BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
General

What about the New American Standard Bible (NASB)?

sermonindex Sep 9, 2005

The New American Standard Bible (NASB or NASV) is a revision of the 1901 American Standard Version and was produced by a team of translators working with the Lockman Foundation, the publisher of the Amplified Bible. The NASB was produced as a more conservative counterpart to the Revised Standard Version., which was published in 1946 (NT) and 1952 (whole Bible). Work began on the NASB in 1959 and the New Testament was issued in 1963 and the complete Bible in 1971. The original foreword to the New Testament stated, "It has been the purpose of the Editorial Board to present to the modern reader a revision of the American Standard Version in clear and contemporary language." A similar statement appears in the preface to the 2002 NASB Thinline Bible..ANSWER:1. The New American Standard Version is basically a literal translation like the King James Bible, and as such it is superior to the modern dynamic equivalencies such as the New International Version.2. In spite of its largely conservative approach to translation technique and the evangelicalism of its translators (as opposed to the rank theological liberalism of the translators who produced the Revised Standard Version), the NASB cannot be trusted because it is built upon the unsound scholarship of liberals and Unitarians.The NASB is built upon the English Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901 (which was the American edition of the English Revised). At least three Christ-denying Unitarians were on these translation committees (George Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot, and Joseph Henry Thayer). The committees also included many men of modernistic views, such as Philip Schaff (twice brought to trial for heresy), William Robertson Smith (who was evicted from the Free Church Theological College for his modernism), B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (both of whom denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture and Christ's substitutionary atonement and believed in evolution), and Anglican Broad Church members William Moulton, George Milligan, R.C. Trench, Edward Bickersteth, Benjamin Kennedy, A.P. Stanley, Robert Payne Smith, William Humphrey, and John Vaughan.3. In spite of its basically conservative, literal approach to translation methodology, the NASV cannot be trusted because it is based on the corrupt Greek New Testament that was produced through the skeptical pseudo-science of modern textual criticism.The NASV is based on the corrupt critical Greek New Testament as opposed to the Greek Received Text underlying the Reformation Bibles. The critical Greek New Testament is built upon a handful of strange manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt, which was a hotbed of theological heresy in the centuries following the apostles. Frederick Scrivener, a prominent textual scholar of the 19th century, testified, "It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that THE WORST CORRUPTIONS TO WHICH THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS EVER BEEN SUBJECTED, ORIGINATED WITHIN A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER IT WAS COMPOSED; and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior MSS. to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Received Text" (Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, II, 4th edition, 1894, pp. 264, 265).Not only do the manuscripts preferred by modern textual critics (chiefly the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus) disagree in thousands of places from the vast majority of other extant manuscripts, they also disagree among themselves in thousands of places.The modern critical Greek New Testament is built upon the strange and unbelieving principle that the alleged purest text of apostolic Scripture (the Alexandrian or Egyptian as represented by the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts) was set aside in the fourth century and was replaced with an artificially created recension (the Traditional or Byzantine text) that was formed by conflating various extant texts, and that it was the impure recension that became the Bible of the churches for 1,500 years of church history until the alleged best text was recovered in the 19th century through the principles of modern textual criticism. This was a foundational principle of Westcott and Hort (the Lucian Recension) and it has remained foundational to modern textual criticism into the 21st century, even though it flies in the face of any scriptural and reasonable doctrine of divine preservation.The omissions alone in the critical Greek text equate the deletion of the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter from the modern version New Testaments.The NASV omits outright or casts serious doubt upon 43 entire verses in the New Testament. It omits outright the following sixteen: Matthew 17:21; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; 24:40; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7. It further casts serious doubt upon another twenty-seven verses (Matthew 18:11; 23:14; Mark 16:9-20; Luke 24:12; John 7:53-8:11) by putting them in brackets or by separating them from the previous passages and adding footnotes that discredit their authority.The NASV also omits a significant portion of another 174 verses, not including those it casts doubt upon with marginal notes.The NASV, following the critical Greek text, weakens key doctrines of the Bible. An example is the doctrine of Christ's deity. The omissions and changes in the NASV do not result in the complete removal of this doctrine, but they do result in an overall weakening of it.Consider the following examples:Mark 9:24 -- The father's testimony that Jesus is "Lord" is omitted.Mark 16:9-20 -- This glorious passage is bracketed, signifying that it is not considered apostolic Scripture. A footnote says, "Later mss add vv 9-20," clearly implying that it is not authentic. With this omission, the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Mark ends with no resurrection or glorious ascension and with the disciples fearful and confused.Luke 23:42 -- The thief's testimony that Jesus is "Lord" is omitted.John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 -- "only begotten Son" changed to "one and only"John 1:27 -- "is preferred before me" is omittedJohn 3:13 -- "which is in heaven" is omitted, thus removing this powerful witness to Christ's omnipresenceJohn 6:69 -- "thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God" is changed to "you are the Holy One of God," thus destroying this powerful witness that Jesus is the very Christ, the Son of God, a doctrine that was under fierce assault in the early centuries.John 8:59 -- "but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by" is replaced with "but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple," thus destroying the miracle of this scene. Whereas the Greek Received Text teaches here that Jesus supernaturally went out through the midst of the angry crowd that was trying to kill Him, the modern versions have Jesus merely hiding Himself.Acts 8:37 -- The eunuch's glorious testimony that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is bracketed and a footnote says, "Early mss do not contain this verse," signifying that it is not apostolic Scripture.Romans 14:10 -- "Christ" changed to "God"; the "judgment seat of Christ" identifies Jesus Christ directly with Jehovah God (Isaiah 45:23), whereas the "judgment seat of God" does not.1 Cor. 15:47 -- "the Lord" is omittedEph. 3:9 -- "by Jesus Christ" is omitted1 Tim. 3:16 -- "God" is omitted, thus removing one of clearest references to Jesus Christ as God in the New Testament1 John 5:7 -- The glorious Trinitarian confession is omitted, even though it has more manuscript and versional evidence than most of the Alexandrian readings preferred by modern textual critics, including many of those listed above. For example, the omission of Mark 16:9-20 is supported by only three Greek manuscripts of the hundreds that are extant and that contain this passage.The same can be demonstrated for the doctrine of the virgin birth, the blood atonement, the ascension, and ecclesiastical separation. All of these are weakened in the modern versions.The NASV further attacks the doctrine of fasting. Though the word "fasting" is not removed entirely from the modern versions, the doctrine that fasting is a crucial element of spiritual warfare is removed. In this context the NASV omits the entire verse of Mat. 17:21, plus the word "fasting" in Mk. 9:29; Acts 10:30; 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 6:5; and 2 Cor. 11:27.Krispy

5
5nva Sep 9, 2005

Krispy:At first glace I just wanted to point out that my NASB does not omitt these verses like you stated in this paragragh.It omits outright the following sixteen: Matthew 17:21; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; 24:40; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7.My NASB also does not omitt Mat. 17:21 and does not change the word fasting as you stated in this paragragh.In this context the NASV omits the entire verse of Mat. 17:21.I have not had time to research everything else you stated but the fact that these are errors in your argument would cause me to cast doubt on the rest of what is stated.I may be wrong about this but I looked up these verses in my NASB and they are there.I personally think the NASB is a good translation and when I study God's word I use the NASB along with the KJV and they always seem to be saying pretty much the same thing. One may use a different word but when you study verses through with a concordance the Lord brings it all together.Sorry if I've disappointed you.Mike

J
Joshua99 Sep 9, 2005

Apart from your detail sumary on why I shouldn't use the NASV, what translation do you not find fault and error with? I have always in all my research used multible translations to find the heart of God in study. Being that the Truth of the Word of God is in Spirit, and requires the Holy Spirit for anyone to come to understand the wisdom that lies between the words and thoughts written in scripture, I believe the hour we live in now, time would be better spent reveiling the truth God has given to you, rather than finding fault and error. I know you will not except this, nor see why I am saying this. but to lift up the Name of Jesus, seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Speak the Word of God in all Truth, so by what you speak will bring encouragement and hope. Blessings

sermonindex Sep 9, 2005

Let me ask you this... in your copy of the NASB does it refer you to the footnotes where it says something like "the oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not have this verse"? If so... it's the same thing.When the footnotes say "the oldest and most reliable" it is referring to the Alexandrian Text, which there is absolutely no proof that it is the oldest and most reliable.As to the verses you are claiming I missed it on, I know for a fact that the NASB I have on my shelf does in fact omit these verses.Krispy

5
5nva Sep 9, 2005

Krispy:My NASB does have something like that mentioned in the footnotes, but this is not the same as omitting the verse. Omitting the verse means to remove it like it does in the NIV.Also, I have a NASB right here with me now and I have checked and those verses are present in my bible for me to read.I also agree with Joshua99 and will humbly receive what he is saying. I will continue to use my NASB and KJV together and seek the Lord and ask the Holy Spirit for understanding.God bless you my friend.Mike

sermonindex Sep 9, 2005

Apart from your detail sumary on why I shouldn't use the NASV, what translation do you not find fault and error with? I have always in all my research used multible translations to find the heart of God in study. Being that the Truth of the Word of God is in Spirit, and requires the Holy Spirit for anyone to come to understand the wisdom that lies between the words and thoughts written in scripture, I believe the hour we live in now, time would be better spent reveiling the truth God has given to you, rather than finding fault and error. I know you will not except this, nor see why I am saying this. but to lift up the Name of Jesus, seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Speak the Word of God in all Truth, so by what you speak will bring encouragement and hope. BlessingsTruth is important. If you dont have the truth in front of you... you have false. Unlike you, I see this issue very important in this day of apostacy. I'm not telling you what to do. You make up your own mind. All I'm doing is providing information. Whenever someone brings up something that needs to be addressed, the automatic response is "stop telling me what to do!" from some. I dont understand this.Krispy

P
philologos Sep 9, 2005

krsipy writes, and not for the first time...the NASB cannot be trusted because it is built upon the unsound scholarship of liberals and UnitariansYou can hold a preference for the Byzantine text without quite such an extreme statement. Personally I think the scholarship and theology behind the KJV could be challenged on very similar grounds. The churchmanship of its chief Anglican scholars and its elevation of the 'status quo' is evident throughout. In many ways it is an 'anti-protestant' version and was specifically designed to alter key aspects of truth found in Tyndale and the Geneva Bible.The NASB is better than the KJV in its rendering of verb tenses, prepositions and most things to do with ecclesiastical patterns. The piety of some of its key translators is extremely questionable as was their persecution of non-conformists.In this sense you should not 'trust' the KJV either. Check it out and check out the NASB too.

sermonindex Sep 9, 2005

Bashing the NASB like its the Watchman's bible i believe is Non-Christlike. Saying it could lead us into apostasy. Well, so could anything; KJV, NLT, Amplified. It doesn't matter what version you use (to some degree yes) that will lead you into apostasy but the person who preaches outta it. Someone might say 'well, i believe this, cause my bible says it'. Well put a few bibles together and lets truly figure out what God meant by it, and looking it all within context.Each and every verse should be taken carefully and with a strong eye on them. I don't think anyone should EVER just use ONE bible. But numerous to compare and contrast.But above all of that, I think its best to just say "Lord, where shall I go for You to speak to me today? Or what passage do You wanna teach me this very hour in my life"...etc..etc.

sermonindex Sep 9, 2005

YeshuaIsMyGd... ever heard of the Alexandrian Text? Ever heard of the Received Text? Do you know the history of them? If you dont, find out. Then we'll talk more.Krispy

G
Gery Sep 9, 2005

Dear Brethren,I find that diffirent Bible translations are actually a help in getting the best out of God's Word. The NASV is one translation that I do not yet have, but I would like to get one. Look, I agree that some translations are more accurate and I even agree that certain verses were left out or wording changed. What is important is that we should be conscious of these facts. If you are going to choose to defend the Trinity, please don't use a NIV. The KJV is better. But then again, Jehovah's Witnesses will prefer that same KJV to prove some of their lies.A Christian should be a fervent Bible Scholar and go in as deep into the meaning of God's Word as possible. Rather thank God for the many translations that He has given us.In Him,Gery

K
KingJimmy Sep 9, 2005

Ultimately this comes down to a matter of opinion. I think it is sad Krispy that despite the conservative and evangelical tone of the NASB- being translated by men and women who were probably of pure heart in the task they undertook, and took it with the most grave seriousness- that you should just so deeply slam something that probably was done by many of your sincere brothers and sisters in Christ. And because they are brothers and sisters in Christ, you should show them respect.Instead, you slam them just because they happen to agree with some liberal scholars on some principles of scholarship regarding textual criticism. Just because one is liberal doesn't mean they are always wrong. Just because some people were of possibly questionable character and such doesn't mean we should simply dismiss their work for that matter. Otherwise, we should burn our KJV's, for it was funded by a man with some deep sexual problems, not to mention other political problems, and the KJV included the Roman Catholic apocrypha. Likewise, Erasmus when he produced the RT, was far from perfect character. When it comes to matters of translation, while it is horriable some people might have been of questionable character that had their hands on the text, ultimately everything boils down to the quality of their translation and the scholarly discipline in which they approached the matter. For all we get is their final product. We don't know how any scholar might have been acting on any given day. Perhaps some were quite full of pride. Perhaps some just had a heated argument with their spouse. Who knows what hidden sins lurked in any of their hearts. If we are looking for a team of scholars who are living in sinless perfection all at the same time for the duration of time in which they are making their translation... then we should entirely doubt and shun all translations, and just stick to reading Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts (and we should probably do away with these as well, being that they are not the original autographs, and we don't know all of who had their hands in copying them). Which manuscripts are best? Ultimately, only God knows. There is no text in existance today that we have access to that is entirely without error. No manuscript is perfect. No translation is perfect. And people like you and me, who don't know Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. (and owning a Strong's Concordinance does not count), should be very very very very very cautious in making comments on which Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts are best, and which translations are best. People like you and me are highly dependent upon the opinion's of other highly learned men whom we simply fancy for any number of given reasons. Ultimately, we can only point to them and say "they seem like a trusted authority, and their opinion seems sound, and I side with them." Thus we should avoid blanket statements like "the NASB cannot be trusted." It can't? There seems to be much reason to trust it (though there might be many reasons to doubt it as well). Maybe I should start saying "KrispyKrittr is no scholar, and does not always show perfect character on the SI Forums, thus cannot be trusted in regard to these matters."The NASB is my favorite of the modern translations, and I personally put a great deal of trust in it; enough so to take it with me when I stand in a pulpit, on a street corner, in a homeless shelter, and other situations in which I must speak as one who is the oracle of God, sometimes putting myself in physical danger for my Lord when I do so. If I had to, I'd die with it in my hand.

D
dohzman Sep 9, 2005

I like what Tozer said, That the NASV is great as long as you use it for its Old Testament Content but when it comes to the NT it's lacking. Good KJV for NT though :-D

K
KingJimmy Sep 10, 2005

I believe Tozer was well dead when the NASB came out. Perhaps the original version with the thee's and thou's was in existance then, but the one that is currently for sale was only made in 1995.

D
dohzman Sep 11, 2005

hummmm?I have an NASB published by AMG- Spiros Zodhiates in 1984. Tozer used the ASB basically the same as the NASB. Very little difference. Still the best in OT translations on the market, unless you go to one of the interlineals(sp?).

C
Christisking Sep 14, 2005

The NASB translation was completed, copyrighted and published in 1971. Other portions were copyrighted earlier. Here is the copyright information as given by The Lockman FoundationNew American Standard Bible®,Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973,1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

sermonindex Sep 14, 2005

Otherwise, we should burn our KJV's, for it was funded by a man with some deep sexual problemsCare to offer some proof of this statement? Dead or not, if this isnt true, then you are bearing false witness against someone... There is a myth that King James was gay, but this has proven to be false."Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."By the way, it was not funded by King James. He did nothing to fund it. Not one penny. So you're wrong on that fact. All he did was authorize the work to be done.I'm not taking up for King James as a person. Tho he was a religious man, he persecuted many Christian groups... particularly the anabaptists, who many of us would identify with doctrinally if more of us really studied our church history. But I am saying that we cant just come on here and spout out things about people (living or dead) that we dont know is true. It discredits your entire argument when you propogate myths that are completely false.This is but one area where your expertise on this topic seems lacking. Not sure I would trust the rest of what you say concerning this.And you know I like ya, KJ... I'm not attacking you. Just surprised at your lack of knowledge when you're trying to sound so knowledgable.Krispy

F
freedbyjc Sep 14, 2005

For those seeking to draw closer to God, I humbly post for your edification, an excellent article that may help shed some light on the discussion.King James Only, Sometimes, Never:Examining the Modern Versions of the BibleWilliam D. BarrickProfessor of Old Testament, The Master’s SeminaryWhat Bible translations are best for use in the pulpit? Which ones are best for private Biblestudy? Good questions like these are the reason for this seminar. Contrary to the impression thatthe seminar title might give, I will not be lecturing on the “King James Only” debate. Ourpurpose is to answer the preceding questions about Bible translations. Pastors and churches ask about modern Bible translations because they want to use the most accurate Bible translation available for preaching, teaching, and personal devotional reading. With the plethora of so-called“literal” Bible translations available on the market, how is a pastor or church member to knowwhich is the best choice? We will not look at obviously inappropriate Bible translations in thisseminar (e.g., Revolve New Testament). Instead, we will focus on the following versions: KingJames Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJV), New American Standard Bible(NASB), New American Standard Bible Update (NASU), English Standard Version (ESV), NewRevised Standard Version (NRSV), New International Version (NIV), and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). These eight versions have the greatest potential of being chosen by evangelicals for pulpit, pew, or personal use. For those of you who are already wondering why the more dynamic NIV is listed with the seven more formal translations, just stick around. There is method to my madness.To read the rest ofthe article you must go here.Shepherd's Conference 2005 NotesBarrick astutely concludes: This brief and limited analysis is but an example of the type of research that one needs to pursue in order to decide on a particular Bible translation for pulpit, pew, or personal reading.One might choose the easy road by just accepting the conclusions of excellent volumes likeThomas’s How to Choose a Bible Version. Or, one might choose to look even deeper into thematter and involve others in his search for the best translation. For churches, this process should not be hasty. One to two years for church leaders to research and discuss the matter will prove well worth the effort. Personal Bible study can more readily adopt a variety of translations without causing division and confusion if the individual is willing to tie himself to solid literal translations and sound exegetical commentaries during the process of study.No Bible translation is perfect. Many translations are disturbingly imperfect—above andbeyond what one might expect out of an objective, original text-based translation. Evangelicalsneed to stay vitally involved in the production of Bible translations and evangelical churches need to make wise choices with regard to pulpit and/or pew versions. Lazy translations produce lazy expositors and lazy readers. Imperfect translations can contribute to the production of imperfect interpretation and flawed theology. Do not take the task lightly.

M
Manfred Sep 14, 2005

Greetings,I think that the best way to solve this never-ending discussions about Bible translations, versions, manuscripts, etc. would be to learn Greek. It is not difficult, and courses are offered for all levels.I remember reading that someone like A. T. Robertson would lecture, and teach his classes using his Greek New Testament.I think that most of us are young enough to start such a venture. I dare say that there would be no better way to use some of our free time.Manfred

L
letsgetbusy Sep 14, 2005

"No Bible translation is perfect."I don't want to stir up trouble, but with that statement, you are basically saying that we don't have an accurate translation today.That would mean either God cannot preserve His Word, or chose not to. By saying it is even 99.5% pure, is saying it is .5% corrupted. I believe God to be a God of absolutes.Everyone in the world is learning English. I was just in Korea where the locals will go out of their way to have a conversasion with an English speaking person. Disagree if you will, but it seems reasonable to me that God would purposely have a translation ready for a world that is moving toward a particular language. Many families from other cultures don't even teach their children their native language, in hopes that the children would be accepted in the English-speaking 'business' world.I believe God has preserved His Word, and my faith is not in the translators, the men that funded the translation, or any other person, but God only. And if he were giving us a roadmap to live by, shouldn't it be 100% trustworthy.Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

sermonindex Sep 14, 2005

I think that the best way to solve this never-ending discussions about Bible translations, versions, manuscripts, etc. would be to learn Greek. It is not difficult, and courses are offered for all levels.This would not solve the issue because the question then must be asked: Which Greek NT? The one that the KJV, and all the Reformation Bibles were based on? ..or the one that all the modern versions since 1881 are based on?Most folks either are ignorant of the fact that there are two streams of very different Greek texts, or they chose to ignore the fact.Krispy

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 55 posts