KJV vs NASB

Philip said:

I caught all of the references except the one about Mary. Could you elaborate?

Click to expand...

There are many places (check any mainstream Bible translation) where Jesus seems to be rude to his mother.

For example, John 2:4:

4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come.”

For example, calling "Woman" in Aramaic ("Atho") is akin to calling them "Ma'am" or "Madam" in english.

Another example, "what have I to do with you?" comes from "Mo lee u-lokh?" (litterally "What have I and have you?") which means something along the lines of "What's between us?" or "What's the matter?"

He was not being rude, he was being Semitic

Shlomo,

The Thadman said:

There are many places (check any mainstream Bible translation) where Jesus seems to be rude to his mother.

For example, John 2:4:

4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come.”

For example, calling "Woman" in Aramaic ("Atho") is akin to calling them "Ma'am" or "Madam" in english.

Another example, "what have I to do with you?" comes from "Mo lee u-lokh?" (litterally "What have I and have you?") which means something along the lines of "What's between us?" or "What's the matter?"

He was not being rude, he was being Semitic

Shlomo,

Click to expand...

Thanks. This passage did not come to mind. I have always assumed that "Woman" was used as "Ma'am" since it would never have occurred to me that Christ would have been rude or demeaning to His mother.

http://www.dtl.org/versions/e-mails/kjv-nkjv/part-1.htm

interesting conversation

Durelen said:

Now as for KJV, if you are not used to old English than study the NASB since it is far more reflective of our modern English language.

Click to expand...

By definition, the KJV is neither old English or middle English, but simply archaic.

Main Entry: Old English
Function: noun
Date: 1871
1 a : the language of the English people from the time of the earliest documents in the 7th century to about 1100

Main Entry: Middle English
Function: noun
Date: 1830
: the English in use from the 12th to 15th centuries

AVBunyan said:

But if you were to ask then we would respectfully and graciously seek to show you why we believe what we believe in order for you to come to the conclusion that you can have God's perfect words in your very hands without having to learn Greek and Hebrew.

Click to expand...

A perfect translation could only come from perfect translaters. And people who have taken the time to learn more than one languague realize that meaning and intentions of the originals are often lost in a translation.

AVBunyan said:

Now the real issue is…what is your final authority in all matters of faith and practice? Please don’t tell me the “Bible” if you use other translations, Greek lexicons, etc. for then they are your final authority. If you have a King James Bible in your hand then you have the final authority. Don’t you want to know that what you have in your hands is the “real thing”, perfect and without error? Why not try to believe that and go with that instead of trying to prove mistakes in the King James Bible? I can guarantee that you will get more out of a King James Bible with simple child-like faith trusting the Holy Spirit for illumination than by questioning it and using every Bible study aid known to mankind.

Click to expand...

Many people have read staight from the Greek translation because, that's what the New Testment was written in, they have the orginal or almost orginal words that Paul used. And from reading the New Testment where the Apostle Paul quotes the Old Testament, we know that he used the Greek Septguint (spelling?), which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This is close to the real thing. As a Baptist, I believe in the priesthood of the believer, and that we have a choice in what bible we read. This is one thing Protestants objected to in the 1500's, that the Roman Catholic Church would keep the public from reading the bible. They did that because they wanted the public to know only their interpetation. But I had with caution, the Roman Catholic Church no longer does that to my knowledge.

I may also add, on a apologetic note, that there will be erros any just about any translation and even contradictions in the bible, such as the number of angles at Jesus tomb, or what Jesus said last before he died. Nevertheless, these eye witness acounts are so simular, that they would hold up in a court of law. And Jesus remains true. God uses imperfect people in inperfect ministry everday to take the Good News to the the World.


"Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." Romans 3.4

It has been said that the KJV is the most accurate translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, while the NASB is the most accurate translation of the Greek Septguint. However, since the KJV uses archaic English, in which many of the meanings of the words have changed, it may not be the best translation for today's English speaking people. And if the King James is the final authority, should all the nations, tribes, and toungues of the world learn it? I think not.

The Thadman said:

This is 100% IMPOSSIBLE in the 1st Century, as eunuchs were not allowed to worship at the temple. We read in Deuteronomy 23:1

Click to expand...

This is not possible if, "Congration of the LORD" means priesthood in Deut. 23.1, which, I think, is the usual interpretation by most bible scholars.

theseed said:

And if the King James is the final authority, should all the nations, tribes, and toungues of the world learn it? I think not.

Click to expand...

OK, then what would you suggest they all learn? Please be specific if possible.

AVBunyan said:

OK, then what would you suggest they all learn? Please be specific if possible.

Click to expand...

It would be unreasonable to expect billions of people to learn another language, just so they can read the bible.

I have the KJV, the NASB and the NIV. All 3 have their fine points, and many believe that the KJV is the most literal translation. For me the NIV is the easiest to read, and I also read the NASB as it has some excellent footnotes which help the reader better understand what was being said. That being said, the NIV which I read is a Dad's Devotional Bible and I enjoy reading some of the anecdotal father stories intermingled with the Scripture. I don't think you can go wrong with any of the 3 I've mentioned, and I'm sure there are other versions that other people enjoy reading more. God Bless.