An NASB Boo Boo?

[Dino246]

I have two Greek interlinear Bibles. Both of them show different Greek words for the two passages, which means that if neither passage has a relevant variant, the two passages actually say different things. 13:16 says "or", while 20:4 says "and". "Kai" doesn't appear there in 13:16.

This vindicates the NASB and leaves the KJV wanting... again.

 

[crossnote]

I have two Greek interlinear Bibles. Both of them show different Greek words for the two passages, which means that if neither passage has a relevant variant, the two passages actually say different things. 13:16 says "or", while 20:4 says "and". "Kai" doesn't appear there in 13:16.

This vindicates the NASB and leaves the KJV wanting... again.

Good point. Like I had said in the OP, "I know it's late and maybe I'm just seeing things." and I should have looked at an interlinear 'and/or' the Greek text itself and observed that point.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I'm not a KJV only person but it looks like here the NASB clearly has a contradiction whereas the KJV skates clean on this one

The NASB is no different than all the other modern versions -- totally unreliable.

 

[Dino246]

The NASB is no different than all the other modern versions -- totally unreliable.

In this case, the evidence does not support your assertion.

 

[Nehemiah6]

In this case, the evidence does not support your assertion.

Not so. The NASB is a revision of the ASV, which is an Americanized version of the RV, which was deemed to be THOROUGHLY UNRELIABLE by many knowledgeable scholars.

...And although he [Philip Schaff] could say in 1891 that "the Revision [the RV] has been steadily gaining ground among scholars and thoughtful laymen who take the trouble to compare the rival versions with the Greek original,"27 he admitted that "to the great mass of English readers King James's Version is virtually the inspired Word of God."28 So despite the initial euphoria over the RV, it has been relegated to the dustbin of history and copies can scarcely be found in antiquarian bookstores...

...No matter which preface to the NASB that one reads, the fact remains that the history of the NASB goes back to the ASV. But since the ASV is merely the American edition of the RV published in England in 1885, the history of the ASV must necessarily begin with the RV. Yet, one still cannot jump from the ASV straight to the NASB, for there is one other version that likewise claims to be an authorized revision of the ASV....

...The ASV is not an entirely new translation but a simply an American edition of the English RV... The NASB is not the only version that claims to be a revision of the ASV. The Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Testament of which was published in 1946 and the complete Bible in 1952, claims to be an "authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611...

...Not everyone, of course, accepted with open arms the NASB. When the New Testament first appeared, Zane Hodges, writing in Bibliotheca Sacra, declared that the NASB was unfaithful to the Greek text and concluded that "though more accurate in many places than other versions, there are probably just as many new faults introduced as old ones removed."110 Since the publication of the complete Bible in 1971, several tracts and books have been written against the NASB.111 F. F. Bruce (certainly no friend of the KJV), in his book on English Bible history, perceptively said about the NASB: "If the R.S.V. had never appeared, this revision of the A.S.V. would be a more valuable work than it is. As things are, there are few things done well by the N.A.S.B. which are not done better by the R.S.V."

https://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance3.html

 

[oldethennew]

Basically, it's 'better' to lose one's earthly 'head' that one's Eternal Inheritance...

 

[Dino246]

Not so. The NASB is a revision of the ASV, which is an Americanized version of the RV, which was deemed to be THOROUGHLY UNRELIABLE by many knowledgeable scholars.

Read my post #21, then check the sources for yourself.

 

[Angela53510]

Comparing English translations is a total joke! Greek is the only authority!

Fact is, if you don't speak another language, you will never understand that words in other languages cannot often be translated directly into another language.

There are many variations which work equally well, when translating.

First, there are the glosses. That is definitions for kai, καὶ, like "and".

The next level, which I learned, is that καὶ, means, "and, also, namely, even, but." I prefer the postpostive de for "but," but there are many places where it is translated "and, " quite properly , too.

Technically, 20:4 does say kai, whereas, in Greek, 13:16 is ἢ, or "or." A more complete definition would include, "either, or, than."

In fact, the NASB gets it right, if you follow the Greek.

However as far as doctrine or how to live a Christian life is concerned, this post is just trying to stir up trouble with the KJV- Only people, Crossnote, and you should know better!

 

[Nehemiah6]

Comparing English translations is a total joke! Greek is the only authority!

And there are two very different Greek texts -- the Received Text and the Critical Text. And that is how the English translations are being compared and differentiated.

THE RV, ASV, RSV, NASB (REVISED VERSION) ---- based on the Critical Text of Westcott & Hort (followed by all modern critical texts including Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies)

THE KJV (AUTHORIZED VERSION) -- based on the Received Text which goes all the way back to the Autographs (as confirmed by its enemies, believe it or not).

 

[Dino246]

And there are two very different Greek texts -- the Received Text and the Critical Text. And that is how the English translations are being compared and differentiated.

THE RV, ASV, RSV, NASB (REVISED VERSION) ---- based on the Critical Text of Westcott & Hort (followed by all modern critical texts including Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies)

THE KJV (AUTHORIZED VERSION) -- based on the Received Text which goes all the way back to the Autographs (as confirmed by its enemies, believe it or not).

The evidence is shown below; there is no difference between the two streams of text for the relevant verses. The key words are highlighted in all four.

Revelation 13:16
Stephanus, 1550 (a "majority" text that led to the KJV and the TR):
και ποιει παντας τους μικρους και τους μεγαλους και τους πλουσιους και τους πτωχους και τους ελευθερους και τους δουλους ινα δωση αυτοις χαραγμα επι της χειρος αυτων της δεξιας η επι των μετωπων αυτων

Nestle-Aland 28 (the series from which the NASB is translated):
καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας, τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους, καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς πτωχούς, καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους, ἵνα δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὐτῶν

Revelation 20:4
Stephanus:
και ειδον θρονους και εκαθισαν επ αυτους και κριμα εδοθη αυτοις και τας ψυχας των πεπελεκισμενων δια την μαρτυριαν ιησου και δια τον λογον του θεου και οιτινες ου προσεκυνησαν τω θηριω ουτε την εικονα αυτου και ουκ ελαβον το χαραγμα επι το μετωπον αυτων και επι την χειρα αυτων και εζησαν και εβασιλευσαν μετα χριστου τα χιλια ετη

NA28:
Καὶ εἶδον θρόνους καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν πεπελεκισμένων διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν τὸ θηρίον οὐδὲ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἔλαβον τὸ χάραγμα ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτῶν. καὶ ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν μετὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ χίλια ἔτη.

(Stephanus text from biblegateway.com and NA28 from nestle-alland.com)

Hmmm. It looks like the NASB is still correct.

 

[crossnote]

Comparing English translations is a total joke! Greek is the only authority!

Problem is, the Greel scholars give us peons the Greek in English. Even those who 'know' Greek are dependent on the Greek to English lexicons and grammar.
Angela, as far as "I ought to know better", it was posted in good faith, an honest mistake, and I wasn't trying to stir up any kind of KJ-only debate. (although I figured that would happen anyways lol)

 

[Angela53510]

Problem is, the Greel scholars give us peons the Greek in English. Even those who 'know' Greek are dependent on the Greek to English lexicons and grammar.
Angela, as far as "I ought to know better", it was posted in good faith, an honest mistake, and I wasn't trying to stir up any kind of KJ-only debate. (although I figured that would happen anyways lol)

After a while of reading Greek, you get a good feel for where kai should just be "and" or where it should be even, or also! A different usage! And I have not spent my life studying Greek, like many so Greek scholars, but I do have a good feel for language use. So, maybe you are bored, and need to study it for yourself?*

My real point, is this discussion doesn't affect doctrine or sanctification at all! So why bother with trivial words that literally fill the Bible, rather than discussing important topics? Daniel Wallace does two incredible discussions of the word "the" or the anarticular use, in Beyond the Basics of Biblical Greek! I read the 90 pages, and it sometimes touches on doctrine, believe it or not! (Monadic or par excellence, for example), but never is kai or eh, to my knowledge, expounded that way.)

*Try Bill Mounce's Greek for the Rest of Us, to start. I've met lots of people on here with self taught Greek, and many were very knowledgeable!

 

[jaybird88]

im not understanding why it matters one way or the other. you have one guy that has a mark on his head and another guy that has a mark on both his head and hand. does it mean something to have the same mark twice rather than just the one mark? why are we talking about it?

 

[tourist]

Well spotted This is why i have come to trust in the KJV. as my main go to Bible

Me too.

 

[dcontroversal]

Problem is, the Greel scholars give us peons the Greek in English. Even those who 'know' Greek are dependent on the Greek to English lexicons and grammar.
Angela, as far as "I ought to know better", it was posted in good faith, an honest mistake, and I wasn't trying to stir up any kind of KJ-only debate. (although I figured that would happen anyways lol)

I had faith in you....One thing I have noticed about this site and life in general....many times PEOPLE judge our MOTIVE without one ounce of evidence or proof as to why we did something or did not do something..........

 

[crossnote]

im not understanding why it matters one way or the other. you have one guy that has a mark on his head and another guy that has a mark on both his head and hand. does it mean something to have the same mark twice rather than just the one mark? why are we talking about it?

That wasn't the point. One of the versions on the face of it, seemed to say' forehead or hand' in one place, and 'forehead and hand' in another. But apparently seeming contradictions matter little, especially when they can be explained away by a sleight of translation.

 

[Angela53510]

That wasn't the point. One of the versions on the face of it, seemed to say' forehead or hand' in one place, and 'forehead and hand' in another. But apparently seeming contradictions matter little, especially when they can be explained away by a sleight of translation.

You mean by understanding languages don't always translate straight across, and words have more than one meaning!?

And in Greek, one did say "and" and one did say "or." So, was the Holy Spirit wrong in thousands of Greek copies, or did the KJV translators, like you, try and impose their idea of what was right, on the text?

I would rather have them follow the Greek, because men trying to smooth over the text, like the KJV, certainly squash the opportunity to examine why there is a difference, as some people have always explained.

NASB got it right. NET made both of them into "or" which is no better than both being "and!"

 

[crossnote]

You mean by understanding languages don't always translate straight across, and words have more than one meaning!?

And in Greek, one did say "and" and one did say "or." So, was the Holy Spirit wrong in thousands of Greek copies, or did the KJV translators, like you, try and impose their idea of what was right, on the text?

I would rather have them follow the Greek, because men trying to smooth over the text, like the KJV, certainly squash the opportunity to examine why there is a difference, as some people have always explained.

NASB got it right. NET made both of them into "or" which is no better than both being "and!"

No, I meant what I said. I used such words as 'on the face of it', 'seemed to say', and 'apparently seeming contradictions' to make my point to jaybird.

Angela, I'll tell you one more time, I did not try to impose my idea on the text, I posed an honest question in good faith and agreed with some of the explanations that cleared up the seeming contradiction.

I really believe you are jumping to some false conclusions on my position, but God knows.

 

[Angela53510]

No, I meant what I said. I used such words as 'on the face of it', 'seemed to say', and 'apparently seeming contradictions' to make my point to jaybird.

Angela, I'll tell you one more time, I did not try to impose my idea on the text, I posed an honest question in good faith and agreed with some of the explanations that cleared up the seeming contradiction.

I really believe you are jumping to some false conclusions on my position, but God knows.

Whether a theological issue, which it was not, or a translational issue which it was, you simply cannot decide how to translate by using and comparing English versions. I've said that hundreds of times, although perhaps that was when you were away?

Normally, I would let it go, but deciding the NASB was the error, (when in fact it translated the Greek correctly), and then saying the KJV was correct, was basically waving a red flag for me!

I don't know if you missed the 100's of threads and posts in this debate about whether the KJV is the best, or even "only" translation, but this topic has been flogged to death here at CC, with almost no one moving an inch either way.

So my apologies I did not make myself clear regarding the background. But, it really is a trivial issue. IMHO, of course.

I do apologize for offending you!

 

[Melach]

i think both are right because it says it can be translated many ways both ways.

i like kjv i sometimes quote it here but my favorite personally is some bible that is formal equivelance transaltion but in modern language so i can understand it easier. like ESV