New Biblical Old Testament Texts Discovered – First Dead Sea Scrolls Found In 60 Years

[TNHarley]

I prefer the NKJV, and haven't found a reason to change that preference, not yet anyway. It's amazing how consistent the book has been over 2,000 years.

the KJV is horribly mistranslated. I have read there are upwards of 6,000 mistranslations.

 

[DudleySmith]

I prefer the NKJV, and haven't found a reason to change that preference, not yet anyway. It's amazing how consistent the book has been over 2,000 years.

the KJV is horribly mistranslated. I have read there are upwards of 6,000 mistranslations.

Actually the NKJV is the most literal translation of the lot into English.

 

[TNHarley]

I prefer the NKJV, and haven't found a reason to change that preference, not yet anyway. It's amazing how consistent the book has been over 2,000 years.

the KJV is horribly mistranslated. I have read there are upwards of 6,000 mistranslations.

Actually the NKJV is the most literal translation of the lot into English.

The NASB is a literal word for word translation. NKJV is not.

 

[DudleySmith]

I prefer the NKJV, and haven't found a reason to change that preference, not yet anyway. It's amazing how consistent the book has been over 2,000 years.

the KJV is horribly mistranslated. I have read there are upwards of 6,000 mistranslations.

Actually the NKJV is the most literal translation of the lot into English.

The NASB is a literal word for word translation.

Of the wrong text. The NKJV is based on the Byzantine texts. The 'oldest' texts are not necessarily the better texts, and just reading the tortured English of the NASB makes parts of it unreadable. The NKJV is also extensively footnoted with alternate translations and documents its word changes as well. The NASB leaves a lot of stuff out, despite its claims. The NKJV avoids modern textual criticisms like the plague, which is a good thing.

Most use more than one translation, but I just use the NKJV and a chronological order NKJV these days, as they have been the most consistently accurate translation with much better footnotes and historical context references. Some might have better OT translations, but not many.

 

[DudleySmith]

And, in defense of the KJV, its translation of the book of Isaiah more closely matches that found in the Dead Sea Scrolls of all the modern translations, same with parts of Exodus and other books. That shouldn't be possible if one went by modern textual criticism scams.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I prefer the NKJV, and haven't found a reason to change that preference, not yet anyway. It's amazing how consistent the book has been over 2,000 years.

the KJV is horribly mistranslated. I have read there are upwards of 6,000 mistranslations.

They did the best they could for what they knew 400 years ago. Personally I find the fact a group of men could come to agreements on every verse so that it could be completed. Thus giving common people direct access to what the Bible says.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Did a Zoom meeting with the Deputy Director of Israeli Antiquities who’s heading up this project and about 20 others this morning. What’s just as exciting is they’re now going thru all caves - dozens - and finding all kinds of things, some going back 7,000 years. Their biggest problem is keeping the Palestinian poachers away.

 

[surada]

What's Ugaritic Got to Do with Anything?

What's Ugaritic Got to Do with Anything?

www.logos.com

Ugaritic is important because of the fact that its vocabulary is so close to biblical Hebrew — many Ugaritic words are letter-for-letter the same as biblical Hebrew. It is the religion of Ugarit, however, that is especially important to Old Testament scholarship.