This thread is not about the NAS, it is about your contention the KJV is the only correct Bible. I have not posted the NAS is without errors and have found some renderings in the NAS I don't think are as good as other translations. As to posting lies, in order for me to be posting lies you have to prove what I posted is a lie, which you have not even attempted to do.
Now I see I am again forced to remind you of our Forum Rules since you did not site your source for this:
NAS Changes: Matt. 6:27 CHG "cubit to his stature" TO "hour to his life" et. al.
NAS Removes: Matt. 6:33. "of God"
NAS Removes: Matt. 8:29 "Jesus"
NAS Removes: Matthew 9:13 "to repentance" (see also Mark 2:17)
NAS Removes: Matthew 11:23 "hell"
NAS Removes: Matthew 12: 6. "one greater" TO "something greater"
NAS Removes: Matthew 12:23. "of the heart"
NAS Changes: Matthew 12:40 "whale" TO "fish", sea monster.
NAS Removes: Matthew 15:8. "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"
Shall I continue?? .........
continuing..........
The Textus Receptus (received text) (aka: "Byzantine Text") from which the King James Bible came can be traced clear back to Antioch, Syria, where the disciples were first called Christians and where Paul and Barnabas taught the word of God for a whole year (Acts 11:26). The most notable version support for the Byzantine text is in the Peshitta Syriac and the fourth century Gothic version. A second-century date for the Peshitta used to be advocated, but study of the Biblical quotations in the writings of Syrian Fathers Aphraates and Ephraem has demonstrated that neither of these leaders used the Peshitta, and so it must date from after their time, i.e., to the late fourth century or after. Erasmus gathered many of these documents on his travels himself. The text for these new bibles Hort and Wescott took from finds in Alexandria, Egypt, and from Rome . Hort clearly had a bias against the Textus Receptus, calling it "villainous" and "vile". Hort aggressively taught that the School at Antioch (associated with Lucian) had loosely translated the true text of Scripture in the second century A. D. This supposedly created an unreliable text of Scripture which became the Textus Receptus. This was called the Lucian Recension Theory.
You have assumed the NAS was translated using the Westcott-Hort critical text, which is inaccurate. The NAS translators used the Nestle-Arland critical text, so again you have demonstrated your lack of real research.
I posted that in my opinion the NAS is a superior translations while you have posted that only the KJ is the Bible. What is interesting about your statement is the KJ was a revision of the Bishops Bible and the Bible brought to the shores of this country on the Mayflower was the Geneva Bible since the King James Bible was considered a work of the Church of England the church that repressed and persecuted other Protestants who came to America in search of religious freedom.
You have not researched anything all you are doing is parroting what all KJ only people repeat out of ignorance.
Now are you going to address the translation errors in the KJV or are you simply going to avoid a discussion you started and can't finish.