The King James Only Debate
- Thread starter calvinsx76
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
Tintin
Guest
I am not a native English speaker so I do not use English Bible on regular basis, but what I have seen on biblehub - parallel translations, it seems to me that NASB is almost always the closest to the Greek original and still simple and understandable.
Look for example at John 1:18.
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Nobody has ever seen God. Only begotten God who is in the bosom of Father, He explained. (my translation).
"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)
- nothing wrong there
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." (NIV)
- What??
"No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us." (NLT)
- What??
"No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." (ESV)
- OK, but not sure why they used the word "side"
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father's side, has made Him known." (BSB)
- "side" again, one and only instead of only begotten
"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known." (BLB)
- close, but not as simple for reading as NASB
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)
- close, except they do not have quite important word "God" there.
I did not want to make this post too long.
So when somebody asked me what English translation I would use, it would probably by NASB.
Look for example at John 1:18.
Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς Θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.
Nobody has ever seen God. Only begotten God who is in the bosom of Father, He explained. (my translation).
"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB)
- nothing wrong there
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." (NIV)
- What??
"No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us." (NLT)
- What??
"No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known." (ESV)
- OK, but not sure why they used the word "side"
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father's side, has made Him known." (BSB)
- "side" again, one and only instead of only begotten
"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known." (BLB)
- close, but not as simple for reading as NASB
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)
- close, except they do not have quite important word "God" there.
I did not want to make this post too long.
So when somebody asked me what English translation I would use, it would probably by NASB.
I too like the NASB and read it mostly as well as the KJV. I also read lot's of other translations but I would not study from them exclusively. The Lord has made the Greek available to us and we have tools that we can search things out which I believe is a good way of studying.
Sometimes the Greek lexicons add their own little bias to their meanings of words but if we look at the root words and how see them used in various ways in the past - we get a feel for their usage. of course without the Holy spirit revealing truth to us - our natural minds will not grasp the spiritual "application" of things.
All translations have bias in them I have found them in the NASB as well.
Do not ask me, I live all my life on the continental Europe
that's been my experience with the nasb, too... most literal while still being readable.
if one wants even more literal, an interlinear is the next step, IMO...
that's a good question, and I want to treat it seriously.
if the debate is about My translation's better than yours, then it's a giant waste.
if it's about
Is the kjv the only reliable source of truth about God, then it's important, imo.
Here's the debate. One group actually believes they have the word of God preserved in the English language and can be trusted in every word, and the other side does not believe they have the word of God but what they do have is close, but still contains errors and cannot be trusted entirely.
The debate is not about two sides, each believing they have the word of God.
Because people are interested in this topic.
And because this is a bible discussion, "testimonies" are rather in some different forum parts.
Indeed, it is so easy today to read in Greek, to learn basis or at least have interlinear translation with one click lexicon.
I think NASB/KJV are a good choice for most of the time.
Both seem to be precise translations of different manuscripts group, so its good to have them both and compare them.
Last edited:
By looking at the Greek text. Its very easy today.
If one Greek source would go for NASB and the second one for KJV, I would probably take the NASB variant.
My answer would be...
Whichever one is handy at the time.... depending on whether I want to try to decipher Shakespearean English.
Both are the words of God.
What about in the many areas where they differ? Which ever one you have at the time? Truth of the day...
Only in your myopic view of things. Most people realize the silliness of that type of misplaced faith.
I think this assumes that the word of God
must be in one's own language and
must be absolutely word perfect
in order to be properly called the word of God.
but I don't accept that assumption.