Amplified Bible and NASB both getting revisions/updates

[LoveofTruth]

Yes, very sad that many Christians are gullible to accept these new versions that change what God originally said in a lot of places in scripture.

And now, for a moment of silence

heres some good info for you , it may come in handy when arguing for the KJV


Consider carefully before you just immediately try to refute it

"The following list shows 30 examples of significant passages where the quotations of Scripture by the second and third century Christians support the readings in the Traditional Text and oppose the readings in the Critical Text. Yet these quotes are much older than the manuscripts that provide the source for the Critical Text. This shows that the major disputed readings in the Traditional Text are more ancient than those in the Critical Text. It shows that the KJV/NKJV type text was prevalent all around the Mediterranean Sea, from France to Africa, where the following authors lived and worked, in the second and third centuries.

Matt. 5:22
Traditional Text: "angry with his brother without a cause"
Critical Text: "angry with his brother"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Book. V, XVI, 5] [Cyprian - Treatise XII, Book 3, 8]

Matt. 6:9-13
Traditional Text: The Lord's Prayer, long version.
Critical Text: Lord's Prayer, short version.
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Didache - VIII]

Matt. 17:21
Traditional Text: "...this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
Critical Text: [omits] [fasting also removed in: Mark 9:29 & Acts 10:30]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Tertulian - On Fasting, VIII] [Pseudo Clement - First Epistle, XII]

Matt. 19:16,17
Traditional Text: "...Good master, ...Why callest thou me good, there is none good, but one, that is, God."
Critical Text: "...Teacher, ... Why do you ask me about what is good?"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Origen - Against Celsus, Book V, XI]

Matt. 26:28 [identifies the "New Covenant" with Jer. 31:31-34]
Traditional Text: "the new covenant"
Critical Text: "the covenant"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Cyprian - Epistle LXII]

Matt. 27:24
Traditional Text: "the blood of this just person"
Critical Text: "this man's blood"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book V, XIX]

Mark 1:2
Traditional Text: "the prophets"
Critical Text: "Isaiah the prophet" *
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book III, XVI, 3]
[An obvious mistake in the CT, Mark goes on to quote Malachi then Isaiah. This change may not appear significant, but if the CT is correct here, then Mark made an error while writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What does that do for the credibility of the rest of Scripture?]

Mark 2:17 [also Matt. 9:13]
Traditional Text: "call...sinners to repentance"
Critical Text: "call...sinners"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Barnabas - V]

Mark 16:9-20
Traditional Text: [Included]
WH [omit] CT [bracketed]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text:[Irenaeus - Book III, X, 5] [Constitutions - Book VIII, 1]

Luke 2:14
Traditional Text: "good will toward men"
Critical Text: "peace to men on whom his favor rests"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Gregory - Twelve Topics on the Faith, Topic XII] [Methodius - Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna, V] [Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book VII, XLVII]

Luke 10:1,17
Traditional Text: "seventy"
Critical Text: "seventy-two"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book II, XXI, 1] [Tertullian - Against Marcion, Book IV, XXIV]

Luke 21:4
Traditional Text: "offerings of God"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book IV, XVIII, 2] [Cyprian - Treatise VIII, 15]

John 1:18
Traditional Text: "Only begotten Son."
Critical Text: "Only begotten God."
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book III, XI, 6] [Tertulian - Against Praxeas, XV] [Origen - Against Celcus, LXXI] [Hippolytus - Against Noetus, 5] [Archelaus - Disputation with Manes, 32] [Alexander of Alexandria - Epistles on the Arian Heresy, 4]

John 3:13
Traditional Text: "which is in heaven"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Cyprian] Vol. 5, 622

John 6:69
Traditional Text: "Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God"
Critical Text: "you are the holy One of God"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Cyprian - Epistle LXVIII, 8]
[The expression, "holy one of God" is used only by demons in the Traditional Text, (see: Mark 1:24 & Luke 4:34). It does not demonstrate faith in Christ as Peter's confession in the NKJV.

John 7:53-8:11
Traditional Text: included
WH / Critical Text: All twelve verses missing [or bracketed]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Constitutions of the Holy Apostles - Book I, XXIV]

John 9:4
Traditional Text: "I must work"
Critical Text: "we must work"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Tertullian - Against Praxeas, XXII]

Acts 8:37
Traditional Text [Textus Receptus]: Ethiopian Eunuch's confession.
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support TR: [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. III, xii.8] [Cyprian - Treatise XII, Book III, 43]

Rom. 1:16
Traditional Text: "...the gospel of Christ."
Critical Text: "...the gospel."
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Tertullian - On Prescription Against Heretics, XXIII]

Rom. 10:15
Traditional Text: "gospel of peace"
Critical Text: "good news"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book III, XIII]

1 Cor. 5:7
Traditional Text: "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us"
Critical Text: "Christ our passover lamb has been sacrificed"
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Clement of Alexandria - Stromata, X] [Tertullian - Against Marcion, VII]

Eph. 5:30
Traditional Text: "of his body, of his flesh and of his bones"
Critical Text: "of his body"
Church Fathers Traditional Text: [Irenaeus - Book V, II, 3] [Methodius - Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, I]

Phil. 4:13
Traditional Text: "...Christ, who strengthens me."
Critical Text: "...him who gives me strength."
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Origen - De Principiis, Book III, II, 5]

Col. 2:18
Traditional Text: "...he hath not seen."
Critical Text: "...he has seen."
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Origen - Against Celcus, VIII]

Col. 3:6
Traditional Text: "on the children of disobedience"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Clement of Alexandria] Vol. 2, 288

1 Tim. 6:5
Traditional Text: "from such withdraw thyself"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Cyprian - Epistle XXXIX, 6, & Epistle LXXIII,3]

Heb. 11:37
Traditional Text: "were tempted"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Clement of Alexandria - Stromata, XVI, ] [Origen - Against Celcus, VII]

1 John 4:3
Traditional Text: "Christ in the flesh"
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support Traditional Text: [Polycarp - Epistle, VII] [Tertulian - On Perscription Against Heretics, XXXIII & On the Flesh of Christ, XXIV]

1 John 5:7
Traditional Text [TR]: "...the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."
Critical Text: [omit]
Church Fathers support TR: [Tertullian - Against Praxeas XXV], [Cyprian - Epistle LXXII, 12], [Cyprian - Treatise I, 6]

Rev. 22:14
Traditional Text [TR]: "do his commandments"
Critical Text: "wash their robes"
Church Fathers support TR: [Tertullian - On Modesty, XIX] [Cyprian - Treatise XII, Book II, 22]

In each of these quotes by the early Fathers who died before the supposed recension was made, their Bibles contained the words in question which are omitted from the Critical Text based largely on Aleph and B. But, in this sampling you will notice something absolutely amazing. Notice those labeled "TR" (Textus Receptus) above. These readings are the minority readings within the Traditional Text, and are considered to have no weight at all. Yet, we find that even many of these TR readings (against the Majority Text and Critical Text) find good support in the early Fathers. The readings are older than the Alexandrian manuscripts that omit them, actually being the OLDEST evidence by a long shot! If the "oldest" witnesses are to be believed, particularly when there is variety (different Fathers from different areas or languages) the evidence is very weighty. This is the primary reason I have not abandoned the TR in favor of the Majority Text readings where they differ. The above does not take into account any agreement found in early papyrus fragments or early Latin and Syriac versions.

Often the TR is ridiculed for its occasional departure from the majority readings within the Traditional Text. But, these cases seem to have been judged worthy of inclusion by the KJV translators in light of their early evidence in the patristic evidence, early versions, and perhaps even lectionaries. The KJV translators may have been a lot smarter than is commonly supposed, by basing their translation - recension on more than just the Majority Text (which is limited to only Greek copies). But of course, they stated as much in their "Translators to the Reader." Therefore, it is my opinion that the KJV (and TR) must be judged by the totality of the data, not merely by its adherence to the Majority Text. The TR may in fact be the best Greek text, and contain the oldest readings.

 

[Biblicist]

Because they are busy learning how to be gay friendly and becoming a part of the one world religion... so they are hardly the "best and brightest" which is laughable!

Most so-called theologians reject being born again too which is their claim that Jesus is a liar.

I wouldn't wipe with the writings of theologians as their views are nothing more than the wisdom of men which is the wisdom from below which is earthly, sensual, and devilish.

Most of the guys wouldn't know God is He waled up to them wearing a red hat saying "I AM He"

Now I understand! So I gather that you have obviously never read a book by a theologian or maybe even heard a message, teaching or a podcast by one either. It never fails to intrigue me with how ardent KJV adherents are so quick to attack anyone who is more knowledgable than they are; but of course, most ardent KJV types are usually so obsessed with their own thoughts and imaginations that anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of God's Word will be deemed to be their enemy.

Can I ask, do you actually attend church; which reminds me, it's now Sunday in my part of the world and the morning is moving on.

 

[Farm Truck]

First off, I'm not a "KJV adherent", I'm a "dig in to the original language adherent"

And, WHY would I want to read writing of men who for the most part try to say much of what God's written Word says... is false?

God's Word provides It's own commentary, and God is the teacher.

The Word says to not forsake the gathering of yourselves, so of course I attend church... don't you? Many theologians don't.

 

[Biblicist]

First off, I'm not a "KJV adherent", I'm a "dig in to the original language adherent"

And, WHY would I want to read writing of men who for the most part try to say much of what God's written Word says... is false?

God's Word provides It's own commentary, and God is the teacher.

The Word says to not forsake the gathering of yourselves, so of course I attend church... don't you? Many theologians don't.

Dare I ask, does this mean that you refuse to read any replies to your posts on this forum as well; afterall, they're the "writings of men (and women)" just as the writings of a theologian are?

 

[Farm Truck]

Dare I ask, does this mean that you refuse to read any replies to your posts on this forum as well; afterall, they're the "writings of men (and women)" just as the writings of a theologian are?

Big difference between reading what someone wrote versus reading what God wrote as being God's Word.

That's one reason why there is so much error being taught these days since most people think "theologians" speak for God. They are not as God speaks for Himself in His Book and His Book provides God's own Commentary which is obtained by the leading of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ Who was sent by Jesus to lead us and guide us in to all true - and Jesus said God's Word IS truth.

You fellas can have yo theologians... I'm having a close, personal relationship with the One Who purchased my life with His shed Blood. Nothing can come in between me and my Heavenly Father... not even "theologians".

In the end, we'll all see who ends up where!

 

[azark]

With the Amplified "Bible", I would say that there is little value with updating an extremley loose paraphrase. As for the NASB, the original (1971) edition made the mistake of keeping the old archaic KJV language for prayer etc. Even though the NASB was a popular and accurate version, this poor editorial descision along with its wooden reading style gave the soon to be released NIV (1978) a bit of an upper hand.

The NASB was updated in 1995 where they removed the silly KJV language but this was probably too late. As to the changes for the stated second update of the NASB it should be interesting to see what changes they make. Even though I use the NIV/1, I still prefer the NASB for its accuracy.

 

[azark]

They don't really have to "update" bible translations as fast as they are. The English language is not changing as fast as they would like us to think. A great many people still use the 1611 KJV today! It's all about the money many times for the publishing companies.
When they do "update" it's not an update but it ends up being a "new translation." The NIV84 edition was "updated with the new 2011edition. Many verses in the NIV84 was superior in translation. I remember reading so many places in the "updated 2011" thinking, "why did they change this?" I noticed in all the updates it's about "readability" primarily. (Pretty soon we will be reading on the third grade level.)
I noticed the "updated" Amplified Bible has, in my opinion, gone from a more literal translation with footnotes from some of the best respected translators and commentator's in the recent past. Now it may be just a paraphrase. It seems to lack depth It had especially in the New Testament.