Hello,

From the reading that I've done it seems that the NKJV uses newer OT sources/findings for its text than the NASB. Supposedly, the NKJV uses the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament, whereas the NASB uses third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Is one a significantly better basis than the other? Does it matter?

Is the NKJV actually more accurate then the NASB when reading the OT? (I am aware that the NKJV uses the Majority text for its NT text, and that it's NT text is likely not as accurate as the NASB.)

Rob

Hello Rob

Neither... The original text was by far the most accurate and therefore "best" text , as nobody had been able to temper and rephrase that text yet, via translations and re-interpretations, intended or non-intended.

Unfortunately these originals do no longer seem to exist. So you have to do with handwritten copies of handwritten copies of handwritten copies, etc. .
Note that I exclude any comment towards the quality and correctness of the original text itself...

;)

·

I will sort of ( just sorta) agree with credendovidis, it depends on what you are doing, if you are a deep bible scholar you will have several versions.

For just one personal use the "New Jerusalem Bible" is considered by many as one of the best translations. Not as popular since for many, and I have to laugh I was actually told once, "if the king james bible was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me"

But if you are in to deep study, you will want to go into the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic bibles using some good translation helps and see it without some of the grammar differences plus as you ponder word meanings, since you will not have to just assume or accept someone else's translations of words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhadsen

Hello,

From the reading that I've done it seems that the NKJV uses newer OT sources/findings for its text than the NASB. Supposedly, the NKJV uses the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica for the Old Testament, whereas the NASB uses third edition of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Is one a significantly better basis than the other? Does it matter?

Is the NKJV actually more accurate then the NASB when reading the OT? (I am aware that the NKJV uses the Majority text for its NT text, and that it's NT text is likely not as accurate as the NASB.)

Rob

---

Thanks Crevendovidis and FR_Chuck. Let me rephrase that slightly as I'm not likely going to have the time to actually check a Hebrew Bible. If you were to choose between the NKJV or NASB for personal daily reading of the OT and study as a layman, which you you pick?

Thanks!

Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhadsen

If you were to choose between the NKJV or NASB for personal daily reading of the OT and study as a layman, which you you pick?

---

I would suggest that the NKJV is the best translation, and it has the benefit of easier readability over the KJV. I would therefore choose the NKJV.

In my opinion the Companion Bible KJV that remain locked with the Massorah is best. You can always refer Greek and Hebrew meaning to each word of text.

An example too, is check the scripture where Ham uncovered his father's nakedness Genesis 9:22. How important is it that you understand what Ham did? Leviticus 20:11 tells exactly what it means to uncover a father's nakedness in KJV. Most newer bible will not.

KJV Geneisi 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
KJV Leviticus20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

In my opinion the Companion Bible KJV that remain locked with the Massorah is best. You can always refer Greek and Hebrew meaning to each word of text.

An example too, is check the scripture where Ham uncovered his father's nakedness Genesis 9:22. How important is it that you understand what Ham did? Leviticus 20:11 tells exactly what it means to uncover a father's nakedness in KJV. Most newer bible will not.

KJV Geneisi 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
KJV Leviticus20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

---

sndbay,

Seems that the new translations have both of the above verses that tell what Ham did. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

I decided to go with the NKJV this time around. I've already read the OT in the NIV and NASB translations.

Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhadsen

sndbay,

Seems that the new translations have both of the above verses that tell what Ham did. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

I decided to go with the NKJV this time around. I've already read the OT in the NIV and NASB translations.

Rob

---

My opinion falls against newer version that do not stay with refer to Greek and Hebrew text. And my example is better compared to the NIV. ( Just a causion offered )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

My opinion falls against newer version that do not stay with refer to Greek and Hebrew text. And my example is better compared to the NIV. ( Just a causion offered )

---

sndbay,

I was under the impression that the newer versions (NKJV, NASB, NIV) are based on a more accurate Hebrew text, closer to the original than what was available when the KJV was written. Are you saying that this is not true? Or, are you saying that the NIV takes "liberties" with the original Hebrew text?

Thanks!

Rob

I heard that many of the newer versions from the 70's on up do take 'liberties'

I heard the Dake's Annotated Bible and other reference Bibles like The Thompson chain reference are the most accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhadsen

sndbay,

I was under the impression that the newer versions (NKJV, NASB, NIV) are based on a more accurate Hebrew text, closer to the original than what was available when the KJV was written. Are you saying that this is not true? Or, are you saying that the NIV takes "liberties" with the original Hebrew text?

Thanks!

Rob

---

What I am saying is that I can refer from the KJV of the Companion Bible, every original text from the Sacred Text because it is crossed refer with what is known as The Massorah. This comes from the original works under Ezra and Nehemiah. (Neh 8:8 Ezra 7:6-11) Each word is numbered with the Greek or Hebrew meaning.

Example Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
"Massorah "Genesis 1:2 And the earth 0776 was 01961 without form 08414, and void 0922; and darkness 02822 [was] upon the face 06440 of the deep 08415. And the Spirit 07307 of God 0430 moved 07363 upon 05921 the face 06440 of the waters 04325.

Was 01961 Hebrew word = היה
meaning = to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass, to come into being, become


So in the refer you can see : And the earth became without form

While I will be honest I don't prefer either of them, but if I had to pick one NKJV

The best translation for you is the translation that you can understand the best. Stilted language to your ear, or confusion on your part on what the verses really mean is a poor translation for you.

Because of the history of written documents... that the originals were lost and what remained are copies of copies, and those being translated... makes it clear that what is important in The Bible is the *Ideas*... the spiritual lessons... not the specific meaning of words or any other nitpicking over content.

Read the one you can understand the best. :)

If you want a readable bible, go with Phillips, but if you really want to know what the Bible teaches, I recommend the KJV. All the newer versions either leave out portions, or change important verses. The KJV was translated from texts that were accepted by the Church until that time.
Consider the Dead Sea scrolls. They were BURIED unstead of being USED. That should tell you something. What would a reverent person do with a flawed piece of Scripture? Because it is mostly God's word, he would not likely burn it, and since it is flawed, he would not want it used. The reasonable thing then would be to BURY it. That, of course, is just my opinion.
The English used in KJV is more precise than that which we use today. Where we have the word "love" which can mean many things, KJV has several words for love that tell us exactly what kind of love is meant. The words "thee", "thou", and "you" all give us better understanding of what is being said, and to whom it is being said.

Not sure where the Idea of the dead sea scrolls being "buried" they were basic stored in pots in a cave, a very safe and secure place for them. Most were mere fragments and some caves and areas had to be dug out when as with all ancient sites there were long ago buried with time.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rhadsen

sndbay,

I was under the impression that the newer versions (NKJV, NASB, NIV) are based on a more accurate Hebrew text, closer to the original than what was available when the KJV was written. Are you saying that this is not true? Or, are you saying that the NIV takes "liberties" with the original Hebrew text?

Thanks!

Rob

---

These are all suggestions and opinons. Because of each I feel it would be best if you make your own judgement. I can only tell you that which I, myself have picked up on when hearing someone read from their NIV (vs) KJV during bible study. The difference usually brings about some question as to which one is correct. At that point I can always refer back to the Massorah that allows what determines as Truth.
Try this study web site of the Strong Concordance. It will offer the KJV and the Massorah. Do your own comparing when necessary. Just type wording you wish to compare.

Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

God will help you along the way..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

What I am saying is that I can refer from the KJV of the Companion Bible, every original text from the Sacred Text because it is crossed refer with what is known as The Massorah. This comes from the original works under Ezra and Nehemiah. (Neh 8:8 Ezra 7:6-11) Each word is numbered with the Greek or Hebrew meaning.

Example Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
"Massorah "Genesis 1:2 And the earth 0776 was 01961 without form 08414, and void 0922; and darkness 02822 [was] upon the face 06440 of the deep 08415. And the Spirit 07307 of God 0430 moved 07363 upon 05921 the face 06440 of the waters 04325.

Was 01961 Hebrew word = היה
meaning = to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass, to come into being, become


So in the refer you can see : And the earth became without form

---

Hello sndbay,

I understand what you are saying above.
Thanks!

Rob

Are you kidding us? English editions of the KJV more accurate than other "versions"? You're the one taking liberties.