One Bible only, which one!

I use the NASB because of its superiority. Should I list my 5 reasons, or the 5-fold superiority of the NASB?

God bless </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm, I can see the NASB superiority over modern versions, not KJV or NKJV.

 

Don't you mean the New Canadian Standard Bible (NCSB)?

 

Maybe I have some limited experience here, but has ANYBODY ever seen a Bible that just included God's words and absolutely no words of written by "man" between the cover? Either a Publisher's name and copyright date. Or a thanks to the Anglican king for allowing this or SOMETHING.

 

I like the ESV,
Yes, that's the Book for me!
I stand alone on the Word of God,
Yes, O yes it's the ESV.

 

Hmmmm, and I can see the NKJV superiority over the KJV. Its in modern English.

 

Sorry, 2,000+ words in the NKJV are not from traditional MSS. 40% non-TR in the NKJV. The KJV superiority over the NKJV is factual.

 

Are you claiming the NKJV was NOT translated from the TR?

 

Sorry, 2,000+ words in the NKJV are not from traditional MSS. 40% non-TR in the NKJV. The KJV superiority over the NKJV is factual. </font>[/QUOTE]Prove it. Tell us a few of the words in the NKJV that are not properly used to translate the TR.

BTW, if we counted up the italicized words in the KJV, how many would not be from the "traditional MSS"? How many would be non-TR?

 

How can this be, since yesterday in another thread you said the TR and CT are less than 7% different? And the NKJV usually follows the TR in these differences! So since when does 7 (or less) = 40?

Where do you get your numbers? Do you just make them up?

 

Auch! We've been HAD. Askjo is right. The Old Testment is NOT the TR. That's MORE than 40%. For once he's right on this issue.

Problem is, I don't think that's what Askjo had on his mind, though.

 

Look at my last post.

 

The KJV was not translated from the TR. Rather, it was copied from the Roman Catholic Bible, the Douay Rheims.

 

Correct, Masoretic Hebrew.

 

Look at my last post. </font>[/QUOTE]And again, PROVE IT.

 

Where the KJV is correct, it is borrowing straight from the Geneva Bible. When it borrows from the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims, it is questionable.

 

GeeHaw!!!

You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters on this topic.

 

Look at my last post. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying that the translator's lied about it? It is very clear that it WAS translated from the TR right in the front of the NKJV.

I would certainly hope they wouldn't be THAT dishonest.

Would you please provide us with several examples of major variances with the TR?

I do NOT want variances with the KJV. I want variances with the TR.

As said below, the Vulgate was used for this:

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Rev 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

 

I'm telling you guys (and gals), I'm quickly becoming a Geneva onlyist. After all, it has been around longer than the KJV!!!

 

KJV1982 edition aka NKJV

 

Don't you mean the New Canadian Standard Bible (NCSB)?

Nah, I just fill in all the extra U's when I read it out loud.