Favourite Bible Translations

In the KJV there's all these italicized words that from what I've understood recently were added. In other translations they don't even italicize them to let you know they were added...which isn't alarming necessarily, it's just a recent tidbit I learned.

My understanding was that it's there for context but still it's started to become distracting. I have come to not like the little letters and footnotes everywhere and specifically got older KJVs so I could just read but now the italics is doing the same thing, alas.

I guess I just didn't notice it in the NASB though I seen it in quite a while...probably lost in my car

Both versions teach the same message, and that is the one that you attribute to NASB. Both versions teach two resurrections...

Revelation(KJV)

20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

So saith the King Jameseth, and so saith the NASBeth. Wonderful agreethment.

As the world recognizes more and more genders Gods word better keep up. 🤦‍♂️ In a hundred years male and female will no longer be part of the vocabulary. The new versions will change to recognize this.

Nope. Difference was in your head. If that is the best anti-NASB ammunition you claim to have, then I am comfortable about looking at both versions. (KJV, NASB).

It can be hard

a good example would be in gal 1. Where Paul says if one teaches another gospel which is not another (KJV)

now let’s think about this for a minute, another but not another,, how is someone today supposed to read this? It is contradictory in itself,

there are two Greek words used,

the first another is heteron

the second another is allos

so technically, paul is saying if anyone teaches a heteron gospel, which is not an allos

when we look up the defenitions,

heteron is used by defenition to represent a difference in kind, in other words you have two gospel, they are not the same, something makes them different from each other

Allos is used by definition to denote another in number, or another of multiple possible items. (The other) In this case, it would be used to represent another gospel of a group. (Ie, you can be saved by this gospel or another)

about the best English interpretation would be that pauls is warning, if anyone teaches a different gospel, which is not a another gospel. This would be the best word for word interpretation

another more accurate translation would be paul saying if anyone teaches you a another kind of gospel, which is not the other gospel ...

as you can see, in this one case, we can get close (different another) but to be more accurate, we have to do what they call an expanded tranlation (using the Expanded interpretation of the word, ie, other kind or one of the other gospels) which is far more accurate, but word for word people would have a fit.

It still won’t be it, call a person, even a gender less person and IT and see what happens.

All who are raised in the first resurrection (Rapture).

Let's revisit what you said in the first post:

That is correct. Two resurrections. One for the blessed and one for the damned 1000 years later.

N.T. was not "entirely" written in Greek. It includes some phrases in Aramaic as well. Example Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

I figured someone would bring up this canard. Yeah, I could have written, "almost entirely".

My point would not change one iota: language changes over time, and expecting people to learn other languages or archaic versions of their own language is akin to denying them the Scripture in their own language. Ironically, that is exactly what the Roman Catholics had been doing for hundreds of years and was part of the impetus for the development of the KJV in the first place!

D'oh!

Most modern English Bible-readers are aware of the Aramaic portions including those in Daniel because our Bibles indicate the Aramaic portions in footnotes on the page.

Most of the versions I have spent any time reading or using for study have notes. Notes to explain translation difficulties, manuscript differences, idioms & so forth. Online versions contain the same notes provided by printed bibles.
(Notes are not Bible commentary)

The verses that are scrutinised by the KJVO adherents are never printed the way they appear to us on the page or screen.
This means that these Bible opposers are copying the Bible verses directly from KJVO sources that have removed the note tabs
or they are eliminating the note indicators themselves.

Example:

2 Samuel 15

LEX
7 It happened at the end of four[g] years that Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go and pay my vow which I have made to Yahweh in Hebron,

CSB
7 When four[a] years had passed, Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go to Hebron to fulfill a vow I made to the Lord.

NIV
7 At the end of four [a] years, Absalom said to the king, “Let me go to Hebron and fulfill a vow I made to the Lord.

ESV
7 And at the end of four [a] years Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron.

KJV
7 And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the Lord, in Hebron.


Now the KJVO adherents I've encountered here are offended at the thought of notes on the page. As if a note somehow nullifies the validity of the translation. This could be because they are not accustomed to reading a text with notes.
They give the wrong impression by posting the verses from the Bibles they rage against with the note indicators removed.
Then they claim the translations they don't like are lying.
This is a form of bearing false witness & it happens quite a lot here.

All the Bibles above explain on that page of 2 Sam 15 that some of the manuscripts read forty not four except for the KJV
Newer Christians should beware of the false accusations made against English bibles by KJV Only proponents.

Do you see the baby
Actually, the KJV defines itself as always. The wording is elementary. It's not another, meaning, it's the same gospel message but it's been perverted by adding to it, and in this case the works or circumcision. Adding anything to the cross is a perversion.

I don't mind notes, but the notes never take precedent over the clear reading of the text. The notes are the opinions of the author. In some cases in the new versions the notes are true and the text is a lie as in 2 Samuel 21:19.

I'd encourage you to consider your views about the KJV in light of that statement.

As to the verse in question (Galatians 1:7), there's an even simpler explanation that is consistent with the Greek:

The "other" gospel is, as the NIV puts it, "no gospel at all".

That’s a false statement and misleading to the purpose of the text. The entire point Paul is making is that there are people preaching Jesus Christ but adding works. That’s the gospel being perverted.

You call this a "lie". Well... I'm kind of glad you did.

The KJV of 2 Chronicles 22:2 says, "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign" in contradiction to 2 Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

Don't bother posting your convoluted excuse for this; your use of "lie" negates the validity of it.

You have three options:
- you can accept that the new versions are not lying, but rather, offer reasonable explanations for apparent contradictions;
- you can accept that the KJV is also a "lying" version;
- you can be a hypocrite, accusing other versions of error while excusing errors of identical nature in the KJV.

... which is no good news ("gospel") at all.

smh...

i think it's more accurate to say that people who believe the KJV is 100% accurate and perfect in every way have never accepted any proof to the contrary.

i mean, if i mention that the words 'yam suph' cannot possibly be legitimately translated as 'red sea' but that it unquestionably means 'sea of reeds' -- even if you acquiesce the fact you will argue that 'red sea' is superior to a faithful & accurate translation for some reason, right?

it seems to me it's not so much that it's never been proven to be a less than ideal translation into the foreign language that English is, but that to those who believe that it is, no proof will ever be sufficient to make them believe otherwise.