[fortheDeclaration]

KJV bump. I'm not precisely an onlyist. I just strongly tend to trust far more the Bible that evangelized the English-speaking world and withstood centuries of scrutiny by orthodox scholars instead of these modernist Bibles, nearly all relying upon the work of heretics and unbelievers and whose text is guaranteed to change every so many years in order to retain their copyrights and profits. So enjoy your current NAS for now. But don't bother to memorize it. They're going to change it several more times in your lifetime for the sake of publishing profits. But I'll readily admit that I'll look to other sources when studying a key verse. I don't want to be ignorant of other translations or ignore the changes in the English language since the last revision of the KJV over 150 years ago. Some of the argument over the 1611 bit are specious. All current KJV bibles (except a few specialty editions) are a revision from the early nineteenth century. But an 1828 Websters dictionary is enough to clarify archaic words.

Amen for your KJV bump!

[HiTech RedNeck]

If we really wanted to be originalists, we would study in Hebrew and Greek. The divine inspiration of the literal words took place in those languages, not in Latin or English or Russian or what have you. Argue with the secular Nestle compilation all you want, but it does give the most objective statistical view of the New Testament manuscripts that we have, and is the reason why most modern translations have footnotes on the variant readings. I'm the opposite of an onlyist; I'm an "allist." To ask the question of which one Bible we should trust, foolishly presupposes an answer of a certain kind. It's like asking what one food you would eat.