I have quite clearly understood what you said, despite your incredibly poor writing. The problem is that you are wrong.

All elements of the thought are there in both versions. If you don’t see that, it’s not an English professor you need to see, but a primary school reading teacher.

NASB;
“The steadfastness of mind you will keep in perfect peace, because he trusts in you”

KJV;
“Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee: Because he trusteth in thee”

The words “because he trusts in you” in the NASB, has no meaning, because there is no first premise laid in the text that referrences God as the object of steadfastness.
Faith must have an object. I submit yo you , that if it was not for the fact that the KJV clearly identifies the object of faith that this person has his mind stayed on, (which someone can crossreferrence) this verse in the NASB, would make no sense at all.

The KJV emphasizes correctly according to the masoretic Hebrew text, that the reason for God keeping this person in “perfect peace”, is because this person has stayed his mind on God, the only entity that can give one perfect peace.

Just having or posessing a steadfast mind, does not mean the same as having ones mind stayed on God.

Having a steadfast mind, is a self actuated natural act, that can even be motivated by stubborness. And the added “for he trusts in you” has no merrit to the first premise of a steadfast mind.

On the other hand, the first premise in the KJV, of the act of faith by having ones mind stayed on God, (the object of faith)
is in total harmony with the God of the scriptures, which declare that “without faith, it is impossible to please God”.

If you think I am incorrect, then take this passage in both Bibles to an English professor at you local University, and after you have been corrected, sign up for English classes.

You obviously did not understand anything I said about the two pillars of the doctrine of scripture.

I am not interrested in interacting with you, just happened upon this site, and thought I needed to clarify.

Morgan Sorensen

But if I get the direction your going, I think you’re asking for a particular translation that I would advocate and claim was better than the KJV. In answer to that I would simply say that one of my main objections to KJV-Only is that no translation can be independently authoritative. Thus I would never argue that some newer translation should be the one and only translation either.

I think the vast majority of modern translations are better than the KJV for modern audiences simply because they know the language, whereas despite constant claims I hear to the contrary, many modern speakers of English don’t understand the KJV.

In Christ,Scotty

Yeah. Guess I was valedictorian there

You did an incredible job replying back, considering the amount of vitriol and ad hominem attacks. I probably would have said, “Oh yeah, well… you’re stupid. You probably graduated from dumbness school, too. Or something.” and then promply stuck out my tongue.