I originally purchased my Schuyler NASB thinking it was a 77. When I found out it was a 95, I was quite disappointed. I got used to it, though, and it is now my main, most used, daily Bible. When I saw Schuyler come out with their RSV, I jumped on it knowing that it is essentially an ESV with deity-specific thees and thous. I have been doing my morning Bible reading in that RSV. What a beautifully-worded translation from 1952! It still will not replace my NAS95, though. I may someday search out and buy an NAS77, but as for the NAS20 and the LSB, no thank you. I'm good. I just bought an Allen NAS95 just in case the NAS20 takes over and the 95 is one-day hard to find.
Definitely agree with your point here. Even as I am glad the '95 will still be published (and which I seriously doubt the 2020 version will equal), we're going to have multiple editions of the same Bible which will inevitably lead not only to confusion but, I fear, the further dilution of the NASB's market share.
I totally agree! It was a major revision from 1977 to 1995 to the 2020 NASB. Now MacArthur comes along with a major revision of the 1995 NASB with the LSB. You are right about NASB market share and competing with itself. In 2011 the NASB 1995 was number 7 out of the top 10 best selling translations in the United States. As of 2021 the NASB of any flavor was not in the top 10.
I just bought the 77 nasb online. Can't wait to compare the two. If I like it i might buy more of them and use that one. I doubt ill use the Lsb or the 2020 but well see
Good point. Thank you for sharing. This is another illustration of the human, no, wait, the element of MEN, in bible translations. God slowly and gently recedes into the background, and no one noticed among the voices running amok between themselves. Great video as always.
I agree and disagree... I don't like that you can't get the '84 NIV anymore. I liked that version and used it to compare a lot. What's wrong with allowing people to purchase and use them.
I do see your point however it is a translation that continues to move closer to dropping out of the top ten in bible sales. I think you have to market it a different way. I also think it is great that Lockman continues to provide options by keeping different versions in print. It would be great if the NIV 84 for example was still in wide publication. One could make the same argument about having so many different translations in the first place. The sad thing is in this day and age it is more about making money than it is anything. It is great to have the options but what is the real motivation behind it all.
I love the 95 version of the NASB. I understand why people like the fancier language, but for me it is harder to do in-depth Bible study. Give me just straight English and I am quite happy. I want to check out the LSB when it becomes available. I have two very important questions. First, is John MacArthur going to have his commentary in there? For me that commentary is a must. Second, is it going to be written in the Old King James style? That is also a deal breaker for me. As I said before the fancy language is beautiful, but it does not work well in actual study of the Bible.
I understand more what you’re saying now. But here’s my thoughts: the ESV has frequent updates. we’re already on the 4th update or so. At the rate they’ve been updating, we’ll probably get another update in a year or two. By the time it’s into its 5 or 6th update it probably will be significantly different from its 2001 counterpart. The NASB gets updated very infrequently so when an update does happen it seems like a big change. I mean look at the 1984 NIV vs 2011, it was a pretty big change. As far as running into other readers of the NASB... honestly, the NASB is a bit of a niche translation. You just won’t find that many people using it, and the 77 edition is even that much more rare. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of anyone at my church or other Christian friends who even use the NASB, let alone the 1977 version. And for the record, at the churches I go to and associate with almost everyone uses the ESV. I’m one of the few that uses a different version (NASB)... although I also use the ESV.
I agree with your assessment. I am also an NASB user at an ESV church. You can count on the NASB's updates to be less frequent, which IS better... But then you also have the option to stay with that translation for the rest of your life if you don't like the update. That's a benefit. For example, I reject the NASB 2020, but that doesn't mean I have to reject the 95 too. Now I can choose to stick with the 95 and probably use that the rest of my life. And not only that, the LSB is solely based on the 95 and shouldn't have any updates. And so I will be able to follow along with preachers who use the LSB or make a small translation jump with little effort bc of it's closeness to the 95. Lastly. I think the NASB95 and 20 are growing in popularity. The bibles coming out are extremely nice and selling well. I have a 95 goatskin MacArthur that should last me a lifetime. Last time I checked, they were sold out and on backorder on EB.
What's better, the 1977 version or the updated version? Two years ago I got an old leather 1977 version that was printed in 1982 with a lot of cross references on the side as a gift. This is when I found out about this translation. I tried finding a similar one but I haven't been able to with the exception of a few old ones on ebay that sell at a high price or end of verse reference Bibles from AMG as well as their the Greek and Hebrew study Bibles. I prefer the cross reference system breaks the verse down with the references through the small letters.
"What's better, the 1977 version or the updated version?" Between the 77 and 95 version, it's ultimately a matter of personal preference, as the differences are mostly negligible outside of two details. The 77 version has it's Psalms rendered in a readable but distinctly King James-esque style (i.e. having Thees, Thous, Thy, etc.) This KJV poetic style also comes up in sections when either God is being addressed or God speaks (I forget off the top of my head whether it's one or the other, or both.) Other than those distinctions, for the most part, you could flip to random pages between the 77 and 95 and barely tell a difference. Though even outside of the Psalms and God sections, the 77 goes with word choices here and there that are a bit more elegant in language than the 95; the latter tends to go for a more straightforward and modern English style. Also, due to it's word choices and a few more translation notes, the 77 is considered marginally more literal/formal than the 95. What it boils down to is this: If you want a version that's marginally more literal and is a bit more elegant in it's language, and don't mind having to either settle between the only two modern published choices that are available (i.e. the Hebrew-Greek Study Bible or the Giant Print version from AMG) or haggling for expensive copies on Amazon/eBay or stumbling upon one in a use book store, go with the 77. If you just want a great formal/literal translation, and don't care about the slightly fancier language, and want to get a copy, that is also available in a wider variety of formats and study Bibles, without pulling your hair out over price or haggling, go with the 95.
@@SolitaireZeta That makes sense. It was a gift and it's in good condition which is how I started reading the NASB. I haven't read much from the 95 edition which I why I wanted to see which one was more literal/accurate since I do personal studies with it.
I just got a 77 and i like it allot,but also have a copy coming of the new 2020 and we shall see about the 2020? Not sure about that one,but wanted one to see if i liked it or not.I still LOVE my 95 reference bible! I will always love the 95.I also have a KJV because i grew up on the KJV and use it less,but still have it.
I think that all modern English Bible translations should have their major revisions done once every 10 years and minor revisions once every five years
I want a brand new leather Ryrie NASB 77!!! Mine is so worn. I have the '95, but I don't like it as much. I definitely don't want the 2020. The passages I have read are awful!!!
Well, I'd love to get a 77 edition. Where can I find one? As far as KJV updating, it's more like correcting misspellings, grammar etc. Not translational in nature.
That's not quite accurate. There are some verses in the 1769 KJV that straight-up say something different from the 1611. It's not a lot but there are some.
I do not trust the N.A.S.B. very much, but it is useful, with caution, for study. The 1995 edition of it improved many aspects of the 1977 earlier edition, but I consult both of those, not just one or the other. However, to me the 2020 and Legacy editions just go steps too far, making them irrelevant for study. The A.V., (K.J.V.), in any case, is the rock by which the flotsam of later versions is judged. The rock is firmer ground that the slippery flotsom happens to be.
i totally agree with you tim it is confusing at times i personally have the nasv 77 on my phone cause i live in a 3rd world country and we do not have that much money so i am saving up for an esv study bible maybe for xmas i will have the money i will get the 27 dollar hard back cause i have to pay the custums office it would be well over 15 to 20 dollars and we are a very poor country but it is worth the effort thanks tim
First! Also, I think the LSB is a bad idea and I'll skip it. Having one guy, even someone I like as much as MacArthur, having as much input as he'll have is a very, very bad idea. I'll stick with my '95 😁
I have recently bot a 95. NASB AND A 2020 BOTH WITH large font . I will have to decide if the 2020 is too gender off-- putting. Only one way to find out. I will probably give the LSB AND MacArthur a miss.
Not clear on the '77 NASB. Do you mean '71, when the entire Bible first came out? '95 was the first major revision of that one, biggest factor being the changing of the archaic pronouns.
I think what you mean is "Don't tell everyone every time you make a revision by adding numbers... noone cares, everyone thinks the latest and greatest from the hIgHeR sChOlArS is what they want. Just push as many updates as you can into the current name, that way it causes less division." It's all picking flyshit out of pepper anyway. Anyone who argues over Bible versions this tiny is barking up the wrong tree anyway. Swallow all the Critical Text "higher criticism"? It's great, don't worry, pick anything. Like Majority Text? Get a KJV. Who cares? Modern internet Christians spend way too much time on this hogwash.
The A.V. Bible (K.J.V.) has NOT been "updated". Change of old spellings to modern ones, improvement of punctuation, and correction of printers' errors from the first and other old editions do not constitute a revision of the A.V. Bible. Minor stuff like that is not at all like what happens to the N.A.S.B., the E.S.B., and least of all like the N.I.V. The A.V. Bile is rock firm.
I very strongly disagree sir. It’s only a very minor tweak. Changing LORD to YHWH , THEE to YOU is not a big deal, very minor and commendable. God bless you richly
Frank Logsdon Denounces New American Standard Version (Transcript) Co Author "I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?" - Frank Logsdon - Logsdon's Pro KJV Anti NASV - Download MP3 Frank Logsdon was a major player in the development of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He was a friend of Dewey Lockman, and was involved in a feasibility study involving purchasing the copyright of the American Standard Version (ASV) with Lockman that lead to the eventual production of the NASB. He interviewed some of the translators for the job, and even wrote the preface to the translation. Slowly, he became aware that there was something wrong with the NASB. He eventually rejected it, and promoted the KJV. This was a major defection for the modern version crowd Below is his speech, in it's entirety, rejecting the NASB, and endorsing the Textus Receptus and the KJV. (The complete transcript is available here) www.defendproclaimthefaith.org/dr_frank_logsdon.html Vaticanus Text (Catholic) disagrees with the Sinaiticus in over 3,000 places. Missing in this text, Gen 1 to 46, There is a supplement to it. Ps. 107 to 137, Heb 9:14 on missing. All Revelation all 1and 2 Timothy, All Titus, all Philemon.
Please stop saying the KJV has updates. Yes if you consider changing the font and spelling corrections, then yes. However the text has remained the same
Not exactly. There are some verses that say something distinctly different between the 1611 and 1769 editions. www.rickbeckman.org/log/kjv-1611-vs-1769/
sorenpx looking at the link there’s nothing that deals with doctrine but minor changes at best which is why you said not exactly. All one has to do is look at Matthew 7:20, by their fruits you shall know them. No other Bible translation has had the impact, sent out more missionary’s armed with the KJV , seen more revivals with the word of God than with the KJV. Take the NASB for example, which one is the word of God, 1977, 1995 or the 2020 version? This goes with the other versions as well. They’re constantly updating their versions. I’ll stick with the tried and true version. I’ve read and continue to read other versions such as the NIV, MEV, NASB and ESV but when it comes to doctrine, I’ll stick with the KJV
@@SRQ.Veteran I love the KJV but I think examples like those in the link do show that it's not some perfectly preserved, divinely ordained translation. It's just a translation like any other and it's gone through its own revision process like all the others. Furthermore, it wasn't even the first English Bible. It was more like the sixth or seventh. I have a very nice Holman KJV Study Bible that I use regularly, so this isn't to diminish the KJV. Rather, I just think it's important to have the proper perspective. In regard to your question, "which one is the word of God?" my position is that the only real, true and perfect Word of God are the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Even the best English translation will fail to translate some of the nuances of the original languages because some things just don't translate perfectly from one language to another. I can provide examples if you'd like, but it's just the way it is. A translation is, by its very essence, something of a compromise. The very best English translation can probably provide about 95% of the meaning of the original text but there will still be about 5% that gets lost.
The NASB is a racist “version” of the Bible. “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;” 1 Peter 2:9 NASB Compared to the only true English Word of God KJV ... “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” 1 Peter 2:9 KJV
Mr Frisch, please do a tour of your office and show us what is on your book shelves. God bless
I originally purchased my Schuyler NASB thinking it was a 77. When I found out it was a 95, I was quite disappointed. I got used to it, though, and it is now my main, most used, daily Bible. When I saw Schuyler come out with their RSV, I jumped on it knowing that it is essentially an ESV with deity-specific thees and thous. I have been doing my morning Bible reading in that RSV. What a beautifully-worded translation from 1952! It still will not replace my NAS95, though. I may someday search out and buy an NAS77, but as for the NAS20 and the LSB, no thank you. I'm good. I just bought an Allen NAS95 just in case the NAS20 takes over and the 95 is one-day hard to find.
Definitely agree with your point here. Even as I am glad the '95 will still be published (and which I seriously doubt the 2020 version will equal), we're going to have multiple editions of the same Bible which will inevitably lead not only to confusion but, I fear, the further dilution of the NASB's market share.
I totally agree! It was a major revision from 1977 to 1995 to the 2020 NASB. Now MacArthur comes along with a major revision of the 1995 NASB with the LSB. You are right about NASB market share and competing with itself. In 2011 the NASB 1995 was number 7 out of the top 10 best selling translations in the United States. As of 2021 the NASB of any flavor was not in the top 10.
I just bought the 77 nasb online. Can't wait to compare the two. If I like it i might buy more of them and use that one. I doubt ill use the Lsb or the 2020 but well see
Good point. Thank you for sharing. This is another illustration of the human, no, wait, the element of MEN, in bible translations. God slowly and gently recedes into the background, and no one noticed among the voices running amok between themselves. Great video as always.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on NASB updates and revisions. Personally, I prefer the NASB95.
I agree and disagree... I don't like that you can't get the '84 NIV anymore. I liked that version and used it to compare a lot. What's wrong with allowing people to purchase and use them.
I do see your point however it is a translation that continues to move closer to dropping out of the top ten in bible sales. I think you have to market it a different way. I also think it is great that Lockman continues to provide options by keeping different versions in print. It would be great if the NIV 84 for example was still in wide publication. One could make the same argument about having so many different translations in the first place. The sad thing is in this day and age it is more about making money than it is anything. It is great to have the options but what is the real motivation behind it all.
I personally think having more options is better. I wish I could find a SCR of the NASB 77, but those are basically extinct.
I just bought a Thompson Chain Reference Bible NASB version with 1977 text a week ago 5/12/2022 on Amazon.
Brother I say you've got NASB's right. Their constant updates caused me to return to the NKJV, thank you.
in fairness we haven't seen the LSB yet so we don't know how extensive the update will be.
I didn’t realize there were that many updates to NASB.
I love the 95 version of the NASB. I understand why people like the fancier language, but for me it is harder to do in-depth Bible study. Give me just straight English and I am quite happy. I want to check out the LSB when it becomes available. I have two very important questions. First, is John MacArthur going to have his commentary in there? For me that commentary is a must. Second, is it going to be written in the Old King James style? That is also a deal breaker for me. As I said before the fancy language is beautiful, but it does not work well in actual study of the Bible.
I just bought my first NADB..the 1995 edition... I really like it. I agree.. the LSNADB is another NADB.
I understand more what you’re saying now. But here’s my thoughts: the ESV has frequent updates. we’re already on the 4th update or so. At the rate they’ve been updating, we’ll probably get another update in a year or two. By the time it’s into its 5 or 6th update it probably will be significantly different from its 2001 counterpart. The NASB gets updated very infrequently so when an update does happen it seems like a big change. I mean look at the 1984 NIV vs 2011, it was a pretty big change.
As far as running into other readers of the NASB... honestly, the NASB is a bit of a niche translation. You just won’t find that many people using it, and the 77 edition is even that much more rare. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of anyone at my church or other Christian friends who even use the NASB, let alone the 1977 version.
And for the record, at the churches I go to and associate with almost everyone uses the ESV. I’m one of the few that uses a different version (NASB)... although I also use the ESV.
I agree with your assessment. I am also an NASB user at an ESV church. You can count on the NASB's updates to be less frequent, which IS better... But then you also have the option to stay with that translation for the rest of your life if you don't like the update. That's a benefit. For example, I reject the NASB 2020, but that doesn't mean I have to reject the 95 too. Now I can choose to stick with the 95 and probably use that the rest of my life. And not only that, the LSB is solely based on the 95 and shouldn't have any updates. And so I will be able to follow along with preachers who use the LSB or make a small translation jump with little effort bc of it's closeness to the 95.
Lastly. I think the NASB95 and 20 are growing in popularity. The bibles coming out are extremely nice and selling well. I have a 95 goatskin MacArthur that should last me a lifetime. Last time I checked, they were sold out and on backorder on EB.
I love my NASB. My church used it and then suddenly I noticed the thees and thous were missing. They had updated, but I didn't want to.
What's better, the 1977 version or the updated version? Two years ago I got an old leather 1977 version that was printed in 1982 with a lot of cross references on the side as a gift. This is when I found out about this translation. I tried finding a similar one but I haven't been able to with the exception of a few old ones on ebay that sell at a high price or end of verse reference Bibles from AMG as well as their the Greek and Hebrew study Bibles. I prefer the cross reference system breaks the verse down with the references through the small letters.
"What's better, the 1977 version or the updated version?"
Between the 77 and 95 version, it's ultimately a matter of personal preference, as the differences are mostly negligible outside of two details.
The 77 version has it's Psalms rendered in a readable but distinctly King James-esque style (i.e. having Thees, Thous, Thy, etc.) This KJV poetic style also comes up in sections when either God is being addressed or God speaks (I forget off the top of my head whether it's one or the other, or both.)
Other than those distinctions, for the most part, you could flip to random pages between the 77 and 95 and barely tell a difference. Though even outside of the Psalms and God sections, the 77 goes with word choices here and there that are a bit more elegant in language than the 95; the latter tends to go for a more straightforward and modern English style. Also, due to it's word choices and a few more translation notes, the 77 is considered marginally more literal/formal than the 95.
What it boils down to is this: If you want a version that's marginally more literal and is a bit more elegant in it's language, and don't mind having to either settle between the only two modern published choices that are available (i.e. the Hebrew-Greek Study Bible or the Giant Print version from AMG) or haggling for expensive copies on Amazon/eBay or stumbling upon one in a use book store, go with the 77.
If you just want a great formal/literal translation, and don't care about the slightly fancier language, and want to get a copy, that is also available in a wider variety of formats and study Bibles, without pulling your hair out over price or haggling, go with the 95.
@@SolitaireZeta That makes sense. It was a gift and it's in good condition which is how I started reading the NASB. I haven't read much from the 95 edition which I why I wanted to see which one was more literal/accurate since I do personal studies with it.
I just got a 77 and i like it allot,but also have a copy coming of the new 2020 and we shall see about the 2020? Not sure about that one,but wanted one to see if i liked it or not.I still LOVE my 95 reference bible! I will always love the 95.I also have a KJV because i grew up on the KJV and use it less,but still have it.
I think that all modern English Bible translations should have their major revisions done once every 10 years and minor revisions once every five years
Enjoying your videos!!
I want a brand new leather Ryrie NASB 77!!! Mine is so worn. I have the '95, but I don't like it as much. I definitely don't want the 2020. The passages I have read are awful!!!
Since 1977 NASB is still thee and thou ..and 2020 is not yet in vogue..I think I will deal with 1995. For now.
Well, I'd love to get a 77 edition. Where can I find one? As far as KJV updating, it's more like correcting misspellings, grammar etc. Not translational in nature.
That's not quite accurate. There are some verses in the 1769 KJV that straight-up say something different from the 1611. It's not a lot but there are some.
I have the 1977,1995 and LSB looking for 2020 NASB
Hey, I noticed my new bible had a misprint in the notes, should I be cautious about there being one in the scripture?
I do not trust the N.A.S.B. very much, but it is useful, with caution, for study. The 1995 edition of it improved many aspects of the 1977 earlier edition, but I consult both of those, not just one or the other. However, to me the 2020 and Legacy editions just go steps too far, making them irrelevant for study. The A.V., (K.J.V.), in any case, is the rock by which the flotsam of later versions is judged. The rock is firmer ground that the slippery flotsom happens to be.
The latest revisions of a translation that is becoming decadent.
i totally agree with you tim it is confusing at times i personally have the nasv 77 on my phone cause i live in a 3rd world country and we do not have that much money so i am saving up for an esv study bible maybe for xmas i will have the money i will get the 27 dollar hard back cause i have to pay the custums office it would be well over 15 to 20 dollars and we are a very poor country but it is worth the effort thanks tim
Do you have access to the Google play app store?
Can you tour to your library video?
First!
Also, I think the LSB is a bad idea and I'll skip it. Having one guy, even someone I like as much as MacArthur, having as much input as he'll have is a very, very bad idea. I'll stick with my '95 😁
Amen. Me too
I'll get 95 & 20 to keep, & separate, study the LSB
Why do we update the Holy Bible? Are all Bibles inspired?
Couldn’t race also mean nation?
I have recently bot a 95. NASB AND A 2020 BOTH WITH large font
. I will have to decide if the 2020 is too gender off-- putting. Only one way to find out.
I will probably give the LSB AND MacArthur a miss.
Not clear on the '77 NASB. Do you mean '71, when the entire Bible first came out? '95 was the first major revision of that one, biggest factor being the changing of the archaic pronouns.
I think what you mean is "Don't tell everyone every time you make a revision by adding numbers... noone cares, everyone thinks the latest and greatest from the hIgHeR sChOlArS is what they want. Just push as many updates as you can into the current name, that way it causes less division."
It's all picking flyshit out of pepper anyway. Anyone who argues over Bible versions this tiny is barking up the wrong tree anyway. Swallow all the Critical Text "higher criticism"? It's great, don't worry, pick anything. Like Majority Text? Get a KJV. Who cares? Modern internet Christians spend way too much time on this hogwash.
The A.V. Bible (K.J.V.) has NOT been "updated". Change of old spellings to modern ones, improvement of punctuation, and correction of printers' errors from the first and other old editions do not constitute a revision of the A.V. Bible. Minor stuff like that is not at all like what happens to the N.A.S.B., the E.S.B., and least of all like the N.I.V. The A.V. Bile is rock firm.
Dude! an improvement of any kind is an "Update", Even changing the word 'Sonne' to 'Son'. The KJV has been "Updated" numerous times.
Please re-read your last sentence. If you respect and venerate the KJV, it would be better not to call it 'Bile'. Just sayin'...
www.rickbeckman.org/log/kjv-1611-vs-1769/
I very strongly disagree sir. It’s only a very minor tweak. Changing LORD to YHWH , THEE to YOU is not a big deal, very minor and commendable.
God bless you richly
Frank Logsdon Denounces New American
Standard Version (Transcript) Co Author
"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"
- Frank Logsdon
- Logsdon's Pro KJV Anti NASV -
Download MP3
Frank Logsdon was a major player in the development of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He was a friend of Dewey Lockman, and was involved in a feasibility study involving purchasing the copyright of the American Standard Version (ASV) with Lockman that lead to the eventual production of the NASB. He interviewed some of the translators for the job, and even wrote the preface to the translation.
Slowly, he became aware that there was something wrong with the NASB. He eventually rejected it, and promoted the KJV. This was a major defection for the modern version crowd
Below is his speech, in it's entirety, rejecting the NASB, and endorsing the Textus Receptus and the KJV. (The complete transcript is available here)
www.defendproclaimthefaith.org/dr_frank_logsdon.html
Vaticanus Text (Catholic) disagrees with the Sinaiticus in over 3,000 places. Missing in this text, Gen 1 to 46, There is a supplement to it.
Ps. 107 to 137, Heb 9:14 on missing. All Revelation all 1and 2 Timothy, All Titus, all Philemon.
Please stop saying the KJV has updates. Yes if you consider changing the font and spelling corrections, then yes. However the text has remained the same
Not exactly. There are some verses that say something distinctly different between the 1611 and 1769 editions.
www.rickbeckman.org/log/kjv-1611-vs-1769/
sorenpx looking at the link there’s nothing that deals with doctrine but minor changes at best which is why you said not exactly. All one has to do is look at Matthew 7:20, by their fruits you shall know them. No other Bible translation has had the impact, sent out more missionary’s armed with the KJV , seen more revivals with the word of God than with the KJV. Take the NASB for example, which one is the word of God, 1977, 1995 or the 2020 version? This goes with the other versions as well. They’re constantly updating their versions. I’ll stick with the tried and true version. I’ve read and continue to read other versions such as the NIV, MEV, NASB and ESV but when it comes to doctrine, I’ll stick with the KJV
@@SRQ.Veteran I love the KJV but I think examples like those in the link do show that it's not some perfectly preserved, divinely ordained translation. It's just a translation like any other and it's gone through its own revision process like all the others. Furthermore, it wasn't even the first English Bible. It was more like the sixth or seventh. I have a very nice Holman KJV Study Bible that I use regularly, so this isn't to diminish the KJV. Rather, I just think it's important to have the proper perspective. In regard to your question, "which one is the word of God?" my position is that the only real, true and perfect Word of God are the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Even the best English translation will fail to translate some of the nuances of the original languages because some things just don't translate perfectly from one language to another. I can provide examples if you'd like, but it's just the way it is. A translation is, by its very essence, something of a compromise. The very best English translation can probably provide about 95% of the meaning of the original text but there will still be about 5% that gets lost.
The NASB is a racist “version” of the Bible.
“But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;”
1 Peter 2:9 NASB
Compared to the only true English Word of God KJV ...
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:”
1 Peter 2:9 KJV