The Scriptures do not teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England men in 1611. Inconsistent human KJV-only reasoning shows partiality and respect to persons to one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611 while the wisdom from God above is without partiality (James 3:16).
James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
One can be a KJVP due to views on the Greek texts and on the manuscript families, nut cannot be KJVO based upon textual nor historical evidences, notr by hw the Bible itself defined inspiration and revelationThere is something that I feel guilty about concerning the Word of God. I try to overlook these conversations on the versions and that's what makes me feel guilty. If someone prefers this or that version, while I prefer the KJV because I was raised from a child on it, I'm ok with that persons choice. Should I be?
There is a line of questioning that makes one think. It demands an answer based on our Christian faith. I'm not asking these questions to anyone just presenting the inevitable.
Do you believe in the infallible Word of God? If you do as you should as a believer in Christ, which version is it?
So here we go, the line of questioning I am accustomed to running from.
Even though some accept 1611, others 1769. still others 1873?
Your unstudied opinions demonstrate an inability to study doctrine.The nas 2020 tried to appeal too much to gender inclusive crowd and to trying to making a less formal translation
From the internet:
No, the NASB20 is generally considered to be no less formal than the NASB95. Both versions maintain the same foundational approach of a formal equivalent translation, aiming for a word-for-word accuracy to the original languages while aiming for readability. However, the NASB20 has been updated with some modernizations in language and typesetting, making it slightly more accessible to some readers without sacrificing its formal rigor.
No, the NASB20 is generally considered to be no less formal than the NASB95. Both versions maintain the same foundational approach of a formal equivalent translation, aiming for a word-for-word accuracy to the original languages while aiming for readability. However, the NASB20 has been updated with some modernizations in language and typesetting, making it slightly more accessible to some readers without sacrificing its formal rigor.
It decided to forsake some formal literalness for easier readabilityYour unstudied opinions demonstrate an inability to study doctrine.
From the internet:No, the NASB20 is generally considered to be no less formal than the NASB95. Both versions maintain the same foundational approach of a formal equivalent translation, aiming for a word-for-word accuracy to the original languages while aiming for readability. However, the NASB20 has been updated with some modernizations in language and typesetting, making it slightly more accessible to some readers without sacrificing its formal rigor.
Another unstudied claim directly refuted by the snippet.It decided to forsake some formal literalness for easier readability
"Taint so"Another unstudied claim directly refuted by the snippet.
False Claim - The NASB20 translators were trying to make it less formal.
"No, the NASB20 is generally considered to be no less formal than the NASB95. Both versions maintain the same foundational approach of a formal equivalent translation, aiming for a word-for-word accuracy to the original languages while aiming for readability. However, the NASB20 has been updated with some modernizations in language and typesetting, making it slightly more accessible to some readers without sacrificing its formal rigor." [from the internet]
Once again a poster attempts to derail actual discussion by posting false claims.
How many KJVO or KJVP will admit Matthew 18:11 is a non-inspired emendation of scripture, simply copy and pasting Luke 19:10 into Matthew 18, after verse 10. Answer: None
"No, the NASB20 is generally considered to be no less formal than the NASB95. Both versions maintain the same foundational approach of a formal equivalent translation, aiming for a word-for-word accuracy to the original languages while aiming for readability. However, the NASB20 has been updated with some modernizations in language and typesetting, making it slightly more accessible to some readers without sacrificing its formal rigor." [from the internet]
Once again a poster attempts to derail actual discussion by posting false claims.
How many KJVO or KJVP will admit Matthew 18:11 is a non-inspired emendation of scripture, simply copy and pasting Luke 19:10 into Matthew 18, after verse 10. Answer: None
Yes, the NASB 2020 is generally considered less formal and more literal than the NASB 1995. The 1995 version used more traditional biblical language, while the 2020 version aimed for greater accuracy, clarity, and readability in modern English, according to The Lockman Foundation Store.False Claim - The NASB20 translators were trying to make it less formal.
"No, the NASB20 is generally considered to be no less formal than the NASB95. Both versions maintain the same foundational approach of a formal equivalent translation, aiming for a word-for-word accuracy to the original languages while aiming for readability. However, the NASB20 has been updated with some modernizations in language and typesetting, making it slightly more accessible to some readers without sacrificing its formal rigor." [from the internet]
Once again a poster attempts to derail actual discussion by posting false claims.
How many KJVO or KJVP will admit Matthew 18:11 is a non-inspired emendation of scripture, simply copy and pasting Luke 19:10 into Matthew 18, after verse 10. Answer: None
AI OverviewHow are the New Testament footnotes in the 2020 or 1995 editions? Do they have many textual footnotes when their Bible is different than the TR or Byzantine Text?
Learn more
The NASB 1995, according to the Lockman Foundation, uses footnotes to provide literal translations of idioms or phrases that might be confusing to English readers if included in the text. It also uses footnotes to distinguish between singular and plural "you" pronouns. Additionally, the NASB 1995 includes footnotes to clarify when a verb translated in the past tense is actually a present tense verb in the original Greek.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
- Literal Translations in Footnotes:
When a phrase or idiom's literal translation would be unclear to English readers, the NASB 1995 places the literal translation in a footnote, while the more idiomatic and understandable translation is used in the main text.
- Pronoun Clarity:
The ESV, for example, uses footnotes to differentiate between singular and plural "you" pronouns.
- Tense Clarity:
If a verb is translated in the past tense but is actually a present tense verb in the original Greek, the NASB 1995 will indicate this with an asterisk or other symbol in the footnote.
- Updated Vocabulary:
The NASB 1995 also refined the style by removing archaic vocabulary and improving sentence structure for better clarity, according to the Lockman Foundation. - Think the exact feature you requested best found in the NKJV footnotes
"The long-established translation standard for the NASB remains the same as it always has been, that is to accurately translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible into modern English that is clearly understandable according to the English of the time."Yes, the NASB 2020 is generally considered less formal and more literal than the NASB 1995. The 1995 version used more traditional biblical language, while the 2020 version aimed for greater accuracy, clarity, and readability in modern English, according to The Lockman Foundation Store.
Thus the very link provided by this false claim advocate refutes the false claim. Using less traditional language has absolutely nothing to do with trying to translate in a less "formal" (word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning) way.
They chose to make it less formal literal, in order to present what they considered more contemporary meanings for understanding purposes"The long-established translation standard for the NASB remains the same as it always has been, that is to accurately translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible into modern English that is clearly understandable according to the English of the time."
Thus the very link provided by this false claim advocate refutes the false claim. Using less traditional language has absolutely nothing to do with trying to translate in a less "formal" (word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning) way.
Sorry folks, but using accurate words within the common vocabulary of the audience is formal translation. Once again this poster is trying to derail actual discussion of scriptural truths with false claims.They chose to make it less formal literal, in order to present what they considered more contemporary meanings for understanding purposes
How many KJVO or KJVP will admit Matthew 18:11 is a non-inspired emendation of scripture, simply copy and pasting Luke 19:10 into Matthew 18, after verse 10. Answer: None