NASB is it sound or not?

There's nothing wrong with it at all!!!
IMO, it's the best modern translation out there (if you have the 1995 Updated Edition, it's even better because there's no old English words in it).

 

Excellent translation. Extremely literal.

 

As for me, I realize that the KJV is not the only version; it is simply, IMO, the most accurate version in the English language. What I would consider to be "wrong" with the NASB as well as any MV (Modern Version), is the textual basis that it is built upon. That does not question the sincerity of the translators or the motives of the publishers, it simply means they built their versions on a faulty foundation.

 

Ahhh..... here we go again!

Good to hear from Pastor Bob 63 again..... I've been so busy with work that I have had little time to get back on the saddle again to debate!

Again, the KJV-onlyists claim that my beloved NASB has faulty textual manuscripts... which is utterly foundless. Those of us who freely use the NASB/NIV are in the position to defend the work-- and manuscript evidence-- behind these great translations. Too bad that it is the KJV that has words added to it, due to centuries of little discrepancies that were added to the Greek text (and these additions are NOT deliberate corruptions of the Greek text-- as KJV-onlyists say about the underlying Greek texts the Modern Versions use).

I would pose this to the original poster of this thread that he has nothing to fear from the NASB, nor its 'corrupt manuscripts'--- alleged by the connivances of KJV-onlyists. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong at all for using the KJV, but there is something wrong with KJV-onlyism, especially its hijacking of Historical Biblical Christianity's (i.e. Baptist) doctrines on the Bible. I don't want to say a whole lot more, but if you read the cacophany from many KJV-onlyists who write the many pamphlets, tracts, and books decrying modern versions, you will find that their arguments-- and tactics-- are very similar in style and rhetoric used by political liberals in our country. Harsh as this sounds, my disagreements come from the attacks of KJV-onlyists upon the fundamentals of the historic Christian faith (i.e. Baptist) upon the doctrines of the Bible. This gross error of twisting-- and distorting-- the KJV into a 'perfect' translation of God's Word in the English language is utter nonsense. If true fundamentalist Baptists could only see the errors in this, I wonder whether they are truly fundamentalists at all!!

 

Good to see you back LRL71; I was wondering where you went. There has been much good debate on here the last several days. Many thought-provoking posts have been offered.

One thing I have learned in the last several weeks is that the term KJV-Onlyist is a very broad term that is used to describe everyone from Peter Ruckman to the one who simply uses the KJV exclusively for no reason other than personal preference. I guess it is up to each of us to determine where we fit in that spectrum.

Regarding the NASB, my problem is that the OT text it is derived from is Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA, instead of the Masoretic Hebrew Text. The BIBLIA HEBRAICA has about 15 to 20 suggested changes in the Hebrew text placed in the footnotes of each page. I have trouble believing this is a "preserved" Bible.

The NT Greek text the NASB uses is the Nestle/Aland Greek Text. It has gone through 26 or 27 revisions since 1898. Again, that dosn't sound like a solid foundation on which to build a version of God's Word.

 

It is common practice for beginning Greek and Hebrew students to use the NASB as a guide as they work on their translations (because it is such a wooden, word-for-word translation). For that same reason, though, I don't like it for liturgical use in worship.

Joshua

 

Pastor Bob,

Yes, I have been veeeeeeery busy with a lot of other things, including setting up my church's website (if you would like to see, it is at www.gbcbradenton.com). I also work a full-time and part-time job, and get little time to do anything else. I am currently at my part-time job with a little time to dabble on this infernal computer.

Would it be wrong to 'advertise' to others that I can create and manage websites for IFB's?? I'm not sure if you are the person to ask, but it has come across my mind.

OK--- back to the versions issue.

I'd say that you are correct to infer that there are many 'factions' among KJV-onlyists, and would not be fair to lump them into a one-size-fits-all category-- or description. I do, however, perceive that there is a common element among KJV-onlyists in that they assert that the KJV is the only 'perfect' translation, or even better, the only translation that comes from 'perfect' manuscripts 'preserved' perfectly by God (a tongue-twister, indeed!). There is a theological perspective from all of this that asserts with an 'a priori' argument that KJV-onlyists make-- that "ONLY" the KJV is the best translation because either God preserved His Word into it, or because God preserved His Word in the manuscripts that it is based upon-- perfectly as if they were exactly as the originals. For one, this assertion cannot by made from the Scriptures nor could it be made from the manuscript evidence. Errors have crept into every single manuscript made by man. Even the TR used by the KJV translators noted thirteen different readings in the margins of the KJV. Now, anyone with a brain can figure out that one variation 'leavens the whole lump' (ahem!). So, how do we know that God preserved His Word "perfectly" as KJV-onlyists assert? Again, the Scriptures are silent, as well as the manuscript evidence. Although my argument fills only one paragraph, and is relatively simple in its structure, the arguments that the KJV is the "one and only" perfectly preserved Bible in the English language is patently absurd. To assert that the Scriptures teach such rank falsehood is called..... heresy!

Now, as for the manuscript evidence, Pastor Bob may have a *few* points that could be considered valid, and from his perspective he is conviced of his findings. That is perfectly fine with me, although we do sit on opposite sides of the fence as far as manuscript evidence goes. However, -- and I don't intend to say that I consider Pastor Bob's position as this-- I don't think that you can argue solely from the manuscript evidence that God has providently preserved His Word, and make that into a Bible doctrine! There are many KJV-onlyists out there who don't see this distinction, and assume that God has preserved His Word into the KJV because the manuscript evidence-- from their point of view-- says it is so. To say this is equivalent to adding to God's Word and bringing a foreign concept to the doctrine of the Bible. This is partly why I believe that KJV-onlyists make the same kind of styled arguments that political liberals make, in that they assume their position is right and deride those who argue against them on the facts. Manuscript evidence alone cannot be twisted into a disfigured beast that says "God preserved His Word into the KJV" despite the fact that errors are in all manuscripts. Is God the author of errors?? Certainly not! If the KJV has errors in its underlying Greek and Hebrew texts, then so goes the a priori argument that the KJV is "perfectly preserved" Word of God in the English language.

 

Oh, yes, I forgot something.....

In keeping with the thread's topic, I must assert that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the NASB-- or the KJV for that matter. Both are capable and reliable translations, but as with any human endeavor both have errors-- but none that God ever made, since even the originals were the only perfect articles that God breathed upon in written form.

Touche'!

 

Who told you the KJB has errors in it?

 

Who told you the KJB has errors in it? </font>[/QUOTE]I did. The KJV has errors, and it is not "perfect". Man's errors, of course. Perhaps you should also read the preface to the KJV, too. Imperfect men made a great translation, albeit imperfect and with errors.

 

The NASB is one of the best available translations from the best mss. It's a must own. It's very literal. If not for the ESV, it would be my primary Bible.

 

The NASB was the translation to have
in the Christian groups I was involved
in as a youth. It is a very, very good
translation for study because it is
quite "literal." I consult it all the
time.

Clay

 

Which KJB are you refering to JYD? The 1611AD original or 1769AD revision or perhaps the 1853AD revision all of which are different from each other.

"things which are different are not the same".

HankD

 

I wasn't able to get this page to come up. I am familiar with a Pastor from the Bradenton area. I believe his name is name is Gary Byrom. I'm not positive I spelled correctly. He is a friend of my Pastor's in Illinois and has preached at my home church on a few occasions.

There is a Classified Forum here on the BB that you can post such information on. As far as me being the one to ask, I'm just a member like the rest of you. The only authority I have is to edit your post if you call me a "heretic."

 

Either.The true revision of punctuation,orthography,typographical correction has already been covered and proven to be honest revisions;and comparing the true revision of the AV1611 text with that of whats been going on since 1881 from the RV till what ever is "hot of the press" now is not only false,but dishonest.

Your wrong,the poly-versions are all based on the same text(s) of the Jesuit Vatican dark age text of the Rheims bible;they (over 200 by now)all conflict with one another in thousands of places.So you see,things that are different are the same..

[ February 24, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

You mean you told your self that the KJB has errors in it?? Come now,WHO told you that??

 

The original work of the 1611KJV translators is lost. You cannot know or discern a
"true" revision from a "false" or "dishonest" one because you do not have the original autographs from the hands of the "inspired" translators.

Welcome to the club JYD.

HankD

 

So, then the KJV and the NKJV are both the Word of God.

HankD

 

You got half of it right.