Yuku free message boards

I want to look specifically at Luke 12:39, but because of the expressed interest in the nkjv and how it compares with the KJB, I will also address related issues to the surrounding verses in this chapter. In Luke 12:39 the Lord Jesus says: "And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would HAVE WATCHED AND not have suffered his house to be broken through."
This phrase "have watched and" has been omitted in the nasb and niv versions. Are they a part of Scripture or have they been removed? What is the evidence for or against them? These words are not found in only two manuscripts, P 75 and Sinaticus original. But the Sinaticus was corrected to read as does the KJB. Sinaticus is altered on almost every page by some 10 to 12 correctors through the centuries. It contains hundreds of corrections, and most of them lean towards the traditional text. These are facts.
Virtually all but two manuscripts contain these words, as well as at least 25 uncials, the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Palestinian, Harclean, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, Ethiopian and Georgian ancient versions. They are found also in Vaticanus. So again N & B do not agree with each other. When Westcott Hort first changed the Greek text of the KJB, even then the Revised Version of 1881 and the ASV of 1901 still contained these words "have watched and". The Rsv of 1950 still has them, as well as the Catholic Douay. However with the advent of the nasb, niv and nrsv they have been removed. Do you see the total inconsistency of those who depart from the KJB, all in the name of $cholar$hip. New and improved, and only $29.95 plus tax. There is no new manuscript evidence recently discovered in some cave. They just feel free to change their opinions and bibles every so often, so we can buy the latest and most updatest.

In the very next verse "therefore" is removed because not in N or B, and in the next verse "Then Peter said TO HIM, Lord, speakest this parable unto us, or even to all?. Here "to him" is not found in Vaticanus, so the nasb and niv omit it. But wait, "to him" is found in Sinaticus as well as A and the majority. Why did the niv, nasb follow B in one verse and then N in the other? Hey, this is the "science of textual criticism" Hank Handicap is always talking about.
Next is an example, one of many, where the nkjv departs from the underlying Greek text of the KJB. In verse 49 our Lord says: "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?" Notice the question mark. This is the textus receptus of the KJB. It is also a question in the Tyndale, Geneva, Youngs, Darby, Catholic Douay, Spanish, Green, The REVISED VERSION AND THE ASV of 1901. Notice particularly these last two. The RV and ASV. But when we get to the nkjv, niv and nasb all have instead an exclamation point instead of a question mark.

Finally, as far as texts go in this chapter, in verse 53 the KJB and majority and A, say "and the daughter in law against HER mother in law." Both N & B again differ from each other, but they both agree in omitting "her" so the niv and nasb omit it. Yet is was still in the Revised Version and the ASV, as well as the Douay. Now, that my friends, is consistent scolarship.

Now in regards to the different renderings of the same text into English. In verse 33 the text clearly says "Sell that ye have, and GIVE ALMS." This is the rendering of all the old versions, plus the ASV, nkjv, and even the Rsv and nrsv. But the nasb has "give to charity" while the niv has "give to the poor". The word is "alms", and the nasb still has this word 10 times in the N.T.(see Mat.6:2 and Acts 10:2,4,31), but not here. The niv has completely done away with the word alms in their version. It is a paraphrase, when there is no need to paraphrase. God knows the word for "poor" and "charity" but He did not use them here.
Verse 35 says literally "Let your LOINS be girded about". This is rendering of the RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva etc. and the RSV. The loins is not at all arcahic, and is defined as the area on both sides of the spine between the ribs and the hipbones. The word is found 8 times in the Greek and English of the KJB, but the nkjv has this word as "waist" 3 times, including here, "body" twice (which is wrong-there is a very different word for body), and loins 3 times. The nas has it as loins twice, body twice, once as descendants, and once as "descended". Twice it has not translated the word, but they don't tell you that in their concordance. Here the nasb has "Be dressed for readiness" while the niv has "Be dressed ready for service". The niv has completely omitted the word loins from the N.T., though it is still in the old testament. Why not just translate what God has said, when possible? Because then they could not make their money selling you their latest and greatest.
Verse 46 says of the wicked servant, that when the lord comes he "WILL CUT HIM IN SUNDER, and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers." This expression means to seperate or divide this person from the righteous. But the nkjv has "will cut him in two", while the niv and nasb say "will cut him in pieces". Not quite the same thing, is it? Christ at His second coming, nor even a lord in those days, would cut his servant in two, but rather seperate him from those who had been faithful.
In verse 5O Christ says: "I have a babtism TO BE BAPTIZED WITH, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" He is refering to his babtism into death, which occured at Calvary. The texts are the same here, and the nkjv, Asv,RV, and even the RSV and NRSV read as does the KJB. But the nas and niv say "I have a baptism TO UNDERGO." The word is clearly baptistheinai. Those who vaunt the nasb as being so accurate, really do not know what they say nor whereof they affirm. Stay tuned for more on this same station.