Another King James Bible Believer


The Ever Changing NASBs

One of the first things you should know about the ever changing NASBs is that it is just one more of the new Vatican Versions being foisted on the church today in an attempt to create an artificial "interconfessional" text that is acceptable to both "Evangelicals" and Catholics. It's textual choices are directly influenced by the Vatican. 

Does this sound outrageous to you?  Well, here is the Proof the versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET etc. are in fact the new Vatican Versions.  Read it for yourself right out of their own UBS, Nestle-Aland critical Greek text and see hundreds of concrete examples of how the modern Catholic versions and these popular "Evangelical" versions are identical.  See Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are  the new "Catholic" bibles 


Doctor Frank Logsdon's own words in his own voice giving testimony on how he changed from the NASB to the King James Bible.  The NASB people try to deny this ever happened, but here is Dr. Logsdon's own recorded testimony.


Please listen to it. This personal testimony by the man who wrote the original Preface to the NASB and then publicly renounced it and told people to go back to the King James Bible.

Hear it for yourself.  This is not some kind of KJB only “conspiracy”.

Here is another recording where Mr. Logsdon defends the King James Bible.


If you wish to see a few examples of how different the NASB is from the KJB, here is a site that shows quite a few of them in an easy to read manner. 

The NASB keeps on changing from one edition to the next. The changes introduced in the 1995 NASB update where it differs from the 1977 edition affect 10,616 verses and directly affect 24,338 words. There are only 4,704 changes in capitalization, 32 in spelling, and 30 in italics. This makes 19,572 corrections involving word omissions, additions, transpositions, or substitutions to the text of the NASB 1977. There are 6,966 fewer words in the 1995 edition than there were in the 1977 NASB.

These are not all just different ways of saying the same thing - the NASB of 1995 has actually altered the text itself, by adding whole phrases which were not found in the 1977 edition. Every example of these changes is documented in a book by Laurence M. Vance titled Double Jeopardy, published in 1998. 

ALL these verses are omitted by the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND by the RSV, ESV, NIV, NET etc.  The Holman Standard and *NASB 1995 edition put them all in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.


* Note - The NASBs keep changing their texts.  The 1963 and 1972 editions have Matthew 17:21; 18:11 and 23:14 [in brackets] but OMIT from their TEXT Mark 7:16; 9:44, 9:46, Mark 11:26; Mark 15:28; Luke 17:36; Luke 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6b-24:8a; Acts 28:29 and Romans 16:24. They remove these whole verses from their text and instead have (See footnote)


The ever changing "literal" NASB

There are a multitude of examples found in the New American Standard Version where it is far less "literal" than the King James Bible or, for that matter, the previous Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901.

The following is a very incomplete list of some of the examples I have found in my personal studies over the past few years. This list could easily be three times as long, but these few should be sufficient to refute the oft repeated claim that the NASB is the most literal of the modern versions. 

 Gentlemen, I have now asked  you  several times about this Biblia Sacra you told us about and so far you keep dodging my questions.  This bible apparently is the Hebrew Masoretic text for the O.T. and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition for the N.T.   IF you men REALLY believe it is the complete and inerrant Bible, then why not answer my questions about it?

IF this Hebrew and Greek 27th edition of a text that tells you in their own words that it is an inter confessional text that is under the direct SUPERVISION OF THE VATICAN, and they themselves say of it - "The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that THIS TEXT IS A WORKING TEXT; IT IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS DEFINITIVE, BUT AS A STIMULUS TO FURTHER EFFORTS TOWARD DEFINING AND VERIFYING THE TEXT OF THE New Testament."

They themselves do not believe it is "a definitive text". 

You guys are telling us that a "bible" that maybe .0001%  of the people in the entire world can even read, and that did not exist until just a few years ago (27th edition) and that since then has ALREADY BEEN REVISED AND CHANGED (28th edition) and they are going to change again in the near future (29th ) edition, is somehow your "inerrant Bible"

Are you willing to be logical and consistent then, and also admit that IF this Biblia Sacra is your "inerrant Bible" then versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, NKJV, KJB, RV, ASV, New Living Translation, and the Cabbage Patch versions are NOT the inerrant words of God, because all of these either do not follow the same Hebrew texts in their numbers or names or readings ESV, NIV, NASB), or they add thousands of words to them (ESV), or their N.T. translations do NOT follow the same Greek readings as those found in the Nestle-Aland 27th edition?

IF you try to tell us that "they are all inerrant" then you have committed intellectual hari kari, and have the spiritual discernment of a zucchini.

So, what do you say, Ashley and Jason, it the Biblia Sacra the only complete and inerrant words of God Bible and The Standard of written truth, and that is your story and you are sticking to it, or not?  Yes or No?

Can this Biblia Sacra you guys claim is your inerrant Bible online anywhere where we can see it, even though it is written  in two ancient and archaic languages (biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek) that maybe .0001% of the population can even read, and uses Hebrew and Geek that are not spoken or read even in Israel or Greece today?

Yes or No?

And you think King James Bible believers are "anti-intellectual", right?  

If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.

Or, as the Bible puts it "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 1 Corinthians 1:19

In a separate study called "You Better Hope Your Surgeon Is Not A Modern Versionist" you will find many examples of where the so called "literal" NASB is not literal at all when it comes to identifying many simple body parts.  You can see it here -

After years of reading my King James Bible and comparing it to the ever changing Evangelical modern versions like the NASB, NIV and NKJV, I have repeatedly noticed how they all continue to make totally unnecessary translational changes that end up creating confusion and discord even in the simple area of identifying the parts of the human body.

The modern versions are so utterly confused at times, that it occurred to me that it would be tragically humorous if your next operation or yearly medical check-up were performed by a doctor or a surgeon who learned his human anatomy from one of the modern bible versions rather than from the true Bible - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

The following word studies are just a few of the numerous examples of the utter confusion found in today's so called "New and Improved" Bible versions.

The NASB gospel of John came out in 1960. The complete New Testament in 1963, and the whole Bible in 1971. Since then the NASB has come out with five different editions (1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, and the Updated 1995). Each of these editions differs from the others in both it's English translations of many verses and some even differ in the underlying Greek texts of the New Testament.

Brother Laurence M. Vance has written a book called Double Jeopardy, in which he documents word for word the changes made in the 1995 NASB as compared to the previous 1977 NASB. The 1995 NASB now has almost 7000 fewer words in it than did the previous 1977 edition.

The NASB often rejects the Hebrew readings, but they never tell you this in their footnotes. You have to consult other versions like the RSV, ESV, and NIV to verify this. Many examples of the NASB not following the Hebrew texts are found here:

 and here:

The NASB is also based on different Greek texts than are such versions as the Geneva Bible, Tyndale, Young's and the NKJV. These different texts omit, change or add some 5000 words to the traditional New Testament text.

For a very easy to follow chart showing some of these omissions, see this site. Please look at both parts.

And see this article about the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which many modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV and ESV are based.

Part One - SOME examples of how the NASB continues to change from year to year.

Several very revealing and concrete examples of the fickle nature of the ever changing NASBs are found in this one study I did on just one chapter in the New Testament - Luke 24 - where the NASBs clearly change their underlying Greek texts from one edition to the next, and their online edition doesn't match their printed edition textually.  You can see this complete study on Luke 24 and the fickle nature of what these bible agnostics call "the science of textual criticisim" here - 

"To believe" vs "to obey"

John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and HE THAT BELIEVETH NOT the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." This is the reading of the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568,  Douay-Rheims,  Webster's 1833, Youngs, the Bible in Basic English 1960, the NKJV 1982, Green's MKJV, the Worldwide English Bible, the KJV 21st Century version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

Many foreign language versions have translated the phrase as “believe not" or "refuse to believe".  Among these are Luther’s German Bible 1545, the French Louis Segond 1910 -celui qui ne croit pas au Fils, the  French La Bible du Semeur 1999,  the Spanish  Reina Valera 1960 -1995 (he who refuses to believe - el que rehúsa creer en el Hijo no verá la vida); the Italian Diodati 1649 - ma chi non crede al Figliuolo, and La Parola e Vita 1997, and the Portuguese O Livro 2000 -os que não crêem. 


However in John 3:36 instead of saying "but he that BELIEVETH NOT the Son shall not see life", the NASB 1995, RSV, ESV say: "but HE WHO DOES NOT OBEY the Son, shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him." The NIV is not nearly as bad as these others here but paraphrases as: "whoever REJECTS the Son will not see life".

I mention the “present NASB” because the NASB keeps on changing its text every few years. It has now gone through 10 different copyrighted editions and every time it changes its own text.  The1995 edition NASB omitted just short of 7000 words that were in the previous 1977 NASB. Right here in my study I have a copy of the 1963 NASB New Testament.  The 1963 NASB says in John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who DISBELIEVES the Son shall not see life...”  It wasn't till some years later that the "scholars" behind the ever changing NASB decided to change this to now read "he who obeys not".  But even now the present NASBs still retain a marginal note about this Greek word which says "or believes". 


The NASB, by changing "he that believeth not the Son shall not see life" to "he who does not obey the Son, shall not see life" has now perverted the gospel of the grace of God to legalism and set up another standard of righteousness.  For more on Satan's false religion of works and the modern versions see -


Luke 9:54-56 present an interesting case. In the King James Bible we read: "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, EVEN AS ELIAS? But he turned, and rebuked them, AND SAID, YE KNOW NOT WHAT MANNER OF SPIRIT YE ARE OF. FOR THE SON OF MAN IS NOT COME TO DESTROY MEN'S LIVES, BUT TO SAVE THEM. And they went to another village."  


All the capital lettered words in these three verses are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including A and C and are found in many ancient versions like the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Palestinian, Harkelian, Gothic, Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, Ethiopian and the Old Latin.


They are also in the Modern Greek and the Modern Hebrew bibles as well as Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the King James Bible, the French Martin 1744, French Ostervald 1996, Italian Diodati 1649 and New Diodati 1991, Luther's German Bible 1545 and 1951 German Schlachter, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the Reina Valera 1909, 1995 and even the older Catholic bibles like the Douay-Rheims 1899 and the Douay of 1950.  


The NASBs reveal their fickle nature in that when it first came out in 1963 they completely omitted all these words from the text, as also in the 1972 and 1973 editions.  I have these NASBs right here in my study and all these words are omitted from their texts.  Then in 1977 and again in 1995 they put them back in [but in brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity.


What is happening here is that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit all these words, as do the Westcott-Hort and UBS Greek texts and so all these words are now omitted by such versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, the J.W. New World Translation, Daniel Wallace's NET version AND (you guessed it) the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985.  As a result, these Catholic Connection versions read like the ESV - "...Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them? But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village."


 Luke 10:42 "one thing" or "few things"?

KJB Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NASB 1963-1977 editions - “But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

NASB 1995 edition - “But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

This section of Luke tells of the time when Jesus came to the house of Martha and Mary, and Martha was cumbered with much serving and Mary sat at the feet of Jesus and heard his word. In Luke 10:42, after Jesus told Martha that she was careful and troubled about many things, he says: "But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

      The one thing that is needful is to sit at the feet of Jesus, to hear his words, and be in fellowship with him.

"BUT ONE THING is needful”

The "But one thing is needful" is the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Versions, the ASV of 1901 (the highly praised precursor to the NASB), the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, Common English Bible and the NET version.

But in the NASBs of 1963, 1972 and 1977 we read instead: "FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE." This ridiculous reading comes from the Vaticanus manuscript.   The Siniaticus goes back and forth, being corrected three times in this one phrase alone. First it read like the Vatican mss.; then a scribe changed it to read like the Majority text; and then another scribe changed it back again to read like Vaticanus.   

Also reading this way are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 and the 2013 J.W. Revision which say: “A FEW THINGS THOUGH ARE NEEDED, OR JUST ONE. For her part, Mary chose the good portion.”  

The Amplified bible of 1987 still non-sensically  reads: “THERE IS NEED OF ONLY ONE THING OR BUT A FEW THINGS. Mary has chosen the good portion”. Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902 read this way - “OF FEW THINGS, IS THERE NEED, OR, OF ONE; Mary, in fact, hath chosen, the good part,” as does the Lexham English Bible of 2012 - “But FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, OR ONLY ONE THING, for Mary has chosen the better part

 But the NASB update of 1995 has reversed itself, and now reads as the KJB and the NIV, ESV. Why? Not because of any new manuscript evidence recently come to light; they simply changed their minds.

The Catholic versions have done the same thing.  The early Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay followed the Traditional texts and read like the KJB - “But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL, and Mary hath chosen that good part”.  But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible followed the Vaticanus reading and read: “FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED, INDEED ONLY ONE.”

But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has also gone back to the Traditional reading and once again says: “And yet ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY. Mary has chosen the best portion”

Likewise the Nestle-Aland Critical Greek texts have changed over the years. Westcott and Hort originally went with the nonsensical reading ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία ἑνός, which is not even grammatically correct and literally is “few things is necessary the one”.  So also did the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975. I have hard copies of both of these and this is how their critical text reads.

 But not even the RV, ASV or even the RSV were that far gone that they actually followed this absurd reading found in their own critical Greek text editions. The first major translation to adopt it and put it in their text was the NASB in 1963 and the NASB stuck with it through 7 different editions until 1995.  Then sometime later they changed the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts and they now read as does the KJB with “ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία = “but one thing is necessary.”

    So the critical text promoters have abandoned in this place their beloved "oldest and best" manuscripts, all in the name of "the science” of Textual Criticism, don’t ya know. The question remains - Which NASB was inspired and inerrant? The first 7 editions from 1963 to 1977 or the 1995 update? Well, actually, there is NO NASB user who believes his ever changing NASB is the inspired and infallible words of God.

 The 1995 NASB update changed 20,000 words and deleted another 8000 words from its previous 1977 NASB edition. This is not fantasy. I have the book Double Jeopardy, by Lawrence M. Vance, that documents in black and white every change that has taken place between these two different editions of the NASB.   

What we see among these bogus bible versions that are based on the ever changing Nestle-Aland/UBS/Vatican critical Greek texts (both  the “Evangelical” NASB, ESV, NIV, and the modern Catholic versions) is the fact that they have no settled Scripture. What may be fa$hionable $cholar$hip today, will change with the wind tomorrow.  And their so called “oldest and best manuscripts”, that these new Vatican Versions are based on, are in fact among the most corrupt in existence.

Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and “meddle not with them that are given to change” - Proverbs 24:21

Return to articles -

1 Peter 5:2 - KJB "Feed the flock of God which is among you, TAKING THE OVERSIGHT THEREOF".

The phrase "taking the oversight thereof" is omitted by the NASB editions of 1963, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75 but put back in the 1977 edition. The RSV also omits it because it is not in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, but the phrase is included in the NIV, RV, ASV, NRSV and the ESV because it is in the Majority, A, and P72.

The older Nestles text omitted the phrase, but now the UBS text puts it back in brackets, and the newer NASBs from 1977 and 1995 now include the reading along with the Holman, ESV and NIV. 

So, the older NASB's lack these inspired words, but the newer ones now once again include them. By the way, Vaticanus, one of the "oldest and best" upon which most modern versions like the NASB are based, omits the entire next verse: "Neither as being lord's over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock." 

Vaticanus omits the entire verse, though it is found in all the others, including Sinaiticus, and this time the modern versions follow the Sinaiticus reading and include the whole verse. Nice of them to do, don't you think?


In Deuteronomy 11:14, and 15 the Hebrew texts have Moses speaking for God who says: "That "I" will give you the rain of your land in his due season...And "I" will send grass in thy fields..." This is the reading of even the NIV, TNIV, New English Bible 1970, as well as the Holman Standard, the NKJV, RV, ASV, and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Judaica Press Complete Tanach and the Complete Jewish Bible. 

It is also the reading found in the Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Coverdale, the Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, New English Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera, French Louis Segond, the Portuguese Almeida, and the Modern Greek O.T. (not to be confused with the so called LXX).

The NASB at least up until the 1972 edition also read "I" will give rain.."I" will send grass...But in the 1977, and again in the 1995 edition the NASB editors decided to reject the clear Hebrew reading and they now follow the RSV, NRSV, and the 2003 ESV which read: "HE will give rain...HE will send grass..."

The RSV, ESV tell us that the reading of "He" comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew reads "I", and not "he".  

Deuteronomy 7:26 - Here we read in the KJB - "Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be A CURSED THING like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is A CURSED THING."  

So read the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, Darby, the RSV and Green's literal of 2000 to name a few.  

However the NASB of 1972 and 1973 read: "You shall not bring an abomination into your house, and become A DEVOTED THING like it; you shall utterly detest it and you shall utterly abhor it, for IT IS A DEVOTED THING."  

But in 1977 and again in 1995 they changed this to now read: "You shall not bring an abomination into your house, and like it COME UNDER THE BAN; you shall utterly detest it and you shall utterly abhor it, for IT IS SOMETHING BANNED."

Joshua 19:2 - Are there 13 or 14 cities in the list? Error in many bible versions.

In the King James Bible we read: "And they had their inheritance Beer-sheba, OR Sheba, and Moladah, and Hazarshual, and Balah, and Azem, and Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormahn, and Ziklag, and Beth-marcaboth, and Hazarsusah, and Bethlebaoth, and Sharuhen; THIRTEEN CITIES and their villages." 


If you count the number of cities mentioned in the King James Bible, and correctly take the reading of "OR Sheba" to mean that the town of Beer-sheba was also known as Sheba, then we end up with exactly 13 cities mentioned.

However the NASBs from 1968 to 1977 editions read: “So they had as their inheritance Beersheba AND Sheba and Moladah…thirteen cities”

But then the NASB 1995 edition finally got it right and now reads: “So they had as their inheritance Beersheba OR Sheba and Moladah….thirteen cities”

The ESV and the NET still get it wrong, but the NIV, Holman and many others now get it right as the KJB always had it.  See the whole study here -


Amos 3:2 "You only HAVE I KNOWN of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."

"You only HAVE I KNOWN" is the reading of the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NKJV, Darby, Young's, Geneva Bible and the Jewish translations. The word "to know" is # 3045, and means to know, as is Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew his wife Eve"; Genesis 22:12 "Now I know that thou fearest God"; and Jeremiah 1:5 "before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee."

However the NASBs of 1972 and 1973 said: "You ONLY HAVE ME of all the families of the earth." Then in 1977 the NASB changed to read like the NIV:'"You only HAVE I CHOSEN among all the families of the earth." Both readings are wrong.

Revelation 14:4 "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they ARE VIRGINS." So read all Greek texts, and the RV, ASV, NKJV and ESV. However, the NASB of 1972 says: "for they are CELIBATES", and then footnotes that it literally says "virgins". A person may be celibate but not necessarily a virgin.

Then the NASB 1977 changed this to read: "they HAVE KEPT THEMSELVES CHASTE." Neither rendering is "literal" or even accurate.

Ezra 8:5 and 8:10 NASB 95, NIV, ESV, RSV, Holman all add to the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Ezra chapter eight we read of the genealogy of those who went up with Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. In Ezra 8:5 we read: "Of the sons of Shechaniah; the son of Jahaziel, and with him three hundred males."

This is the reading of the Hebrew text, as well as the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young's, Darby, Douay, the Spanish Reina Valera, and the Jewish translations of 1917 JPS, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, 1998 JPS updated and the 2004 Complete Jewish Tanach. It WAS also the reading of the NASB in their 1972, 1973 and 1977 editions.

However, the new NASB of 1995 now reads as do the RSV, ESV, NIV, the newer Catholic versions like the Jerusalem Bible and the St. Joseph NAB (BUT the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Bible has now gone back to the Hebrew text and omits these two added names!) and the Holman Standard.

These versions say: "Of the descendants OF ZATTU, Shechaniah son of Jahaziel.." Then in a footnote the NIV, ESV and Holman tell us that the name ZATTU comes from SOME LXX copies, but that the Hebrew does not have this added name.

The same thing occurs in Ezra 8:10. Here the King James Bible as well as the Hebrew text and Jewish translations (1917 -1998), the 2004 Complete Jewish Tanach, and the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young's, Darby, Douay of 1950, and Spanish versions all read: "And of the sons of Shelomith; the son of Josiphiah, and with him 160 males." This WAS the reading too of the NASB of 1972, 1973 and 1977.

But once again, the 1995 NASB has changed its Old Testament text and it now reads along with the RSV, ESV, NIV, the newer Catholic versions (except the latest 2009 version), and the Holman Standard: "Of the descendants of BANI, Shelomith son of Josiphiah..."

Then in the NIV, ESV and Holman footnote (the NASB doesn't tell us that they changed the text), we read that the name of BANI comes from SOME LXX copies (they do not all read the same), but that the Hebrew does not have the name BANI in the text. Not surprisingly, Daniel Wallace and  company's NET version does the same thing - adding these two names to the Hebrew texts - and then footnotes: 

 The MT lacks “of Zattu.” The translation adopted above follows the LXX in including the words. 

The MT lacks “Bani.” It is restored on the basis of certain LXX MSS.



In Psalm 16:10 we are given a verse that is quoted in Acts 2:27 and 31 referring to Christ, that his soul was not left in hell. "For thou wilt not leave my soul IN HELL; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see CORRUPTION."

Christ did descend into the lower parts of the earth - Ephesians 4:9. He was in the heart of the earth - Matthew 12:40, and He preached to the spirits in prison - 1 Peter 3:19. Agreeing with the reading of "hell" is Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims, Webster's 1833 translation, The Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the 21st Century KJB. The NKJV and NASB say SHOEL instead of HELL; even though the NKJV translated this same word as hell in Psalm 9:17.

The NIV says: "you will not abandon ME to the grave." The word is "soul" not "me", and hell is in this context, not the grave. Christ did a whole lot more than just go to the grave. The grave or sepulchre is where His physical body was, but He himself went into the heart of the earth, where hell is.

In Psalm 16:10 we read: "neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to SEE CORRUPTION."

This is the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, NKJV, Hebrew Names Version, Young, Douay, Darby, the 2003 ESV (a revision of the older RSV), and the Spanish Reina Valera. Even the NIV is OK here with "nor will you let your Holy One see decay. "

John Gill (and an host of other Bible commentators) remarks: "neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption; that is, to lie so long in the grave as to putrefy and be corrupted; wherefore he was raised from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures, before the time bodies begin to be corrupted; see (John 11:39) ; and this was owing not to the care of Joseph or Nicodemus, in providing spices to preserve it, but of God who raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; and who would not suffer his body to be corrupted, because he was holy, and because he was his Holy One; that so as there was no moral corruption in him, there should be no natural corruption in him; so the Jewish Midrash F23 interprets it, that "no worm or maggot should have power over him;''

However the NASBs of 1972 and 1973, along with the RSV and NRSV - which the later ESV has also now corrected - say:" not allow Thy Holy One to SEE THE PIT." 

Well, Christ did indeed see the pit; that is where His soul went! Apparently this blunder was eventually noticed by the “scholars” who continually revise scores of passages in the ever-changing NASB, so now the latet NASBs have changed back to "undergo decay", which is much closer to the truth.

Unfortunately, this same “Duh!” moment of insight has so far escaped Daniel Wallace’s NET bible version and the Holman Standard. These two versions read: “You will not abandon ME to Sheol; you will not allow your FAITHFUL FOLLOWER to see THE PIT.”

The bible scholars change their versions every few years both in wording and texts. They have no settled and no sure words of God, and neither do you unless you believe God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words, and done so in the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Proverbs 30:3 The King James Bible as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV and the NIV say: "I neither learned wisdom, NOR have the knowledge of the holy.

The NASB of 1972 says: "And I have not learned wisdom, BUT I HAVE knowledge of the Holy One." - The exact opposite meaning.

Then in 1977 the NASB changed this to read: "Neither have I learned wisdom, NOR do I have the knowledge of the Holy One."

Proverbs 30:26 in the King James Bible reads: "The CONIES are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks." A coney is a type of rabbit, and conies or coneys is the reading found in the RV, ASV, Geneva Bible, Young's, and even in the NIV.

However the NASB 1972-1977 editions say: "The BADGERS are not mighty FOLK; Yet they make their houses in the rocks."

Then in 1995 the NASB once again changed their texts to now read: "The SHEPHANIM are not a mighty PEOPLE, Yet they make their houses in the rocks."

Isaiah 21:8 in the King James Bible reads: "Go, set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth." Then verse 8 reads: "And he cried, A LION : My lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower in the daytime, and I am set in my ward whole nights: And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen: and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground."

It is very clear that the Hebrew Masoretic text says A LION. "a lion" is the reading found in the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, the Geneva Bible, Young's, Darby, the RV, the ASV, Third Millennium Bible, the KJV 21, and the Catholic Douay version. The NKJV reads A Lion, but has a footnote telling us the Dead Sea Scrolls read "The Observer".

The NIV reads: "And THE LOOKOUT shouted, Day after day, my lord, I stand on the watchtower." The NIV rejects the Hebrew text which reads "a lion", and imports a variant reading from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The new English Standard Version, follows the RSV with "Then HE WHO SAW cried out..." with a footnote telling us this reading comes from the Syriac and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the Hebrew says A Lion.

In the 1972 NASB edition we read: "Then THE SENTRY called LIKE A LION, O Lord, I stand continually..." Here the NASB 72 put both readings in. They added "The Sentry", which is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic text nor in the RV or ASV, but comes from the DSS., but they also kept the word Lion.

But then in the 1995 NASB they now have: "Then the LOOKOUT cried, O Lord, I stand..." Now the NASB scholars changed Sentry to Lookout, and this time omitted the word Lion.

Isaiah 26:3 in the King James Bible reads: "Thou wilt keep HIM in perfect peace, WHOSE MIND IS STAYED ON THEE, because HE trusts in thee."

This is also the reading found in the RV, ASV, the Jewish translations, NKJV, Darby, the RSV and the ESV, to name a few.

But, the 1971 NASB reads very differently with: "Thou wilt keep THE NATION OF STEADFAST PURPOSE in perfect peace, because IT trusts in Thee."

Then in 1972 the NASB changed this to now read: "THE STEADFAST OF MIND Thou wilt keep in perfect peace, because HE trusts in Thee." The 1995 NASB reads the same as the 1972 but it has now replaced the "Thou" and "Thee" with the generic "You" in both places.

I Samuel 13:1 reads in the King James Bible:"Saul reigned ONE YEAR; and when he had reigned TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel...and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent."  This is the reading of the KJB, the NKJV, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Daniel Webster's translation of 1833, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1960, the Italian Diodati version, the KJV 21st century version and the Third Millennium Bible. 

There are several bible versions like Darby's, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and  the  New Scofield KJV, which actually read: "Saul was ____years old when he began to reign; and he reigned_____and two years over Israel." Then in a footnote they tell us "the number is lacking in Hebrew" and "two is not the entire number. Something has dropped out."

The ASV of 1901, which is the predecessor of the NASB, says: "Saul was  (FORTY) years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..." Then in a footnote it tells us "The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, and is supplied conjecturally."

When we finally get to the NASB and the NIV we really get confused.  The NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel."   But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years.  The NIV says: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel FORTY TWO years."  So was Saul 30 or 40, and did he reign 2 years as the ASV tells us, or 32 as some NASBs have it, or the 42 of the NIV?

For a more complete examination of this passage showing that the King James reading is correct, please see this link -

Job 6:2 - "O that my grief were throughly weighed, and my CALAMITY laid in the balances together!". So read the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV and many others.

However the NASB's of 1972-1977 said: “ Oh that my vexation were actually weighed, And laid in the balances together with my INIQUITY” instead of “Oh that my grief were throughly weighed, and my CALAMITY laid in the balance together.”, which totally changes the meaning of the text.

Is it Job’s “calamity” or his “iniquity”? But wait. Now the 1995 NASB edition has come out and it has gone back to reading CALAMITY.

NASB 1995 - “Oh that my grief were actually weighed and laid in the balances together with my CALAMITY.”

Job 19:25-26 "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; And though after my skin worms destroy this body, YET IN MY FLESH shall I see God."

"Yet IN MY FLESH shall I see God" is the reading found in the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, the Revised Version and even the NIV. This wonderful verse speaks of the resurrection of the body.

However the NASB of 1972 and 1973 reads: "Even after my skin IS FLAYED, yet WITHOUT MY FLESH, I shall see God."

Then in 1977 the NASB once again changed their English text to now read: "Even after my skin is DESTROYED, Yet FROM MY FLESH I shall see God." So, is it "without my flesh" or "from my flesh"?

Ezekiel 45:1 "...the length shall be the length of five and twenty thousand reeds, and the breadth shall be TEN thousand. This shall be holy in all the borders thereof round about."

TEN thousand is the reading of all Hebrew texts and that of Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917, NKJV 1982, the Complete Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, Lamsa' translation of the Syriac, the NASB 1972, 1973 and 1977 editions. The Modern Greek Bible reads like the KJB and the Hebrew text with "10,000" - και το πλατος δεκα χιλιαδων

However the NIV, RSV, ESV and now the NASB 1995 edition all say "TWENTY thousand", then in a footnote tell us the 20,000 comes from the Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads 10,000.

So the NASB has once again changed from a previous Hebrew text to the LXX text in this place. Likewise the earlier Catholic versions (Douay-Rheims, Douay) follow the Hebrew "10,000" but the newer St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 both go with the Septuagint reading of "20,000" and reject the Hebrew text.

The Daniel Wallace NET version says: "three and one-third miles". But wait! The Holman Standard says: "six and two-thirds miles." Now I'm really confused. No wonder the Muslims mock at the Christians' "inspired Bible"! Dan Wallace is paraphrasing the Hebrew text, which he footnotes as reading 10,000 cubits and the Holman Standard is paraphrasing the Greek Septuagint. But there is more to this story of the shifting shenanigans of the "science" of textual criticism.

Not only does the so called Greek Septuagint change the Hebrew number of 10,000 cubits into 20,000 cubits in verse one, but it does the same thing in verses three and verse five! All three places have been changed in the LXX from 10,000 to 20,000.

But did the ESV, NIV, RSV and now the NASB 1995 edition follow the LXX in verses 3 and 5 and change the 10,000 to the LXX's 20,000 there? No, they did not; they still read 10,000 cubits in verse 3 and 5. How is that for being consistent?

Not only this, but this same Greek Septuagint also radically changes the number in verse 15. There we read in the Hebrew text - "And one lamb out of the flock, out of TWO HUNDRED". However the LXX reads "And one sheep out from the flock out of TEN", not 200.

So did any of these modern versions go with the Septuagint reading in that verse? No, they did not. They still read "out of 200". Such is the fickle nature of the so called "science" of textual criticism. They reject the Hebrew and pick out a LXX reading from verse 1 and do the same thing in part of verse five, but reject the LXX readings in verses 3, part of 5 and 15.

Ezekiel 45:5 "And the five and twenty thousand of length, and the ten thousand of breadth, shall also the Levites, the ministers of the house, have for themselves, for a possession for TWENTY CHAMBERS."

"for a possession for twenty chambers" is the reading of the Hebrew texts and that of Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac. And once again, the Modern Greek Bible now agrees with the Hebrew text and says "TWENTY CHAMBERS" - μετα εικοσι θαλαμων.

However the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, NET and Holman Standard say: "as their possession CITIES TO DWELL IN." Then the RSV, ESV footnote that "cities to dwell in" comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads "twenty chambers."

Again, the older Catholic Douay-Rheims and Douay stuck with the Hebrew and read "twenty chambers" but the newer Catholic versions (St. Joseph and New Jerusalem) go with "CITIES TO DWELL IN"

Daniel Wallace's NET version reads: "the Levites, who minister at the temple, as the place FOR THE CITIES IN WHICH THEY LIVE." Then he mentions in his footnote: " The translation follows the Septuagint here. The MT reads “twenty.”

Folks, these are the modern perversions people are being deceived into using and that NOBODY seriously believes are the true and infallible words of the living God. Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and stick to it.

Zephaniah 3:8 KJB -  "Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day THAT I RISE UP TO THE PREY."

So read the Hebrew texts, as well as the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901 - “until the day that I rise up to the prey”, the NASBs from 1972, 73 and 1977,  the JPS 1917 (Jewish Publication Society), Darby, Youngs, Hebrew Names Version, the NKJV and the Spanish Reina Valera.

However the NIV reads: - "for the day I WILL STAND UP TO TESTIFY".  Then it footnotes that this reading comes from  the LXX and Syriac, but the Hebrew reads as the KJB.


Both the RSV and the NRSV also read like the NIV, and they also tell us this reading comes from the LXX and Syriac but the Hebrew reads as does the KJB. But now the latest revision of the revision of the revision, the new ESV of 2001,  has now gone back to the Hebrew reading - “"for the day when I rise up to seize the prey.”

NET version - “Therefore you must wait patiently for me,” says the Lord “for the day WHEN I ATTACK AND TAKE PLUNDER.”  Then he footnotes: “Hebrew “when I arise for plunder.” The present translation takes (’ad) as “plunder.” Some, following the LXX, repoint the term  (’ed) and translate, “as a witness” (cf. NASB, NIV, NRSV).

The NASB keeps changing its underlying Hebrew texts.  The earlier NASB’s (1971 through 1977) all read as does the King James Bible and the Hebrew texts - “the day I rise up TO THE PREY” BUT the 1995 NASB now reads: “For the day when I rise AS A WITNESS” - thus following the so called Greek Septuagint in changing “for a prey” to “as a witness”.  So, were all the previous NASBs and the Hebrew texts wrong, but now they got it right in the late$t NA$B? 

Lunatic or Epileptic?

Matthew 17:14-15 in the King James Bible we read: "And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying, Lord, have mercy on my son: for HE IS A LUNATICK, and sore vexed..."

This man's son was possessed of a devil, which caused the lad's mental illness. Jesus then casts out the devil and the boy is cured in that very hour. The word correctly translated as LUNATICK is the Greek word from which we get the word "moon" or "luna". Thus in English we have the lunar cycle. Lunatick means literally "moon-struck", and has to do with mental illness or madness. It is not the physical affliction of epilepsy.

Bible versions that correctly translate this word as Lunatick are the Vulgate in 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley's translation 1755, Webster's 1833, the Douay-Rheims, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, Darby, Young's, the KJV 21, Third Millennium Bible, and Green's Modern KJV.

Also agreeing with the correct King James Bible reading of “lunatic” are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 - “lunático”; the Italian Diodati of 1649 and the 1927 Riveduta - “lunatico”; the French Martin 1744, the Louis Segond 1910 and the French Ostervald of 1996 - “lunatique”. Luther’s German bible of 1545 and the 1905 Elberfelder both have “mondsuchtig” or “moonstruck”.

The NASB is interesting in that from 1960 to 1973 it translated this word as "for he is AN EPILEPTIC", with a footnote telling us that the word literally means moonstruck. But then in 1977 and again in the 1995 Update, the NASB now reads "he is a LUNATIC".

Versions like the NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV tell us he was “an EPILEPTIC”, while the NIV says: “he has seizures”. Big Hint - Epilepsy is not caused by devils but lunacy can be. Even the 2002 paraphrase called The Message got closer to the truth than the NKJV; it says: “he goes out of his mind. The King James Bible is always right.  


For a more complete study on this verse, See "Matthew 17:15 Lunatic or Epileptic?"


NASB & Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic versions Confusion - The two sons and the Father's vineyard - Matthew 21:28-31 



Matthew 21:28-31 - "A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in MY vineyard. He answered and said, I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, sir.; and HE WENT NOT. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The FIRST."


This is the reading of the King James Bible 1611, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Alford N.T. 1870, the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, the RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV of 2011, the NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2009, the ISV 2014, the Catholic Douay 1950 and Jerusalem bibles 1969, 1985, the NIV of 1984 and 2011 and even the NET version.  


These readings are found in the majority of all manuscripts and in the Siniaticus copy, one of the so called oldest and best.


However Vaticanus reverses the order of the two sons and has the first son in verse 29 saying "I WILL GO, BUT HE WENT NOT" and the second son in verse 30 saying "I WILL NOT, BUT LATER HE GOES."


Westcott and Hort originally followed this reading found in Vaticanus and so did the earlier Critical Greek texts. I have a Nestle text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle-Aland 21st edition 1975 and both of them read this way.  Yet in spite of the Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Aland Vaticanus reading in their text, versions like the RV 1885, ASV 1901 and not even the RSV followed it.


But later on (with NO ADDITIONAL textual discoveries) they just changed their minds and now the more recent Nestle-Aland texts follow the reading that has been in the KJB all along.


The Catholic Connection


Even "most" of the Catholic bibles rejected the Vaticanus reading here, and they have it in the Vatican library as one of their treasured possessions. Yet they chose to follow the reading that matches the one found in the King James Bible and placed it in the 1582 Douay-Rheims, the Douay 1950, the Jerusalem bible 1968 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985. 


However the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible reverses the two sons and has the first one saying he will go and then doesn't, while the second son says he will not go, and then does.   But the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain version goes back to the traditional reading found in the King James Bible and in all Reformation bibles.


 When the Father came to the first son and told him to go work in his vineyard, instead of saying "I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT." the NASBs from 1962, 63, 68, 71, 72, 75 and 1977 say "I WILL, AND HE DID NOT GO.”  And when he comes to the second son, in the NASBs from 1962 to 1977, instead of him saying "I GO SIR, AND HE WENT NOT” the NASBs have "I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT.”  Then, when Jesus asks which of them did the father's will, instead of “the FIRST”, the NASBs (1963 to 1977) say "the LATTER"!!!


Other bible versions that also followed the reading found in Vaticanus are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 edition, Twentieth Century N.T. 1904,  Riverside N.T. 1923, Montgomery N.T. 1924, Moffatt N.T. 1926,  Goodspeed 1943, the New English Bible 1970, and the Revised English Bible of 1989, put out as a recent joint effort between Protestants and Catholics.  All these versions follow the Vaticanus reading, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is wrong.


BUT now the Jehovah Witnesses have "revised" their New World Translation in 2013 and the new JW "bible" has now reversed itself just like the NASB 1995 did, and it now has the first son saying he will not go, but afterwards repents, while it is the second son who says he will go, but doesn't.


The NASB does not always follow the Vaticanus readings.  Siniaticus differs from it over 3000 times in the gospels alone. In fact in verse 28 the “my” of "MY vineyard" is in Vaticanus, but not in Siniaticus, but the NASB did not put it in. 


So the NASB goes back and forth between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, sometimes following one, sometimes the other, and sometimes changing their opinion from one year to the next. Here in verse 28 both the NIV and NASB have followed Siniaticus and rejected the Vaticanus and Majority reading of “MY vineyard”and have merely "THE" vineyard. 


The NASBs then chose to follow the Vaticanus reading (and not the Sinaiticus nor Majority reading) in verses 29-31 in all their editions from 1960 through 8 different editions until 1995 when they again changed their "scholarly opinion", based on the same evidence which they had all along! NOW the 1995 NASB “update” and the Jehovah Witness NWT update both read like the King James Bible and many others did all along. 


Which NASB was or is the true words of God?  Short answer - None of them.  There is no “science” in their critical text methods; only the fickle and every changing opinions of men who make change for change’s sake (and perhaps for a few dollars and personal fame tossed in as well.)   Their bogus bibles only serve to undermine the authority of God's true words and sow doubt and confusion among God’s people. 



  Luke 24:36 says: “And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, AND SAITH UNTO THEM, PEACE BE UNTO YOU.” So read the RV, ASV, NKJV and the NIV.

However the NASB from 1963 to 1977 omitted these words, and have a footnote which says: “SOME ancient mss. insert”. SOME? Is the word “some” a fair description of “all except one”?

In 1995 "some" NASBs again added "and said unto them, Peace be unto you", and "some" did not! The 1995 copy I have does not have them, but another Christian told me the one he has does include the words. Consistency is not the NASB's strongpoint.

Luke 24:40 is a very interesting example. “And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.” This entire verse is omitted in the NASBs from 1960 to 1973, and by the RSV. But it is in the RV, ASV, NIV, and the NRSV. The NASB of 1977, and the 95 update have again included this verse they previously left out, but now they have it in brackets, thus casting doubt on its authenticity.

Luke 24:51. “And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, AND CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN.”

These last 5 words, “and carried up into heaven” are found in the NIV, the Revised Version, the ASV and the NRSV. But they are omitted by the RSV and the NASBs from 1960 to 1977. But wait, now the 1995 edition of the new and improved NASB has put them back in for us. So, were the previous NASBs not the inspired words of God, but now in 1995 it is?

In Luke 24:52 the reaction of the disciples at seeing our risen Lord ascend into heaven was that “they WORSHIPPED HIM AND, returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”

Here again the NASBs from 1960 - 1977 omitted the words WORSHIPPED HIM AND, and merely have: “And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” The RSV also omits this phrase, but the NRSV puts it back in and so does the 1995 NASB.

In Luke 22:37 the King James Bible and many others correctly read "And he was reckoned among the transgressors." However the NASBs from 1963 to at least 1972 read: "And HE WAS CLASSED AMONG THE CRIMINALS." However once again in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB was changed to now read: "He was numbered with the transgressors." The meaning is essentially the same, but it should be clear that this is not just a printing error that was later corrected, but a deliberate change in translation.

Part Two - SOME examples of how the NASB is not at all a literal translation.

Matthew 1:25 Speaking of Joseph and Mary - "AND KNEW HER NOT till she had brought forth HER FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS."

Greek -kai ouk eginwsken auteen. "Knew her not" is not archaic and obviously means to know in an intimate, sexual manner. It is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, but the NASB, NIV say: "and KEPT HER A VIRGIN." The only word they got right is "her". God knows how to say "kept" and "virgin" but He didn't say this here.

Luke 15:20 "And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion on him, and ran, and FELL ON HIS NECK, and kissed him."

The Greek texts clearly and literally read "and fell on his neck", and so too do such Bible translations as Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' bible 1568, Geneva 1599, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, NKJV, Darby, Young's, and the Spanish Reina Valera. See such other references to the literal "fell on his neck" in Genesis 45:14; 46:29 and Acts 20:37.

However the "literal" NASB was the first to follow the liberal RSV and says "embraced him", the NIV follows the NRSV with "threw his arms around him", and the Holman Standard says: "threw his arms around his neck", and then footnotes that the literal Greek reads "fell on his neck".

Dan Wallace's NET totally paraphrases it as "hugged his son" and then footnotes that the literal reading is that found in the King James Bible.

Romans 2:2 "But we are sure that the judgment of God IS ACCORDING TO TRUTH against them which commit such things."

All Greek texts read "is according to truth" estin kata aleetheian, and so do Tyndale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, ASV 1901, NKJV, Douay, Darby, Young's and the NRSV!

The RSV was the first English version to change this to "the judgment of God RIGHTLY FALLS" and so reads the 'literal' NASB. The NIV and Holman say "is based on truth", closer but still not right.

1 Peter 1:13 "Wherefore, GIRD UP THE LOINS OF YOUR MIND, be sober..."Greek - dio anazwsamenoi tas osfuas tes dianoias humon - also reading of the RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and NKJV.

NASB - "Gird your minds for action" - omits "loins" and adds "action". The NIV is worse with "prepare your minds for action".

2 Peter 2:5 "And spared not the old world, but saved Noah, THE EIGHTH person (Greek - ogdoon 8th)a preacher of righteousness.." RV,ASV = KJB. NASB - "preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, WITH SEVEN OTHERS"

1 Corinthians 4:15 "for in Christ Jesus I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU through the gospel." ASV, RV = KJB Greek - ego humas egennesa. NASB - "I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"

Acts 2:30 tells us of David: "knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of THE FRUIT OF HIS LOINS, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne"

The Greek here is all texts is "of the fruit of his loins" (ek karpou tees osphuos autou) and so read the KJB, RV, ASV,Lamsa, Darby, Douay, Third Millennium Bible, Green's literal translation, Young's, Tyndale and Geneva Bibles.

However the NASB and NIV join the RSV, and ESV in completely paraphrasing this as "ONE OF HIS DESCENDANTS".

1 Corinthians 8:4 "We know that an idol is nothing in the world." Greek - oidamen hoti ouden eidwlon en kosmw. Even the NIV, NKJV agree with the KJB but the NASB says: "we know that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN IDOL in the world." I'm sure the Catholic church is glad to hear this.

1 Corinthians 10:18 "behold Israel AFTER THE FLESH". RV, ASV = KJB Greek - kata sarka. NASB - "Look at THE NATION Israel."

2 Corinthians 6:11 "our mouth IS OPENED UNTO YOU." Greek - to stoma hemwn anewge pros humas RV, ASV = KJB. NASB - "our mouth HAS SPOKEN FREELY to you"

2 Corinthians 8:7 "and in YOUR love to US". RV, ASV equal KJB. NASB - "in the love WE INSPIRED in you"

2 Corinthians 11:29 "who is OFFENDED and I BURN NOT?" Greek - tis skandalizetai kai ouk puroumai. RV, ASV = KJB. NASB - "Who IS LED INTO SIN WITHOUT MY INTENSE CONCERN?"

2 Corinthians 13:5 "Jesus Christ is in you, EXCEPT YE BE REPROBATES" Greek - ei meeti adokimoi este. RV, ASV, Geneva, Douay = KJB. NASB "unless indeed YOU FAIL THE TEST."

Colossians 2:17 "Which are a shadow of things to come; but THE BODY (to soma) is of Christ." RV, ASV = KJB. NASB, NKJV - "the SUBSTANCE is of Christ."

Colossians 3:22 "servants, obey your masters ACCORDING TO THE FLESH...not with EYESERVICE" Greek - kata sarka...mee en ophthalmodouleiais. RV, ASV = KJB. NASB - "masters ON EARTH...not with EXTERNAL service."

Colossians 4:5 "REDEEMING the TIME". Greek - ton kaipon exagorazomenoi. RV, ASV = KJB. NASB - "MAKING THE MOST OF the OPPORTUNITY."

Exodus 4:13 "Send, I pray thee, BY THE HAND of him whom thou wilt send." The NASB, along with the RSV, NIV omits "by the hand", though found in the RV, ASV, NKJV.

Exodus 5:21 "ye have made OUR SAVOUR TO BE ABHORRED". So reads the Hebrew and the RV, ASV, but the NASB says: "made US ODIOUS", and then footnotes the literal meaning of "savor".

Exodus 6:4 "the land OF THEIR PILGRIMAGE, wherein they were strangers." So reads the Hebrew, the RV, ASV, NKJV, but the NASB along with the RSV, ESV, NIV omits these words.

Exodus 6:12 and 30 - "how then shall Pharoah hear me, WHO AM OF UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS?" So reads the Hebrew as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, Douay, Darby, Young's, Geneva, etc. but the NASB says: "for I AM UNSKILLED IN SPEECH", while the NIV has "I speak with faltering lips".

Exodus 20:10 "nor thy stranger that is WITHIN THY GATES". So reads the Hebrew, the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, and even the NIV. But the NASB has "sojouner WHO IS WITH YOU" - thus omitting the literal word "gates".

Exodus 28:3 "And thou shalt speak unto all that are WISE HEARTED, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom..."

The Hebrew text literally reads "wise hearted" and so do the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, Youngs, Darby, Douay, Geneva and Spanish versions. However the NASB along with the NKJV, NIV, Holman, RSV, ESV etc. read: "speak to all the GIFTED ARTISANS" (Skillful persons, skilled men").

A man may be a gifted artisan, but not wise hearted. Likewise a man may be wise hearted but not a gifted artisan. The meaning is not the same, and the NASB, NKJV, NIV are not at all literal. The same thing is done in Exodus 31:6; 35:10, 25; and 36:1,2,4, 8.

Exodus 32:9 "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a STIFFNECKED people."

There are two Hebrew words here - "stiff" and "neck" and so read the RV, ASV, NKJV and even the NIV. However the NASB reads: "an OBSTINATE people". The phrase "stiffnecked people" is found 8 times in the O.T. and only once in the N.T. in Acts 7:51. But in the NASB it occurs zero times in the O.T. but once in Acts 7:51. This connection between the O.T. references and the N.T. is obscured in the NASB because they did not translate it literally.

Numbers 11:6 "our soul is dried away" - Goofy and incorrect translation in the NASB, NIV, and Holman Standard

In Numbers chapter six we read of the children of Israel complaining about the constant diet of the heavenly manna and their desire to eat flesh. "and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: But now OUR SOUL IS DRIED AWAY: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes."

It is obvious that the children of Israel were crying out for new, more and better food. This is again confirmed in verse 13 where Moses complains: "Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat." And again in verse 18 where God says to them: "and ye shall eat flesh; for ye have wept in the ears of the LORD saying, Who shall give us flesh to eat?"

John Gill comments: "But now our soul is dried away…?Meaning their bodies, which, for want of flesh food, they pretended had no moisture in them, or they were half starved, and in wasting and consuming circumstances."

John Wesley tersely comments: "soul Dried away - Is withered and pines away; which possibly might be true, through envy and discontent, and inordinate appetite."

Agreeing with the literal Hebrew text and correctly translating it as: "OUR SOUL IS DRIED AWAY" are the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Coverdale, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Darby, Young, Douay, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, Hebrew Names Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, and the Third Millennium Bible.

Even Daniel Wallace's NET version says: "WE are dried up" with a footnote that the literal Hebrew is "soul" and not "we".

The NKJV paraphrases a bit with "our WHOLE BEING is dried up", but at least it is not nearly as bad as the NASB, NIV and Holman. The RSV, NRSV, and ESV miss the mark with: "our STRENGTH is dried up", but the totally off-the-wall NASB, NIV and Holman all say: "WE HAVE LOST OUR APPETITE", then the NASB informs us in their footnote that the literal reading is "our soul is dried up".

The absurdity of the NASB, NIV, Holman reading is that the children of Israel certainly HAD NOT LOST THEIR APPETITE, but were instead HUNGRY for new, more and different food that that plain ol' manna.

Numbers 14:9 "...neither fear ye the people of the land; FOR THEY ARE BREAD FOR US; their defence is departed from them..."

So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Youngs, Geneva, and even the RSV, and ESV. However the NASB says: "THEY SHALL BE OUR PREY".

Judges 11:35 "for I HAVE OPENED MY MOUTH unto the LORD, and I cannot go back." This is the literal reading and that of the RV, ASV, Geneva, and Jewish translations. However the NASB and the NKJV say "I have given my word"

Judges 15:8 "And he smote them HIP AND THIGH with a great slaughter" So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, Geneva and the Jewish translations. The NASB paraphrases this as "he struck them RUTHLESSLY"

Ezra 9:2 - "so that the holy SEED have mingled themselves with the people of those lands." The literal Hebrew reading here is "holy SEED" and so read the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young's, the Jewish translations and even the NRSV. However the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV read: "the holy RACE".

The Holman Standard says "the holy PEOPLE" and then footnotes that the Hebrew literally reads "seed". The true Bible does not teach that there are different "races" of men, some holy and others not holy. For a further development of how the modern versions teach racism see my article here:

Esther 10:3 - King James Bible - “For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren, seeking the wealth of his people, and speaking peace to ALL HIS SEED.”

The literal Hebrew texts all say “seed” and so read the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Jewish Publication Society 1917, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, Geneva bible 1599, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Darby, Douay, Young’s, Green’s 2000 literal, KJV 21st Century Version, Spanish Reina Valera “toda su simiente”, and the Judaica Press Tanach 2004.

NKJV 1982- . The NKJV shows its confusion in that the printed 1982 edition says: “...speaking peace to all HIS KINDRED.”, then footnotes: Literally seed. However the online NKJV 1982 says: “seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all HIS COUNTRYMEN.”, and then footnotes: Literally ‘seed’.

NASB 1972-1995 - “who sought the good of his people and one who spoke for the welfare of HIS WHOLE NATION.”

NIV 1984, TNIV 2005 - “he worked for the good of his people and spoke up for the welfare of ALL THE JEWS.”

RSV 1956 - “he sought the welfare of his people and spoke peace to all HIS PEOPLE.”

NRSV 1989 - “for he sought the good of his people and interceded for the welfare of ALL HIS DESCENDANTS.”

ESV 2001 - “he sought the welfare of his people and spoke peace to ALL HIS PEOPLE.”

The Message 2002 - “he cared for the peace and prosperity of HIS RACE.”

Psalm 10:6,10, and 13. The KJB as well as the Hebrew texts and the RV, ASV all tell us in these three verses "He hath said IN HIS HEART", yet the NASB paraphrases all three as "He says TO HIMSELF".

Psalm 22:14 "my heart is like wax; it is melted IN THE MIDST OF MY BOWELS". So read the Hebrew texts and the RV, Geneva, Darby, Youngs and Douay. But the NASB, NKJV, NIV have changed this to "within me".

Psalm 27:4 "to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to ENQUIRE in his temple." So read the RV, ASV and NKJV, but the NASB says: "and to MEDITATE in his temple", then footnotes that literally the Hebrew reads "inquire". To inquire is to ask and seek answers. To "meditate" changes the meaning of the verse.

Psalm 30:12 "To the end that my GLORY may sing praise to thee".

So read the RV, ASV, Darby and the Jewish translations, but the NASB says "my SOUL" instead of "my glory". The RSV also says "soul" but then footnotes that the literal Hebrew is "glory".

The NASB is consistently inconsistent. Again, in Psalm 57:8 we read: "Awake up, my GLORY; awake psaltery and harp: I myself will awake early."

"Awake up, my GLORY" is what the Hebrew says, as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV and this time the NASB too. (The NIV still wrongly says "my SOUL"), but then again in Psalm 108:1 we read the literal Hebrew "I will sing and give praise, even with my GLORY". So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, but the NASB once again goes back to the false reading of "my SOUL."

Psalm 31:10 "my BONES are consumed". Literal Hebrew and the RV, ASV, NKJV and even the NIV, but the NASB has: "my BODY is wasted away". The NASB does the same thing in Psalm 32:3.

Psalm 35:19 "neither let them wink WITH THE EYE that hate me without a cause". Literal Hebrew and the RV, ASV, NKJV and even the NIV, but the NASB paraphrases this as "wink MALICIOUSLY".

Psalm 146:3 "Put not your trust in princes, nor in THE SON OF MAN, in whom there is no help."

"Son of Man" is 1121 (ben) 120 (Adam), and is correctly translated as "son of man" in the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, Geneva, RSV, ESV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations.

However the NASB, NIV both say "put not your trust in princes nor IN MORTAL MAN". A quick look at the NASB concordance shows they have translated # 1121 as "son" 4,321 times, and as "mortal" only once, and that is here.

Isaiah 46:8 - "Remember this, and SHEW YOURSELVES MEN: bring it again to mind, O ye transgressors."

The verb correctly translated as "shew yourselves men" is # 377 eesh, and comes directly from the word for "men" #366. So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby, Youngs, Greens, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and the Hebrew Names Bible to name a few.

However the NASB says: "AND BE ASSURED", following the liberal RSV that has "and consider", while the NIV has "fix it in mind". To make things interesting, the Holman Standard says "AND BE BRAVE" while the New English Bible 1970 says: "YOU REBELS".

Isaiah 48:1 - "Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the WATERS of Judah...".

So reads the literal Hebrew text as well as the RV, ASV, Geneva Bible, Youngs, Douay, the Jewish translations and even the new ESV. However the RSV and NASB read: "out of the LOINS of Judah".

The NIV has "the LINE of Judah". The Holman Standard says "which DESCENDED FROM Judah" and then in a footnote tells us the literal Hebrew reading is "waters of Judah".

Matthew 27:19 "for I have suffered many things THIS DAY in a dream because of him" (seemeron - day) RV, ASV, KJB. But the NASB "LAST NIGHT"

Matthew 24:28 "there will the EAGLES be gathered together" (aetos) RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - THE VULTURES - yet the NASB translates this same word as "eagle" in Revelation 4:7; 8:13, and 12:14.

Matthew 12:40 "three days and three nights in THE WHALE'S BELLY" - RV, ASV, KJB. Greek ketos- a whale. NASB - "THE SEA MONSTER"  

See the complete study on this verse here - 

 Matthew 12:40 - a WHALE, a FISH, Sea Creature or a SEA MONSTER?

Acts 2:43 "And fear came upon every soul" (egeneto de pasn psuxn fobos) Revised Version, ASV, NKJV, Geneva, Tyndale = KJB.

NASB "And everyone kept feeling a sense of awe" - total paraphrase.

Acts 7:25 "For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God BY HIS HAND would deliver them" oti o qeoV dia ceiroV autou "by his hand" is the reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV. But the NASB joins the NIV and says: "THROUGH HIM".

Acts 15:2 "Paul and Barnabas had NO SMALL dissension and disputation with them".

"no small" (ouk oligees) is the literal reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, but the NASB says "had GREAT dissension", while the NIV reads: "had SHARP dispute". Now, God knows how to say "no small" and He knows how to say "great" (megalee), and here He clearly says "no small" dissension.

Mark 7:22 Here the Lord is telling us what evil things come out of the heart of man and defile him. Among these things listed are: "wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, AN EVIL EYE, blasphemy..."

All Greek texts read the same here with "an evil eye" (Ofthalmos poneros). This is literally what the text says and so read the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Geneva and several others. However beginning with the RSV, and now in the NASB, NIV, ESV, they have changed this to "ENVY".

An evil eye is not the same thing as envy. There are many passages in both testaments that speak of an evil eye, and in none of them is it referring to envy. According to Webster's dictionary, an evil eye is a glance held to be capable of inflicting harm or injury because of the malice of the person looking. The primary motive of an evil eye is malice, not envy.

Here is just one of the many uses of this phrase - "an evil eye". Deuteronomy 15:9 "Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and THINE EYE BE EVIL against thy poor brother, and thou givest him not..."

The NASB got it right in Deut. 15:9, but not in several other passages. The intent is malice, not envy. Not only have the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV paraphrased the words "evil eye" in Mark 7:22 as "envy", but have missed the intended meaning.

Again in Proverbs 23:6 the same Hebrew words are used saying: "Eat thou not the bread of him that hath AN EVIL EYE..." So read the RV, ASV and the Jewish translations, but the NASB says: "Do not eat the bread of A SELFISH MAN..." Yet, the NASB margin notes that the literal reading is "an evil eye".

Mark 13:22 "And except that the Lord had shortened those days, NO FLESH (sarks) should be saved." All texts read "flesh" and so do the RV, ASV, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, etc.

However the NASB says: "No LIFE would have been saved", while the NIV has "No ONE", and the ESV has "no HUMAN BEING would be saved." All three are paraphrases.

Mark 14:44 "Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is he; take him, and lead him away SAFELY." SAFELY is asphalws, and is so rendered by the RV, ASV, NKJV, Youngs, and even the RSV. However the NASB, NIV, ESV have paraphrased this as "lead him away UNDER GUARD."

Ezekiel 19:7 "He KNEW their desolate palaces, and he laid waste their cities."

"He KNEW" is the reading of the Hebrew texts, and that of the RV, ASV, 1917 JPS, Geneva, Darby, Youngs, and the NKJV.

However the NIV say "He BROKE DOWN their strongholds" and then footnotes that this is from a Targum (an interpretation) but that the Hebrew reads "he knew".

The NASB says "he DESTROYED their fortified towers", and the ESV says: "he SEIZED their WIDOWS"!! The NASB follows an interpretation and not the literal Hebrew text.

Ezekiel 20:5, 6, 15, 23 and 28: "In the day when I chose Israel, and LIFTED UP MY HAND unto the seed of the house of Jacob...I LIFTED UP MY HAND unto them, saying, I am the LORD your God."

The literal Hebrew reading is "I lifted up my hand" and so read the RV, ASV, Geneva, Youngs, Darby and many others, but the NASB, along with the RSV, paraphrases this as "I SWORE". The verb "to swear" is a different Hebrew word.

Ezekiel 20:26 "all that OPENETH THE WOMB" is the literal Hebrew reading and that of the RV, ASV, Geneva, Darby, Young, but the NASB along with the NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV all paraphrase this as "THE FIRSTBORN". The Hebrew word for "firstborn" is an entirely different word.

Luke 15:20 "...his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and FELL ON HIS NECK." Greek - epepesen epi ton traxeelon autou. So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, and Young's. See Gen. 45:14; 46:29, and Acts 20:37. However the NASB totally paraphrases this as "and EMBRACED HIM."

Proverbs 3:4 "So shalt thou find favour and GOOD UNDERSTANDING" - RV, ASV, KJB, but the NASB has "you will find favor and GOOD REPUTE"

Proverbs 3:8 "It shall be health to thy NAVEL" - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - "YOUR BODY"

3:27 "when it is in the power of thine HAND" - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB OMITS.

8:16 "all the judges OF THE EARTH" - RV, ASV, KJB, NKJV, NIV, RSV, Darby, Young, Geneva Bible and the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations. NASB - "all who judge RIGHTLY"

11:17 "but he that is cruel troubleth HIS OWN FLESH" - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - "does HIMSELF harm"

11:21 "THOUGH HAND JOIN IN HAND, the wicked shall not be unpunished." RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - "ASSUREDLY the evil man will not go unpunished."

14:23 "but the TALK OF THE LIPS tendeth only to penury" - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - but MERE TALK"

15:23 "A man hath joy by the answer of HIS MOUTH" - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - "a man has joy in AN APT answer."

15:31 "THE EAR that heareth the reproof of life..." - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - "HE that hears..."

16:26 "for his MOUTH craveth it of him" - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - "HIS HUNGER"

17:8 "A gift is a PRECIOUS STONE (2 distinct Hebrew words) in the eyes of him that hath it." - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - "A bribe is A CHARM..."

22:9 "He that hath A BOUNTIFUL EYE shall be blessed." - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - "He who IS GENEROUS..."

22:21 "that thou mightest answer WORDS OF TRUTH to THEM that send unto thee?" - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - "that you may CORRECTLY answer TO HIM who sent you?"

23:6 "Eat not thou the bread of him that hath AN EVIL EYE..." - RV, ASV, KJB. NASB - "the bread of A SELFISH MAN"

Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth THE COUNTENANCE of his FRIEND."

So reads the Hebrew text as well as the RV, ASV, 1917, Geneva, Youngs, Darby, and the NKJV. However the NASB, RSV, NIV, and Holman all omit the word "countenance" (face) and change friend to "another". The NASB reads: "Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

Proverbs 28:17 "A man that doeth violence to the blood of any person SHALL FLEE TO THE PIT; let no man stay him." So read the RV, ASV, the Jewish translations, the NKJV, Young. But the NASB joins the RSV, ESV, NIV and says: "WILL BE A FUGITIVE UNTIL DEATH". The ESV notes that the Hebrew literally reads "pit". The word does not mean "death".

Proverbs 28:25 "...but he that putteth his trust in the LORD SHALL BE MADE FAT." So read the RV, ASV, Geneva, Young. The NASB, NIV, NKJV change this to "WILL PROSPER". Generally the same meaning, but not the literal Hebrew as found in the KJB.

Proverbs 31:16 "WITH THE FRUIT OF HER HANDS she planteth a vineyard" is the literal Hebrew and the reading of the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, Geneva, Youngs, and the Jewish translations 1917, 1936, But the NASB says: "FROM HER EARNINGS..."

Proverbs 31:17 "SHE GIRDETH HER LOINS with strength" is the literal Hebrew and in the RV, ASV, Jewish translations 1917, 1936 and even the RSV, but the NASB says: "she girds HERSELF". 

Here is another site that shows many of the textual differences between the NASBs and the King James Bible. Very informative.