Featured Nasb

RLBosley,

Having used the KJV all of my life I also started out with the NASB due to hearing how literal it is in interpretation. After reading it I found out it is not quite as literal as I had thought. I was somewhat disappointed with it to be honest -- it simply wasn't what was advertised. I also ran into several verses while reading that I didn't care for how they were handled.

The '77 NAS version is allegedly the one that is literal in interpretation.

I'm now using an ESV and like this reading much better and it seems much more literal and accurate.

By the way here is a place to buy a great quality Bible:

www.evangelicalbible.com

The R.L. Allan Bibles are very very nice. Schuyler also makes a very nice Bible. Once you hold one and see it you'll never want another Bible.

- Blessings

 

I use the KJV most of the time and the ASV 1901 a good amount and the NET Bible some. Find the one you like and study it, is the best I can say.

You won't find the quality for the price of any Bible that I've found like the Local Church Bible Publishers puts out. I'm like you, I like the Note Taker one greatly and I have a couple wide margins from them as well.

 

I have aRyrie 1977 Nasb edition, and that version would be the one to get for a chritian expanding out from kjv, as its the best critical Greek text based version for serious studies in my opinion!

Reads pretty much like Kjv, but more accurate and literal...

Agree with you on 1995 revision, not a bad version, just sacrified literalness for "readability!"

 

I had a list of some of the problem verses in the NASB but I've misplaced it. It is not that literal. Some verses are interpreted and not literal in translation. Others leave out important words and change the impact of the passage. I was more than a little disappointed with this version.

I truly enjoy the ESV. This version has been a blessing! Keep in mind I had a little bit of a struggle departing from the KJV and I was not KJVO -- I just some had some residual guilt and sentimental factors relating to this decision as well. Yet I am glad I did, though I still use it at times.

- Blessings

 

Kindle eReader. Get one. I have at least three translations of the bible on it.
(KJV, NET, HCSB and another one i can't remember this late at night)

 

I second the Kindle.. or the Kindle App on an iPad, Android tablet.

I use Cadre Bible on my phone... I Always have an KJV, ASV, and NET. ( yes they are the free bibles of those available... Sue me I'm cheap . )

 

I like versions that are contextually meaningful. They are more accurate.

The ESV is a little less literal than the NASBU. But both contain a great deal more interpretation that is as advertised. But it's not a bad thing to interpret honestly. It's necessary;all translations have to interpret. It is unavoidable.

 

I disagree with you after having read the NASB that it is a little more literal than the ESV. I do however agree that there is a great deal more interpretation going on in it. I see this in the NASB not so much in the ESV.

 

I think you are correct about the ESV. As far as the guilt association thing -- well, it isn't that bad once you make the move. Using another couple of versions the past few years has been one of the best moves I've ever made in my life. You'll get so much more out of the Scriptures and see so much more in the Scriptures.

- Blessings

 

Your mistaken regarding the ESV;do not believe on the contents of the Preface. In the near future I will show you some examples of the many interpretations found in the ESV. And their interpretations are usually good ones. I can show you many examples where the NIV is more literal than the ESV;and that doesn't necessarily mean that the NIV had better renderings in those places.

Their is a flux;an ebb and flow with the various translations. Even the NLT doesn't know its place as a functionally equivalent version. LOL

 

The ESV is a solid version. The Preface is the Preface as it is in all Bibles. Although I use the NIV with the NKJV, your opinion of the ESV is suspect, because you have been wrong about Bible versions in the past, especially the KJV.

 

And I have said the same...regarding its orthodoxy.

"The Preface is the Preface"; who writes your material? I was saying that the Preface of the ESV is not altogether honest about its translation.

Care to be specific? I know honesty and specificity are not among your strong suits.

 

Do not believe on the contents of the Preface? The preface of the ESV? I've not read it therefore my opinions are not based upon the preface.

I've personally found the NASBU to be much more interpretational than advertised. The ESV not so much.

I trust my conclusions on such after much examination.

That you disagree with my subjective opinion and attempt to supplant yours in its stead is to exalt your opinion above the opinion of another.

Be convinced in your mind and I will be convinced in mine.

Fair enough or do you need the last word again?

 

Much more? Don't use hyperbole.

You're funny. All you basically said was that we disagree. This is a debate forum;right? I told you that I will give you a number of examples to prove my point. I have had scores of threads giving evidence and not mere opinion regarding translational issues.

 

You've made the same implication, but since such came via the quarter pounder or other fare you've ingested that created enzymes and electrical impulses in your mind, which in turn made opinionated conclusions, it's allowable since it came from you, but disallowable for others.

Go for it. Prove your 'opinion' correct and superior with your examples.