Problem for you is tht would "bet" that many greek/hebrew scholars would support the Nasb over the Kjv though!
-
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!
NASB CO-Founder recants NASB.
- Thread starter Jordan Kurecki
- Start date
- Status
Problem for you is tht would "bet" that many greek/hebrew scholars would support the Nasb over the Kjv though!
from Strongs:
gittı̂y
ghit-tee'
Patrial from H1661; a Gittite or inhabitant of Gath: - Gittite.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
You missed the point, genius. Wanna try again? Try rereading the post.
How is this a problem for me?
well, are you saying that the scholars that used CTfor nasb/Niv/Esv/Hcsb were ALL wrong?
That I said it, would carry no weight, you dont know me from Adam.
If I impune everyone of those scholars, none of whom I have met, I am libelous.
But the Critical Texts speak for themselves.
And Wescott and Hort's words are recorded for all to see.
I long for an updated AV, not another take on some hybrid MT/CT.
And, Yes, we had the Word of God before 1611.
I just don't trust the garbage can text.
(I'm referring to Aleph, which was discovered in a monastary trash can)
And I dont trust the Vatican Text.
And I don't trust the Nestle-Aland.
The NKJV is an updated KJV based on the same original languages texts as the KJV. The NKJV is both a revision of the KJV and a translation of the same original language texts just as the KJV is both a revision of pre-1611 English Bibles and those same texts. Likely you have been misinformed about its underlying texts by unreliable KJV-only sources.
There are also other updatings of the KJV
1990 Modern KJV by Jay Green
1994 21st Century King James Version
1998 Third Millenium Bible
2000 King James 2000 Version
From Sovereign Grace Publishers website:
"In 1990 the Modern King James Version was published again, a revision in 1993 and again in 1999 all using the literal translations from beneath the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Interlinear Bible."
Wrong on this one.
"In 1990 the Modern King James Version was published again, a revision in 1993 and again in 1999 all using the literal translations from beneath the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Interlinear Bible."
Wrong on this one.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
In what way is he wrong about the NKJV?
Right on this one.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
If it was in the "garbage can" as you say, are we to make of this that the people didn't throw away their trash for 1,500 years??? If that is the case, that is more of a reason not to use it!!!!
Methinks it was not garbage though.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Didn't you say he was wrong on the NKJV?
Yes, I did. And right on the KJ21
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Care to explain where he was wrong on the NKJV?
Read Farstad's book, and tell me that you still think that the NKJV is an update to the KJV based on the same mss
Greektim
Well-Known Member
I wish I had the time (or even ability in Central America) to read it. But alas, I am in thesis research mode. My reading is limited to that, my SS study, and my morning reading (Piper sermons through Romans).
Could you pick out some major points? Perhaps we start a new thread opening the discussion.
Farstad thought that the AV was translated from inferior MSS, and laid out his case in the book.
Needless to say, The NKJV is what it is, and what it is not, is merely an update to the ENGLISH of the 1611 and subsequent revisions of the AV.
I will seek to post some quotes, and when i'm ready, a new thread would be in order. Looking forward to it.
I have read Arthur Farstad's book The New King James Version In the Great Tradition.
I still properly maintain that the NKJV is an update or revision of the KJV based on the same original language texts in the same way that the KJV is a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles.
Perhaps you have never compared the KJV with the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision and are unaware of all the many differences between them.
jonathan.borland
Active Member
Okay, after some informative discussion with a Ph.D. friend of mine, I have a few points to offer, since, first, it's hard to believe that someone of the caliber and character of Logsdon would openly lie on such an issue, and second, the Lockman Foundation's carefully worded statement in regard to Logsdon is quite strange unless there was something to his claims that they wished to alleviate.
So the most likely scenario is the following:
1. Logsdon was clearly a close friend of Dewey Lockman.
2. When Lockman devoted his fortune to fund the NASV project, he likely asked his minister friend Logsdon for advice on how to get it going.
3. Logsdon helped: (a) with his suggestions on updating the 1901 ASV which eventually became the NASV's preface, parts of which may retain Logsdon's original wording; (b) with recommending Hebrew and Greek experts for the translation team; (c) with initial interviewing of possible translators, particularly those in and around the Chicago/Wheaton/Moody area where Logsdon resided, since Lockman was in California and not an expert anyway.
4. Logsdon only worked with Dewey Lockman at this preliminary stage, and was never part of the actual Lockman Foundation nor NASV translation or editorial team (thus the explanation for the somewhat peculiar wording of the Lockman Foundation's statement on this point).
5. However, Logsdon almost certainly was involved with the beginning stages of the NASV that led to the creation of the Lockman Foundation and the later translational work of that organization.
6. At some point Logsdon was propagandized by KJV Only or Textus Receptus Only advocates, accepted their claims, and then openly renounced his previous support of Lockman's project, the NASV.
So are there any objections to this synthesis of the historical data?
So the most likely scenario is the following:
1. Logsdon was clearly a close friend of Dewey Lockman.
2. When Lockman devoted his fortune to fund the NASV project, he likely asked his minister friend Logsdon for advice on how to get it going.
3. Logsdon helped: (a) with his suggestions on updating the 1901 ASV which eventually became the NASV's preface, parts of which may retain Logsdon's original wording; (b) with recommending Hebrew and Greek experts for the translation team; (c) with initial interviewing of possible translators, particularly those in and around the Chicago/Wheaton/Moody area where Logsdon resided, since Lockman was in California and not an expert anyway.
4. Logsdon only worked with Dewey Lockman at this preliminary stage, and was never part of the actual Lockman Foundation nor NASV translation or editorial team (thus the explanation for the somewhat peculiar wording of the Lockman Foundation's statement on this point).
5. However, Logsdon almost certainly was involved with the beginning stages of the NASV that led to the creation of the Lockman Foundation and the later translational work of that organization.
6. At some point Logsdon was propagandized by KJV Only or Textus Receptus Only advocates, accepted their claims, and then openly renounced his previous support of Lockman's project, the NASV.
So are there any objections to this synthesis of the historical data?
- Status