NASB is it sound or not?

Excellent choice, I do declare!!

The NASB 1995 Updated is simply the best translation in the English language, IMHO.

 

The nasb ? biblebelievers.com

 

He forgot to add:

For foolish and possibly heretical teachings, go to: biblebelievers.com

Come on Steve, do some study of your own and don't just believe what everyone feeds you.

Neal

 

brother neal,

there is much of value at biblebelievers. for example, try this article on legalism:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Morton_legalism-liberty.html

 

I have been to their site about the KJV only stuff, and much of it is deceptive and half truths, and some is not even half truths.

Neal

 

The incredible thing is that this author didn't seem to see KJVOnlyism in violation of any of his markers for a legalist. I thought this one was particularly interesting:

I found other articles written by this same author which identify him as a legalist according to his own writings. This article appears to be very hypocritical.

 

Scott and Neal just admit that in your world there is no greater authority than you.Those of us who have a bible{KJV}Know better.You two spend all of your time trying to tear down the truth of the KJV because you don't have anything else to do.We bible believers have a bible to study.Bye

 

Why do you always say "bye" and then never leave??

 

Larry why do you stay when asked to leave?

 

Matthew 18:11-This verse, "For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost" is in the NASV, but it is in brackets with a MR which says, "Most ancient MSS omit."

Matthew 27:35-NASV omits a major portion as follows: "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the prophet, 'They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots " There is NO marginal reference or explanation FOR THIS OMISSION.

Mark 1:1-The important words, "The Son of God" are in the NASV, but a MR says, "Many MSS omit."

Mark 15:28-The entire verse is missing in the NASV but in its place are the words (SEE MARGINAL NOTE). The MR says, "Later MSS add vs. 28." Interestingly, the liberal RSV text also omits this verse but its footnote says, "Many ancient authorities insert."

Luke 4:4-NASV omits the last part of this verse, "But by every Word of God" without ANY explanation whatever.

Luke 4:8-NASV omits the words, "Get thee behind me, Satan" without ANY explanation whatever.

Luke 4:18-NASV omits the words, "To heal the broken hearted " without ANY explanation whatever.

Luke 22:43-44 These two verses are in the NASV but a MR says, "Some ancient MSS omit."

Luke 23:42-NASV omits the word, "Lord, " an important omission, without explanation.

Luke 24:6-The first part of this verse, "He is not here but he is risen" is in the NASV but a MR says, "Some ancient MSS omit." It is interesting that the liberal RSV omits this portion of the verse but a footnote says, "Some ancient authorities add."

Luke 24:12-NASV has this verse in brackets with a MR saying, "Some ancient MSS omit."

Luke 24:36-NASV omits a portion of this verse: "And he says to them, 'Peace be to you' " but a MR says, "Some ancient MSS insert."

Luke 24:40-This verse is COMPLETELY MISSING in the NASV text-the words (SEE MARGINAL NOTE) appear in place of this verse. The MR says, "Some MSS add vs. 40."

Luke 24:51-NASV omits a portion of this verse "and was carried up into heaven" but a MR says, "Some MSS add." A corresponding footnote in the liberal RSV says, "Many ancient authorities add."

Luke 24:52-NASV omits the words "and worshipped Him" and the MR says, "Some MSS insert." The liberal RSV footnote says, "Many ancient authorities add."

John 1:27-The words "is preferred before me" are MISSING in the NASV with NO EXPLANATION why they were deleted.

John 6:47-The words "on me" are COMPLETELY MISSING in the NASV with NO EXPLANATION.

Acts 8:37-NASV omits the entire verse and uses the now familiar (SEE MARGINAL NOTE) which says, "Later MSS insert." Those who teach the heresy of baptismal regeneration welcome this omission.

Acts 9:6-The words "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" are COMPLETELY MISSING WITHOUT EXPLANATION.

Romans 16:24-NASV OMITS THE ENTIRE VERSE. In its place is (SEE MARGINAL NOTE) which says, "Some ancient MSS add vs. 24)."

Ephesians 3:9-KJV reads, "Who created all things BY JESUS CHRlST." NASV omits "BY JESUS CHRIST" with ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION OR MARGINAL NOTE.

1 John 4:3-The KJV properly reads, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God " But the NASV reads, "And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God." There is no manuscript authority cited nor any explanation given for this important change in the text-a change which even the liberal Revised Standard Version does not make.

Revelation 1:11-NASV omits the words "l am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EXPLANATION.

 

Because I have a desire to see God's word defended against attacks.

You have again posted a long list of attacks on God's word. Not a one of them is justified. But you feel comfortable attacking it. I do not share your comfort. I believe that we should honor and defend God's word.

By the way, there is no such thing as a NASV. There was an ASV and an RSV as well as a KJV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, and ESV. The Bible to which you are referring is the NASB. It would be honest and proper to refer to it by its given name so that everyone knows what you are talking about.

But your long list of "omissions" raises the question, "What were they omitted from?" Did you suddenly find the originals so that you know what the original manuscript said? That would be the only way you could know these were omitted. By the level of proof that you have given, all you have proven is that this version you reference differs from another version. You have proved nothing with regard to what the Scriptures originally said. That is a difference that I know you do not care to entertain because you have no answer for it. However, it is a difference that should not be overlooked.

 

I don't think you know what honest is larry.That post is truth and exposes the deceit of that version. You are confused about the alphabet.v is v and b is b you cannot reconcile them.But coming from a guy who thinks Hebrews is doctrinal for the church age I'm not suprised.Hyu hyu haww haaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa
Get with the program!

 

By comparing it to a version that did not exist for the first (almost) 1600 years of church history. How is that an honest comparison? the truth is that unless you hvae the originals, you cannot know what was omitted and what was added. I could make a post and show all the places that the KJV added to the word of God in violation of his direct command.

I am not confused in the least. The Bible that we are talking about here is the New American Standard Bible. Check the title page of any edition you would like to (either the 77 or the 95). The NASV does not exist. It is an NASB, by title.

I am and have been for years.

 

Yes you "am and have been for years" deceived ,confused,spouting falsehoods,trying to tear down the KJV,rejecting truth,...etc

 

How am I confused, deceived, or spouting falsehoods?? I have done none of the above. You have yet to demonstrate one false thing that I have said.

I am not tearing down the KJV. I do not tear down the word of God in any version. You certianly have though.

This discussion should be centered on truth and that is where the biggest problem is. You post a long list of "omissions" without true consideration of the evidence and the reality. Unless you have the originals, how do you know what was originally written to know what has been omitted?? (I have asked that several times but you have never answered. Do you have an answer?)

 

When did you ask? Where? I did not see that.No don't try that old one.huh? who?
Oh that's your line,sorry

 

do you guys love one another?

 

go to biblebelievers.com and read this for the truth;
TESTIMONY OF A FORMER NASB SUPPORTER By S. Frank Logsdon. Logsdon was an early supporter of the New American Standard Bible which was published by his good friend, Franklin Dewey Lockman, of the Lockman Foundation. Read how much Logsdon regretted his association with this corrupt translation.

 

Thanks for asking. In the post from "posted March 01, 2003 12:30 PM" I said the following:

Here is the link to it so you can read the whole thing if you wish: The page containing Larry's original question

BTW, see how easy it is to answer a question without being cryptic and accusatory and off base in your reply?

Your response in another thread was based on your failure to read the post. There were some comments made and I asked who made them because, as the post clearly said, "I had not read the whole thread" and I did not intend to. I wanted to see the comments in question. But you jumped in with a one line post, totally off topic with absolutely nothing to further the discussion, so you could attempt to get a slam in on me. What a waste!!!

But here, since you asked, I gladly give the reference so you can look it up and hopefully answer the question.