There’s only one serious mistake I’ve found in the NASB1995, in 1st Corinthians 6 it says “Flee Immorality” instead of “Flee sexual immorality” (which the NASB2020 says correctly). The Greek word is porneian πορνείαν), and should be translated sexual immorality or perhaps fornication. If you know that one example where you can explain it to people, then you’re fine, but it is a sad mistake and the Lockman Foundation has acknowledged it and has corrected it. The NASB2020 tried to incorporate what they call “gender accurate language”, sometimes using “brothers and sisters” where the reading has traditionally been just “brothers”. They only do this when the context is clearly meant for males and females, and of course, they always italicize the English words that are not directly backed from the Greek, but can be contextually inferred from the Greek to make the reading more clear. I still don’t know how I feel about the gender accurate language, but I don’t think it’s a reason to not use the NASB2020. So overall, both are extremely accurate, with just a few minor complaints. Thanks for your comment! Hope this helps. Which translation do you currently use?
@@ScienceFaithReasoning thank you so much for the detailed response. I have just recently been diving into Gods word and wow, what a blessing it has been in my life. My current translation that I absolutely adore and use is ESV. I also use NIV which is not my favorite translation, but I feel most translations I’ve seen and use have there strengths and weaknesses. I’ve really wanted to get the NASB for quite some time to use and enjoy, but didn’t know which version to get so thank you for clearing up the differences. God bless and thank you for your content. This KJVO is a legit issue and as much as I love the KJV this specific group of people tend to push others away from Jesus Christ using the wrong message.
@@tylerreece9520 The ESV is a very good translation, just in my personal reading, I've never come across anything weird in it, but that doesn't mean there aren't any mistakes or any areas for improvement. I don't have much familiarity with the NIV. And yes, while there are many genuine and solid saints in the KJVO camp, I do believe it to be a largely negative and extra-biblical ideology with no historical support, and it's not doing Christians any good dividing each other over the translation they prefer, especially when most of the translations people use, KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB are all very solid.
i respect the work that went into this. as a kjv onlyist, i have fundamental disagreements in just a few areas and there are other portions of scripture that appear to be doctrinally different between the KJV and modern Bibles. i would love for you to make a video diving into 1 corinthians 9:27, matthew 5:32, luke 2:33, and the areas that add the phrase “of your sins” after the word repent, especially involving the gospel (the NLT is the biggest offender of this). regardless, i respect your passion about the stance you take and the work you put in to find the truth. love you man, i appreciate you taking the time to put all this together ❤️
@@brandonbogert7848 to my knowledge, the phrase “of your sins” doesn’t appear in any of the original manuscripts, nor the kjv. seems to be added into the translations it appears in
We really don't know why the KJV translators retained "Lucifer" from the 1602 Bishops' Bible at Isa 14:12. However, the word Lucifer entered the English language as a loan word from Latin as early as Wycliffe's Middle English (see WYC Job 38:32 & COV Isa 51:10). The use of "Lucifer" as a proper name for the Satan goes back to at least Origen, who wrote about "Lucifer" as the Satan. Other Patristic fathers concurred, including Jerome, who also wrote about "Lucifer" as the Satan before he edited the Vulgate. So, the early Church is responsible for using "Lucifer" as a proper noun for the Satan. The KJV may be simply following that age old Church tradition. The normal masculine nominative adjective "lucifer" does appear in pre-Vulgate Latin mss (Vetus Latina) in Job 11:17, 2 Pet 1:19 (which I have confirmed), and possibly Isa 14:12; which I'm still trying to confirm. So, if "lucifer" appears in Isa 14:12 in the Vetus Latin mss then the insertion of "lucifer" in Isa 14:12 is not because of Jerome's translation; it may have already been there. We don't know who wrote the early Latin translations.
Thanks for commenting! Very interesting research you’re citing, I was not aware of lucifer’s use outside of the Latin manuscripts. But regardless, just because it was used in the Latin, does not mean it belongs in our Bibles. The preserved manuscript tradition written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic should be the standard for comparison of our English translations
@@ScienceFaithReasoning The KJV's use of "Lucifer" has, in hindsight and by virtue of its popularity, caused mass cultural confusion for hundreds of years; which is likely not reversible. Many KJV readers, in and outside the church, are not aware of the marginal note; which many publishers don't print. Philo of Alexandria 20 BCE - c. 50 CE Philo wrote the following in The Cherubim, part I, VII (21), “the periods of the seven planets have received their exact measure of time, moving on in an equal course, as the Sun, and Lucifer, and what is called Stilbon. For these three planets are of equal speed.” The Latin speaking word definitely used "Lucifer" in an astronomical, astrological, and mythological context.
@@ScienceFaithReasoning The literal meaning is light-bearer or light-bringer; but, yes, it has been applied to various mythological/astronomical objects. The Nova Vulgate provides "... lucifer, fili aurorae?" or light-bringer, son of Aurora (which is a goddess of the dawn in Roman myth). There is an early Ambrosius Latin hymn that some have used to refer to Aurora symbolically as the Virgin Mary. "Aurora cursus prorehit, Aurora totus prodeat, In Patre totus Filius Et totus in Verbo Pater.'
Per the 1611 Holy Bible a/k/a KJV Bible: Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together Sirach 50:6 He [Simon the high priest, son of Onias] was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, as as the moon at full Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star Rev 22:16b I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. "morning star" is not exclusive to the Lord Jesus. Isa 14:12 How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning. Isa 14:12 marginal note, "O day star" 2 Pet 1:19 as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. "day star" is not exclusive to the Lord Jesus. Other places in other English Bibles that use "lucifer". Wycliffe Bible: Job 38:32 Whether thou bryngist forth Lucifer Coverdale Bible: Isa 51:10 Art not thou he, that has wounded that proude lucifer. "lucifer" is not exclusive to the subject of Isa 14:12
Erasmus' decision to not write in the Comma in 1 John 5:7,8 is a bit odd given that he freely back-translated the last 6 verses of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate since he didn't have the last leaf of his Revelation mss; which is why we have "book of life" vs "tree of life" in Rev 22:19. So, Erasmus appears to be inconsistent at that point.
Also a very interesting fact about Erasmus and his work with the Greek manuscripts, and that’s another place in the resulting KJV where it’s extremely important for the manuscript tradition to be our standard, otherwise, we have no way of correcting mistakes like the “book of life” vs. “tree of life” scenario
@@ScienceFaithReasoning The Vulgate edition that Erasmus used likely had "libro" given that the later Clementine Vulgate (1592) has "libro vitae". The Nova Vulgate (1979); which uses the Critical Greek text corrects the Vulgate with "ligno vitae".
Meanwhile the scriptures say...Rom 3:1-2 (KJV) What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. This entire argument is moot No New or Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) Jews had any of the text copied in the Alexandria Old or New Testament Text which is used in the Latin Vulgate, Jesuit (Douay) Rheims or any of the revised version bibles which are corrupted texts (2 Corinthians 2:17) The Old Testament Chaldean Syriack Semitic Oriental language referred to as "Hebrew" and the New Testament Syriack "Greek" is printed in the King James Bible which is God's complete Word of God in the English tongue that the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 31:9; 2 Chronicles 11:14) and New Testament Levite Jews (Acts 4:36; Acts 6:7) had which makes them the oracles of God according to the scriptures. Your arguments collapses before it any gets off the ground which is why English tongue speakers can only use the King James Bible LOOK IT UP.
You're trying to compare two different families of texts. Along with the CT is only 2% of the manuscripts whereas the TR/RT is 98% of all manuscripts. So how can 2% be the majority? You're leading people astray.
@@Road2Strength I’m not sure what you mean. Let me ask you this, how many manuscripts were used to construct Erasmus’ Greek text, and what was the oldest one he had?
@@ScienceFaithReasoning Why would you jump to Erasmus and not consider the texts that came before him? The CT has a very short history, along with the Codex Vaticanus was doctored and edited, and the Codex Sinaiticus was admitted by Simonides himself to have written it. All you have done is parroted the same arguments as James White. It seems as you've never done your own research, at least outside of the Modern translations and its historically 'weak' Wescott and Hort text.
@@Road2Strength there’s always more research to do, but this evidence gives a good start for understanding the errors in KJV Only thinking. What is your view on what translation is best and why?
Do you recommend the NASB2020 or the NASB1995? Or both?
There’s only one serious mistake I’ve found in the NASB1995, in 1st Corinthians 6 it says “Flee Immorality” instead of “Flee sexual immorality” (which the NASB2020 says correctly). The Greek word is porneian πορνείαν), and should be translated sexual immorality or perhaps fornication. If you know that one example where you can explain it to people, then you’re fine, but it is a sad mistake and the Lockman Foundation has acknowledged it and has corrected it. The NASB2020 tried to incorporate what they call “gender accurate language”, sometimes using “brothers and sisters” where the reading has traditionally been just “brothers”. They only do this when the context is clearly meant for males and females, and of course, they always italicize the English words that are not directly backed from the Greek, but can be contextually inferred from the Greek to make the reading more clear. I still don’t know how I feel about the gender accurate language, but I don’t think it’s a reason to not use the NASB2020. So overall, both are extremely accurate, with just a few minor complaints. Thanks for your comment! Hope this helps. Which translation do you currently use?
@@ScienceFaithReasoning thank you so much for the detailed response. I have just recently been diving into Gods word and wow, what a blessing it has been in my life. My current translation that I absolutely adore and use is ESV. I also use NIV which is not my favorite translation, but I feel most translations I’ve seen and use have there strengths and weaknesses. I’ve really wanted to get the NASB for quite some time to use and enjoy, but didn’t know which version to get so thank you for clearing up the differences. God bless and thank you for your content. This KJVO is a legit issue and as much as I love the KJV this specific group of people tend to push others away from Jesus Christ using the wrong message.
@@tylerreece9520 The ESV is a very good translation, just in my personal reading, I've never come across anything weird in it, but that doesn't mean there aren't any mistakes or any areas for improvement. I don't have much familiarity with the NIV. And yes, while there are many genuine and solid saints in the KJVO camp, I do believe it to be a largely negative and extra-biblical ideology with no historical support, and it's not doing Christians any good dividing each other over the translation they prefer, especially when most of the translations people use, KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB are all very solid.
Hey man I know this is old but I have a couple questions: 1) What do you think of the CSB? 2) What do you think of the LSB? Thanks!
i respect the work that went into this. as a kjv onlyist, i have fundamental disagreements in just a few areas and there are other portions of scripture that appear to be doctrinally different between the KJV and modern Bibles. i would love for you to make a video diving into 1 corinthians 9:27, matthew 5:32, luke 2:33, and the areas that add the phrase “of your sins” after the word repent, especially involving the gospel (the NLT is the biggest offender of this). regardless, i respect your passion about the stance you take and the work you put in to find the truth. love you man, i appreciate you taking the time to put all this together ❤️
Thank you for the recommendation and the feedback brother!! Love you too brother!
Just out of curiosity when you say “add phrases” what are you comparing it too? The KJV or Majority of the manuscripts? Thanks
@@brandonbogert7848 to my knowledge, the phrase “of your sins” doesn’t appear in any of the original manuscripts, nor the kjv. seems to be added into the translations it appears in
Watched both part 1 and 2 of your series and thought you had a great presentation!
Thank you for the feedback! It took a lot of preparation but I think it was worth it!
We really don't know why the KJV translators retained "Lucifer" from the 1602 Bishops' Bible at Isa 14:12. However, the word Lucifer entered the English language as a loan word from Latin as early as Wycliffe's Middle English (see WYC Job 38:32 & COV Isa 51:10).
The use of "Lucifer" as a proper name for the Satan goes back to at least Origen, who wrote about "Lucifer" as the Satan. Other Patristic fathers concurred, including Jerome, who also wrote about "Lucifer" as the Satan before he edited the Vulgate. So, the early Church is responsible for using "Lucifer" as a proper noun for the Satan. The KJV may be simply following that age old Church tradition.
The normal masculine nominative adjective "lucifer" does appear in pre-Vulgate Latin mss (Vetus Latina) in Job 11:17, 2 Pet 1:19 (which I have confirmed), and possibly Isa 14:12; which I'm still trying to confirm. So, if "lucifer" appears in Isa 14:12 in the Vetus Latin mss then the insertion of "lucifer" in Isa 14:12 is not because of Jerome's translation; it may have already been there. We don't know who wrote the early Latin translations.
Thanks for commenting! Very interesting research you’re citing, I was not aware of lucifer’s use outside of the Latin manuscripts. But regardless, just because it was used in the Latin, does not mean it belongs in our Bibles. The preserved manuscript tradition written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic should be the standard for comparison of our English translations
@@ScienceFaithReasoning The KJV's use of "Lucifer" has, in hindsight and by virtue of its popularity, caused mass cultural confusion for hundreds of years; which is likely not reversible. Many KJV readers, in and outside the church, are not aware of the marginal note; which many publishers don't print.
Philo of Alexandria 20 BCE - c. 50 CE
Philo wrote the following in The Cherubim, part I, VII (21), “the periods of the seven planets have received their exact measure of time, moving on in an equal course, as the Sun, and Lucifer, and what is called Stilbon. For these three planets are of equal speed.”
The Latin speaking word definitely used "Lucifer" in an astronomical, astrological, and mythological context.
@@InfinitelyManic Lucifer was literally used to mean Venus rising in the morning
@@ScienceFaithReasoning The literal meaning is light-bearer or light-bringer; but, yes, it has been applied to various mythological/astronomical objects.
The Nova Vulgate provides "... lucifer, fili aurorae?" or light-bringer, son of Aurora (which is a goddess of the dawn in Roman myth).
There is an early Ambrosius Latin hymn that some have used to refer to Aurora symbolically as the Virgin Mary.
"Aurora cursus prorehit, Aurora totus prodeat, In Patre totus Filius Et totus in Verbo Pater.'
@@ScienceFaithReasoning It refers to an astronomical object in the context of Holy Writ within the Vetus Latina and Latin Vulgate translations.
Per the 1611 Holy Bible a/k/a KJV Bible:
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together
Sirach 50:6 He [Simon the high priest, son of Onias] was as the morning star in the midst of a cloud, as as the moon at full
Rev 2:28 And I will give him the morning star
Rev 22:16b I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
"morning star" is not exclusive to the Lord Jesus.
Isa 14:12 How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning.
Isa 14:12 marginal note, "O day star"
2 Pet 1:19 as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.
"day star" is not exclusive to the Lord Jesus.
Other places in other English Bibles that use "lucifer".
Wycliffe Bible:
Job 38:32 Whether thou bryngist forth Lucifer
Coverdale Bible:
Isa 51:10 Art not thou he, that has wounded that proude lucifer.
"lucifer" is not exclusive to the subject of Isa 14:12
Erasmus' decision to not write in the Comma in 1 John 5:7,8 is a bit odd given that he freely back-translated the last 6 verses of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate since he didn't have the last leaf of his Revelation mss; which is why we have "book of life" vs "tree of life" in Rev 22:19. So, Erasmus appears to be inconsistent at that point.
Also a very interesting fact about Erasmus and his work with the Greek manuscripts, and that’s another place in the resulting KJV where it’s extremely important for the manuscript tradition to be our standard, otherwise, we have no way of correcting mistakes like the “book of life” vs. “tree of life” scenario
@@ScienceFaithReasoning The Vulgate edition that Erasmus used likely had "libro" given that the later Clementine Vulgate (1592) has "libro vitae". The Nova Vulgate (1979); which uses the Critical Greek text corrects the Vulgate with "ligno vitae".
Meanwhile the scriptures say...Rom 3:1-2 (KJV)
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
This entire argument is moot
No New or Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) Jews had any of the text copied in the Alexandria Old or New Testament Text which is used in the Latin Vulgate, Jesuit (Douay) Rheims or any of the revised version bibles which are corrupted texts (2 Corinthians 2:17)
The Old Testament Chaldean Syriack Semitic Oriental language referred to as "Hebrew" and the New Testament Syriack "Greek" is printed in the King James Bible which is God's complete Word of God in the English tongue that the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 31:9; 2 Chronicles 11:14) and New Testament Levite Jews (Acts 4:36; Acts 6:7) had which makes them the oracles of God according to the scriptures.
Your arguments collapses before it any gets off the ground which is why English tongue speakers can only use the King James Bible
LOOK IT UP.
You're trying to compare two different families of texts. Along with the CT is only 2% of the manuscripts whereas the TR/RT is 98% of all manuscripts. So how can 2% be the majority? You're leading people astray.
@@Road2Strength I’m not sure what you mean. Let me ask you this, how many manuscripts were used to construct Erasmus’ Greek text, and what was the oldest one he had?
@@ScienceFaithReasoning Why would you jump to Erasmus and not consider the texts that came before him? The CT has a very short history, along with the Codex Vaticanus was doctored and edited, and the Codex Sinaiticus was admitted by Simonides himself to have written it. All you have done is parroted the same arguments as James White. It seems as you've never done your own research, at least outside of the Modern translations and its historically 'weak' Wescott and Hort text.
@@Road2Strength there’s always more research to do, but this evidence gives a good start for understanding the errors in KJV Only thinking. What is your view on what translation is best and why?