NASB or NJK users

I am in agreement with the majority consensus:

The NKJV "flows" better and is easier to read, and the NASB is IMO more literal.

I like them both....I find myself using the NKJV more of the time for preaching and witnessing as I simply like the way it is written.

 

Hi Nathan,

Welcome to the Baptist Board!

I pray that we will be a blessing to you, and you to us.

 

Thank you Craig. I've been lurking for quite a while but finally decided to get a userid and start posting.

 

Too many "stumps" in either. But then to say the nKJV is translated by the same under"LYING" texts as the KJB? "LYING", Not TRUE, else they would say the same thing, and they don't.

We are talking about the Word of God here, and not a storybook.

Much of the nKJV is based upon totally different texts from the KJB

 

Do you have proof or clear examples of this statement?

 

mcgyver,
I'm with you on this. I'm using NKJV more and more for preaching; but, still use NASB for personal reading. WallyGator

 

Hey TCassidy,

Don't confuse people with the truth, what is wrong with you?

Bro Tony

 

The NKJV NT is based on the same TR the KJV is based on (Stephens 1551 TR). The difference is that the NKJV translators actually followed the TR while the KJV translators departed from it in favor of the Alexandrian text on one occasion and the Latin Vulgate on several occasions. [Smile]

Alexandrain text in the KJV! Say it ain't so!

 

Not so! it's made up, the ONLY place the KJB follows the AT is when the Byzantine and the AT are the same.

More mv hanky panky

 

Sorry but that is an all too often retold lie. The NKJV OT is based on the Stutgartensia Hebrew text, which represents the Ben Asher Hebrew textform. The KJV is based on the Bomberg text, which represents the Ben Chayyim Hebrew textform. There are only 8 differences between the two texts which would affect translation, and in all 8 instances the NKJV followed the KJV reading.

The NKJV NT is based on the same TR the KJV is based on (Stephens 1551 TR). The difference is that the NKJV translators actually followed the TR while the KJV translators departed from it in favor of the Alexandrian text on one occasion and the Latin Vulgate on several occasions. </font>[/QUOTE]UIf your assumption was true, then why didn't the nKJV tramslators know the difference between God and the antics of the wicked? And then why is it so many equate God with actually doing "evil" as assummed to be an attribute of satan? That fallacy too is derived from nKJV readings, they are NOT the same.

 

Quick question for you Frank.

Have you ever read a reprint of the AV1611?

If not then the 1611 will answer some of your questions.

 

Sorry but that is an all too often retold lie. The NKJV OT is based on the Stutgartensia Hebrew text, which represents the Ben Asher Hebrew textform. The KJV is based on the Bomberg text, which represents the Ben Chayyim Hebrew textform. There are only 8 differences between the two texts which would affect translation, and in all 8 instances the NKJV followed the KJV reading.

The NKJV NT is based on the same TR the KJV is based on (Stephens 1551 TR). The difference is that the NKJV translators actually followed the TR while the KJV translators departed from it in favor of the Alexandrian text on one occasion and the Latin Vulgate on several occasions. </font>[/QUOTE]UIf your assumption was true, then why didn't the nKJV tramslators know the difference between God and the antics of the wicked?</font>[/QUOTE] Where have you proven that they didn't? At least to as great a degree as the original KJV translators.

Does anyone know what Frank is saying here? Frank, Can you clarify what your point is here?

What fallacy are you referring to?

So? That isn't proof that the NKJV is not an accurate translation of the same underlying texts as the KJV.

BTW, You might want to "gird up your loins" before taking Doc on. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, no one can argue that he doesn't have a very good grasp on the facts of this issue.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I am interested in this perspective Frank. I have tried to find specific examples of where the NKJV uses totally different texts than the KJV, especailly if they use the Alexandrian textual body as opposed to the Byzantine body. I would love to see some clear examples of that. Would you care to share that with us please?

[ May 17, 2005, 01:20 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Here is a link to a good review of the NKJV that compares it with the NASB:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html

 

Thank you Craigbythesea. That source says:

//The New King James Version is a conservative revision
of the King James version that does not make any alterations
on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text,
but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie
the King James version.//

Note that to determine the readings "presumed to underlie
the King James version" requires textual analysis. Most KJVO
don't think that anybody but the KJV1769 revisers were allowed
to do the proper textual analysis.

 

DocCas, You know most of us would rather believe our preconceived ideas than truth. One has to read to find the truth.

 

Blue Falcon:You really recommend the AV 1611? With all the middle "s"s looking like "f"s and "J"s being "I"s, etc., it's a fun read but not a very practical one. "Almoft thou perfuadeft mee to bee a Chriftian."

According to ye KJVOf, they're identical in their readingf. Anyone who readf the KJV with clarity fhould haue no great contention reading the AV.

Also, the AV debunks many of the KJVO notions.

Its preface and other works by the translators, as well as the Apocrypha, are great study tools.

I SHOULDA mentioned that I also use the KJV currently in use, especially when witnessing to the elderly.

Trow ye aleays true, BF!

 

NASB is more literal and is from the best manuscripts. However, the NKJV is more readable than the NASB.

 

Thanks, Tom, for putting things back on track!