It is a very literal translation and brings out some good word studies. I like it for personal study. I got this quote from the web
"...Ultimately, what separates the New American Standard Bible from the various available versions is that the NASB is a literal word-for-word translation from the original languages. In contrast, the others stress either a loose, personalized paraphrase, or a free-style, thought-for-thought translation known as a dynamic equivalent. Both of these place the highest priority on ease of reading and a lower priority on word-for-word preciseness. While such versions may produce smooth English, the literalness of the Word of God is sacrificed. This has never been an option for the New American Standard Bible."
This will cause some of the KJVers to post on this thread and try to keep you from “making an error” and choosing an inferior translation, but rest assured there are just as many people that believe in the NASB just as much as they believe in the KJV. John MacArthur, Ergan Caner, and quite a few others have said they believe the NASB to be the most accurate translation available today, they also acknowledge that none are perfect and free from errors.
I really like the NASB study bible, it has some really good info in it, but not perfect. I also like some of the info in the Archaeological Study Bible (niv). I do not use the NIV for any serious studies, but it has some very interesting historical facts.
I would say that most serious study would come from a reference edition Bible. I wish the Thompson chain was available in NASB. I will get it in KJV.
As for people posting scriptures that are in question, and giving examples of the KVJ being superior, it works both ways. The NASB is a good translation, but I would never completely abandon the KJV.
You will get much good advice from your brothers and sister of SI
God be with you
TJ