NASB?

These are a couple of questions that I have for my pedantic British friend Ron Bailey. Perhaps he will find time to respond, and edify.Hi Ron,Have you recently found a better tranlation than the AV? I've noticed that you're using that NASB translation a lot in your devotional postings. Speaking of translations, it was brought to my attention this week, by a thinking Pastor that in II Cor. 4:4 the Greek word Theos is the same word that was used when Paul said god little "g" and God big "G". Pastor X said that he had a difficult time describing Satan as " the god of this world", due to the unpleasantness he suffered prior to Pauls writing. The Pastor said that he thinks God (big G) has blinded those who are lost, until they BELIEVE, then lifts the vail and reveals His glory through His Son Jesus of Nazerath (or something to that effect). Could my faithful translators of the AV erred? I don't recall anywhere else in scripture where Satan is refered to as "god of this world"? II Cor. 3:12 ¶ Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.1 ¶ Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.If you get a chance let me know what you think, and what I've misspelled.Thanks,ClutchP.S. :-P

Hi Clutchyou say These are a couple of questions that I have for my pedantic British friend Ron Bailey. Perhaps he will find time to respond, and edify.Have you recently found a better tranlation than the AV? I've noticed that you're using that NASB translation a lot in your devotional postings.You want 'pedantic'... you got it! I presume you are quoting my little comment that my use of the KJV is 'only temporary until I find a better version'. At least I hope that is what I said. Pedantically, the NASB and its granddad the ASV is probably a better 'translation' but not a better 'version'. (imho)As a 'translation' the RV/ASV was a work of tremendous scholarship and integrity. It is probably the most 'readable' of the 'literal equivalence' translations. The American translation committee was even better than the English and consistently used Spirit instead of Ghost and other improvements. The ASV which comes free with programmes like Online Bible and E-sword is a wonderful tool FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT, but I have problems with the New Testament. And this is why I do not regard the RV/ASV/NASB as a better VERSION.The problem is not the 'translation' but the underlying philosophy of manuscript selection. (Getting into deeper waters now). There is little dispute regarding the 'best' manuscripts for the Old Testament, so when you add a better translation to the best sources you get a better version. (I say better, not perfect) However, when you add a better translation to 'inferior' manuscripts you get an inferior version. So, in my opinion, the RV/ASV/NASB family is a better 'version' as regards the Old Testament, but an inferior 'version' as regards the New Testament.The 'translation' philosophy of that family is 'literal equivalence' or, if you like, pedantic! Precise directions are better if you start from the right location, but if you start from the wrong location the very pedantry may lead you astray. You may notice that my quotes from the NASB are usually from the Old Testament. So in what ways is the translation, not the version, better? The RV/ASV/NASB is more pedantic/accurate in its translation of prepositions and verb tenses. Generally it is even more word-for-word 'literal equivalence' than the KJV, although I have spotted some exceptions.So. I have not yet found my 'better version' but as a tool for study I have used the RV/ASV/NASB family for many years to great personal profit.OK? is that pedantic enough? ;-)Good to hear from you, Clutch.

I have been using a NASB for one of my main sources of study for the New Testiment (as well as old). Not being a scholar in the origional languages, should I stop using the NASB for the New? How concerned should I be?matthew

To anyone wondering what version they should use, I'd suggest two books:(I might not have the titles exactly right)D.A. Waite's Defending the King James BibleJames White's The King James Only ControversyI'd advise reading both before coming to conclusions.

Hi Ron, Thank you for your reply. It took a little while, but I think I finally figured out what you said. I guess I do like pedantics, because I sure regard Ron Bailey, and his teachings very highly. I believe words mean something. I disagreee with one comment that you made, probably because of the fundamentalist segment of chandalier swingers that I relate with. You said: "There is little dispute regarding the 'best' manuscripts for the Old Testament, so when you add a better translation to the best sources you get a better version." We would disagree and say: "there is BIG DISAGREEMENT". We contend that there are no better manuscripts for the Old Testament than the Masoretic Text. We would add that the Alexandrian manuscripts are inferior and polluted though they are older.Like you said (paraphrased), "where you start from has a lot to do with where you end up." My opinion is, that the manuscripts that came down through the Masoretic Priesthood; (whose job it was to maintain scriptural continuity by exactly replicating the original language into the written WORD) are superior to those that came from Egypt.Do you ever recall anything good originating from Egypt? Therefore, I believe the King James version is the most RELIABLE English translation.Also, you never did address the big "G", little "g" part of the original post. :-x I LUV YOU MAN,Clutch :-P

Clutch,Speaking of translations, it was brought to my attention this week, by a thinking Pastor that in II Cor. 4:4 the Greek word Theos is the same word that was used when Paul said god little "g" and God big "G". Pastor X said that he had a difficult time describing Satan as " the god of this world", due to the unpleasantness he suffered prior to Pauls writing. The Pastor said that he thinks God (big G) has blinded those who are lost, until they BELIEVE, then lifts the vail and reveals His glory through His Son Jesus of Nazerath (or something to that effect). Could my faithful translators of the AV erred? I don't recall anywhere else in scripture where Satan is refered to as "god of this world"?First, every English translation that I have consulted translates theos in "god of this world" with a small g.Second, you are right this is the only place where Paul uses the term "god" for Satan. 2 Corinthians of The IVP New Testament Commentaries says,Unbelievers cannot see the gospel's light because their minds have been blinded by the god of this age (v. 4). This is the only place where Paul refers to the adversary of God's people as a god. He is usually called Satan or the devil--although in Ephesians 2:2 he is named "the ruler of the kingdom of the air." It could well be that these are traditional formulations Paul used because of their familiarity to his readers. But there is no denying the power of this being. He can destroy the flesh (1 Cor 5:5), masquerade as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14) and empower his servant, the antichrist, to work all manner of miracles, signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9). Paul's thorn in the flesh is attributed to him (2 Cor 12:7), as is tempting (1 Cor 7:5), scheming against (2 Cor 2:11; Eph 6:11) and trapping (2 Tim 2:26) the believer. On more than one occasion Paul experienced firsthand his active opposition to the gospel (1 Thess 2:18).There are also difficulties with your friend's suggestion, "God of this age". The problem comes from "of this age". If theos is to be translated as the one true God, a natural question arises, why did Paul used "of this age" to qualify God? I think Paul is consistent in other places in using "this age" to refer to the period of time in which the current worldly system (cosmos) runs. "Philosopher of this age" (1 Cor. 1:20). "Wisdom of this age" (1 Cor. 2:6). "Rulers of this age" (1 Cor. 2:6,8). "Wise by the standard of this age" (1 Cor. 3:18).Ron can probably come up with a better solution, especially with the insight of the original language. I gather if I don't post before he does, then there probably is no need for me to post. :-P

Hi Clutchyou write I disagreee with one comment that you made, probably because of the fundamentalist segment of chandalier swingers that I relate with. You said:"There is little dispute regarding the 'best' manuscripts for the Old Testament, so when you add a better translation to the best sources you get a better version."We would disagree and say: "there is BIG DISAGREEMENT". We contend that there are no better manuscripts for the Old Testament than the Masoretic Text. We would add that the Alexandrian manuscripts are inferior and polluted though they are older.This is exactly my point. Other than the RSV all translations of the Old Testament have begun with the Masoretic text; that is what I meant by "there is little dispute regarding the best manuscripts for the Old Testament.". In other words because everyone, other than the translators of the RSV begin at the same point. If you start with the Masoretic text (as the RV/ASV/NASB family does) it ought to be possible to improve on the KJV given the advances in linguistic skills that we have today. The problem of the personal philosophy of the translator will always impact the translation. Any modern translator will tell you that it is impossible to remove all interpretation from translation. The nearest to this would be something like YOung's Literal Translation which can be very useful for study, but is not easily read otherwise.I think I would hold the same views of the New Testament documents as you and your chandalier swinging buddies, (favouring the Byzantine/Majority/Received Text family) but this puts us into a minority as regards evangelicals (in the UK anyway).It is possible to get an RV/KJV interlinear Bible which means that you can use the RV for the Old Testament and the KJV for the New Testament. It is published by Cambridge University Press. The only print they do makes the book rather bulky for hand-held preaching but it is a valuable study aid. I used one for 2/3 years and found it very helpful.While on this note. Many fine Bible scholars, Vine, Scroggie, Campbell Morgan had a preference for the RV (ASV). Some prophetic scholars regard the RV/ASV almost as 'inspired' in the Old Testament. Spurgeon once said he feared that the inferior RV New Testament would gain acceptance on the back of the excellence of the RV Old Testament; that would be my concern too. I will see if I can find Spurgeon's quotation.I see Sam has pitched into 'g' versus 'G'. I will comment later.

Hi Samyou write Ron can probably come up with a better solution, especially with the insight of the original language. I gather if I don't post before he does, then there probably is no need for me to post.I know you are joking but this is one of the reasons I sometimes wait before posting. I love the idea of a 'forum' which was the Roman market place. Room for everyone to add their 2c (or 2p from this side the water). :-D We all 'know in part' and I do believe that God's voice is to be heard in His church so I listen and think before I choose.Do you recall Francis Bacon's comment (1561-1626)"Read not to contradict and confute,nor to believe and take for granted,nor to find talk and discourse,but to weigh and consider.Some books are to be tastedothers to be swallowedand some few to be chewed and digested"What he says of writers I would repeat for 'post-ers'.

Hi Ron and Sam,Always good to hear from a couple(2) of the 7000, that have not bowed their knee to Baal. Ron, my understanding of the RSV/ASV is that it was supposed to a revision of the KJV. What happened is that the translators delved into the most ancient texts for both testaments making it all suspect in my opinion. The Enlish speaking world has not had a real revival in about 100 years, since SOMEONE got the bright idea to change the bible, and make it easier to understand. There are so many English translations on the market now, that I can't (nor do I desire)to keep up. I heard someone say that there are 38,000 errors in the NIV. Isn't that one based upon the same manuscripts as the RSV/ASV?Like you said, I'll keep my AV 'til something better comes along.Clutch ;-) P.S. Sam you're right. Sometimes Ron doesn't leave a lot left to be said. But when he say's something we know it's worth listening to , eh? 8-)

Clutch writes Always good to hear from a couple(2) of the 7000, that have not bowed their knee to Baal. Ron, my understanding of the RSV/ASV is that it was supposed to a revision of the KJV. What happened is that the translators delved into the most ancient texts for both testaments making it all suspect in my opinion.your pedantic English buddy here...you refer above to the RSV/ASV, but this is confusing the RV/ASV was produced in c1881 YOu are quite right in saying that as regards the New Testament they introduced thousands of variations into the text that the KJV translators had used (the Byzantine/Majority/Received text). I never use the New Testament of the RV/ASV without careful scrutiny.In the Old Testament the Revisers "thought it prudent to adopt the Massoretic Text as the basis of their work, and to depart from it, as the Authorised Translators had done, only in exceptional cases".The NASB is the 'son of the RV/ASV' and is, imho, better than than the RV/ASV for the New Testament as their Greek text gave more credit to the 'Received Text' than had the RV/ASV translators. I still don't trust it personally. It was, however, more 'literal equivalent' (word for word) even than the KJVthe RSV was produced in 1948 and is a very different kettle of fish. It was well produced in very readable English but is based on the Massoretic text 'corrected' by the Septuagint, common sense etc. The NT of the RSV was based on the same kind of text that the NASB was based on. To my mind, still short of the 'Received TExt' standard of the KJV.The ESV, see separate thread, is the 'son of the RSV' with a little more evangelical input.in summaryWilliam Tyndale, basis of KJV 1536. 83% of the KJV NT is direct copy of William Tyndale. And an even bigger percentage of the Geneva Bible!"the peculiar genius which breathes through the English bible, the mingles tenderness and majesty, the Saxon simplicity, the grandeur, unequalled, unapproached in the attempted improvements of modern scholars, all are here, and bear the impress of the mind of one man, and that man - William Tyndale" quote from Thomas Newberry.1611 KJV translation. Our KJV version is based on a later 'revision' c1769.1881 the Revised Version (RV) The American Committee produced their own version (ASV) c1901. It has been called "The Rock of Biblical Honesty." It is the product of the work of over 50 Evangelical Christian scholars.The OT is Massoretic Text based, but the NT is still very much based on Westcott and Hort's text as in the English RV). The OT is very reliable and an invaluable study aid. (imho)1960 The NASB, is heavily based on the 1901 ASV. The OT is based on the Massoretic Text. The NT is not so heavily based on Westcott and Hort as the RV/ASV but is still inferior to the Received Text (imho). It is easily attainable in paper versions.1948 The RSV was a fresh start translation, not dependent (consciously) on previous translations. Well produced and much used in academic circles. Broke ranks by 'correcting' the Massoretic text from the Septuagint etc. Reads well, but not to be trusted.2001 The ESV, an evangelically sponsored update of the RSV. Said to be 'literal equivalent' but is not. OT based on Massoretic Text. NT based on Nestle/UBS Greek text. Nicely produced but 'iffy'.I have not included the Nearly Inexusable Version, The Good News Libel, The Massaged Message, or many other modern marvels. :-? I am often asked 'which Bible should I buy?' I always say 'buy one you will read'. You could have Paul's own manuscript on your shelf but if you don't (or can't) read it,it will profit you nothing. Amy Carmichael believed that all versions captures unique facets of divine truth; I believe this is true. I despise none, but for every day use my personal preference is the KJV, heavily supported by the NASB and some great Bible tools.

Clutch asks Speaking of translations, it was brought to my attention this week, by a thinking Pastor that in II Cor. 4:4 the Greek word Theos is the same word that was used when Paul said god little "g" and God big "G". Pastor X said that he had a difficult time describing Satan as " the god of this world", due to the unpleasantness he suffered prior to Pauls writing.The Pastor said that he thinks God (big G) has blinded those who are lost, until they BELIEVE, then lifts the vail and reveals His glory through His Son Jesus of Nazerath (or something to that effect). Could my faithful translators of the AV erred? I don't recall anywhere else in scripture where Satan is refered to as "god of this world"?Sam has covered the ground for this, but I would add...use a Bible programme to identify the phrase "this world" (Online or E-sword). This phrase (this world) is always a translation of aion meaning 'age', or kosmos meaning 'ordered system'. In each case 'this world' always has a negative connotation. The little 'g' or big 'G' is just a typing convention, the word is 'god'. so we are reading of "the god of this world". The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not the 'god of this world'. John's letter comes to mind...We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one. (1Jo 5:19 ASV)As Sam says, the overwhelming opinion of Christian commentary sees 'the god of this world' as a reference to Satan, and I am of the same opinion.

Speaking of the NASB, does anyone have an old NAS that they would like to sell? I bought my wife the newly updated NASB for Christmas, and she really prefers the older New American Standard.Genuine leather with minimal markings would be ideal, but please email me and we can figure something out. Hausofaith@Hotmail.com(My apologies if this is the wrong location for this post.)God bless,MatthewEzra 7:10