NASB CO-Founder recants NASB.

[Yeshua1]

In what way is he wrong about the NKJV?

KJVO holds that they didi some rendering/alterations from CT/MT text!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

and that also assumes that somehow there was a cult within the church that viewed corruption of the texts their top priority!

And was NEVER herad from again...

Did the RCC use Knight templers to do that deed, after they got the Shroud of Turin and Holy grail to the vatican?

 

[prophet]

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.

Or perhaps I read from the pre-AV English Bibles regularly, and even a few post?

And if you possess reading comprehension, and read "In The Great Tradition", then you know that Farstad believed that the AV was translated from inferior MSS.
You also would know, that there are readings in the NKJV that are not from the Received Texts, but rather the CT/MT.
Of course, you know this, which begs the question of why you are trying to portray otherwise.

 

[prophet]

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.

1.Who are the "we" you are referring to?
2.I have no Idea how long 'A' was in a garbage can, only that it was discovered after having been discarded, and was worthy of said disposal.

 

[sag38]

You can't make this stuff up. If the same type of tactics are used to point out issues with the KJV then one is accused of attacking the KJV. But, it's ok for KJVOnlyist to attack the NASB with non-sense and it's ok. Well, it's not ok. The NASB is my translation of choice. Why are you attacking my Bible? When you come up with a legitimate argument other than your pathetic opinions and weak (same old same old) logic please let us know.

 

[Rippon]

You can't make this stuff up. If the same type of tactics are used to point out issues with the KJV then one is accused of attacking the KJV. But, it's ok for KJVOnlyist to attack the NASB with non-sense and it's ok. Well, it's not ok. The NASB is my translation of choice. Why are you attacking my Bible? When you come up with a legitimate argument other than your pathetic opinions and weak (same old same old) logic please let us know.

I second your thoughts.

 

[annsni]

Bottom line, OP - we see that the premise of your post is untrue. This man was NOT the co-founder of the NASB and this hoax has been traveling the KJVO world for a long time. Why not admit you're wrong in this matter? I have to say that I've not met any KJVO that would admit they were wrong with a false assertion like this. Will you be the first?

 

[sag38]

Don't hold your breath Ann. Those who are card carrying members of the Bible worshipping cult never admit error.

 

[Logos1560]

And if you possess reading comprehension, and read "In The Great Tradition", then you know that Farstad believed that the AV was translated from inferior MSS.

The fact that Farstad preferred the Majority text does not change the fact of which text that the NKJV was actually based on.

The NKJV translators used Scrivener's edition of the Textus Receptus as their basic Greek text for its NT, not the Majority text edition edited by Farstad and others.

You also would know, that there are readings in the NKJV that are not from the Received Texts, but rather the CT/MT.

Of course, you know this, which begs the question of why you are trying to portray otherwise.

It has not been properly demonstrated that there are any readings in the NKJV that are not from the Received Texts. All the variations could properly be considered translational differences in the same range of the type translation differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles.

I am seeking to portray accurately the facts about the NKJV and its underlying texts in contrast to unproven KJV-only accusations against it.

 

[annsni]

Don't hold your breath Ann. Those who are card carrying members of the Bible worshipping cult never admit error.

Eh - Just thought I'd give it a try.

 

[prophet]

The fact that Farstad preferred the Majority text does not change the fact of which text that the NKJV was actually based on.

The NKJV translators used Scrivener's edition of the Textus Receptus as their basic Greek text for its NT, not the Majority text edition edited by Farstad and others.



It has not been properly demonstrated that there are any readings in the NKJV that are not from the Received Texts. All the variations could properly be considered translational differences in the same range of the type translation differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles.

I am seeking to portray accurately the facts about the NKJV and its underlying texts in contrast to unproven KJV-only accusations against it.

Ok. Fun fact search.
How many times is the word "Hades" found in the NKJV?
How many times in the TR?

 

[jonathan.borland]

Ok. Fun fact search.
How many times is the word "Hades" found in the NKJV?
How many times in the TR?

Do you really think that the NKJV's "Hades" is based on a different source text than that of the KJV? Can you prove your proposition?

 

[prophet]

Do you really think that the NKJV's "Hades" is based on a different source text than that of the KJV? Can you prove your proposition?

Do you always answer with questions?

I mean Jesus often did, but he actually WAS superior to the people He was tslking to.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Do you always answer with questions?

I mean Jesus often did, but he actually WAS superior to the people He was tslking to.

I do not presume to be superior to you, neither do I aspire to be so in a number of important areas. Not answering simple questions is your prerogative, but in a discussion forum it is generally incumbent upon those making uncommon claims to back up their claims with evidence. That's all!

 

[prophet]

I do not presume to be superior to you, neither do I aspire to be so in a number of important areas. Not answering simple questions is your prerogative, but in a discussion forum it is generally incumbent upon those making uncommon claims to back up their claims with evidence. That's all!

Nice duck. You answered a question with a question, assuming an air that you were above answering it.
This has happened all along, on this thread.
And you wanna lecture about answering questions, and incumbency?
The onus is on you, to revisit the post that i quoted, and answer the question, if you really believe in discussion.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Nice duck. You answered a question with a question, assuming an air that you were above answering it.
This has happened all along, on this thread.
And you wanna lecture about answering questions, and incumbency?
The onus is on you, to revisit the post that i quoted, and answer the question, if you really believe in discussion.

Duck what? I don't believe that there's an unalterable, letter-perfect edition in English, and this was clear in my interactions on the thread. In case I missed them, what were the other questions addressed to me that I "ducked"?

Now can you answer my legitimate question on your uncommon claim that the NKJV's "hades" is not based on the same source text as the KJV's with actual evidence? If not, we know who is the one actually and consistently ducking questions, don't we?

 

[prophet]

Duck what? I don't believe that there's an unalterable, letter-perfect edition in English, and this was clear in my interactions on the thread. In case I missed them, what were the other questions addressed to me that I "ducked"?

Now can you answer my legitimate question on your uncommon claim that the NKJV's "hades" is not based on the same source text as the KJV's with actual evidence? If not, we know who is the one actually and consistently ducking questions, don't we?

I didn't make any claims, I asked a question concerning Hades.

 

[jonathan.borland]

This was your objection in reply to Logos' statement, "It has not been properly demonstrated that there are any readings in the NKJV that are not from the Received Texts."

You said: "How many times is the word "Hades" found in the NKJV? How many times in the TR?"

Do you now deny that Hades has anything to do with the supposed (but undemonstrated) differences between the source texts used by the KJV and the NKJV translators? When you post things are you trying to be understood, or are you just posting nonsense and pretending that it is not, until someone asks you what the relation of your nonsense is to the thing you're replying to, and then you can just reply that you were simply writing nonsense, and not actually trying to interact with the person's statements? If this is the case, why even participate in discussion boards? How silly!

 

[prophet]

Dealing with someone who claims that the translators must have screwed up the title page, or left it to the print shop apprentice, or something, cuz surely they couldn't have meant that they translated the AV from the original toungues, and compared and revised the former English translations as well.

 

[annsni]

Dealing with someone who claims that the translators must have screwed up the title page, or left it to the print shop apprentice, or something, cuz surely they couldn't have meant that they translated the AV from the original toungues, and compared and revised the former English translations as well.

You think the translators worried about the title page? Did they choose the leather for the covers as well?