NASB more accurate than KJV?

This is why no version took His soul as the subject at all, as far as I know.

They are taking nephesh to mean life. The NIV uses the word "life" and the NASB takes "offering his life" to mean the same thing as offering himself.

I hope you check with any Jewish sage who is a Messianic Jew.

I don't need to. I can see for myself that the Hebrew text is ambigous. I'm not sure that the NIV and the NASB got it right, but their translations are reasonable ones.

 

Your interpretation means NIV and NASV are not faithful with Word-to-Word principle.

"Hebrew text is ambiguous" - this is the typical conclusion by MV translators after they drove the texts into confusion. NIV and NASV have driven the translations into chaos! then they don't know what to do with it!

The reason why I asked you to check with Messianic Jews is because they study a lot as far as Hebrew texts are concerned.

If you read Hebrew OT, you can confirm that
- omission of the subjects occur thousand times,
- in such case we find the subjects thru the verbs.
- Order of the words in the sentence is normally subject right after verb if any, with the exception for the subordinate clause.

The sentence could be translated as
" when you offer as guilt offering His soul," which is the same as KJV and HCSB, NKJV
(when you offer His Soul as Guilt offering,)

There is no other way to translate it than when you offer...

 

I would honestly like to discuss this. I would like to learn more. There is so much I don't know. But the problem is this: time
As an active youth pastor, time is a luxury. I would love to dive into textual criticism and learn all the diffs in varient texts, but i don't have the luxury of "taking off" to do such work.

I know there are differences in underlying texts.
I would love to know how they got there and why.
I don't buy into the conspiracy theory of satanic sabotage, because that is just too easy.
I truly feel that the scribes made honest mistakes just like we do.
What is amazing is that God through his divine preservation still has that many texts and manuscripts around.

Anyway, I would love to participate in a discussion, I might not bring much to the table, except for questions, but I would love to learn more.

Thank you, Tim

 

Here is a thought that I would like to throw out there!

The name NASB would immediantly suggest that it is written for a reader that resides in the U.S and is immersed in the culture of that nation. Different phrases, although in english can mean different things in different english speaking countries.

Hence the NASB may well be the most literal translation to a reader from the U.S, yet it may not be for someone who resides somewhere like Jamaica for example.

 

There are much more than that.
There are two mountain ranges in the the texts which are the bases for the translation.

Group A)
Masorah by Ben Chayyim -Ginsburg for OT
TR arranged from Majority texts by Erasmus and Stephanus for NT

Group B)
Masorah by Ben Asher-Kittel for OT
Minority Texts, arranged by Westcott/Hort-Nestle Aland for NT

Group A was the basis for KJV.
( Darby, NKJV, Egyptian Coptic Orthodox, etc followed mostly this, but some reflected Group B or Septuagynt partially)

Group B has been the bases for the most of the modern versions including NASV, NIV, RV, NLT, ASV, Catholic Vulgate.


When Kittel compiled the Masorah, he started from Ben Chayyim Masorah too, but is said to have modified 20,000 spots reflecting Septuagynt in 1906 and 1912 about which I don't have the details. Later on he swifted the basis from Ben Chayyim to Ben Asher, then he died in 1929, but his successors arranged Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia in 1937, which pleased Adolf Hitler. Kittel's son served for Nazis and was arrested as War Criminal in 1945

This BHS has been the basis for many modern versions.

As for the principle of translation, it seems that NASV used Word-to-Word principle, but I already pointed out the problems with NASV in the above.
Even though we take any texts, no one can translate Isaiah 53:10 and Daniel 9:26 that way which is found in NASV, which means that NASV was not faithful with the principle, without understanding the meaning of the sentence.

I also pointed out that NASV is confessing the message preached is foolish (which means their Bible is foolish)in 1 Corinthians 1:21

There are many spots to be checked, which shows the problems with the translation.

 

In your opinion.

Yes, and there are spots with ALL translations that have issues, including the KJV.

 

It sure would be nice if churches would teach people how to read the passage in its context.

1 Cor 1:21, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (NASU95)."

1 Cor. 1:21, " For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (KJV)."

I fail to see the difference.

 

AMEN and AMEN GB. I get so frustrated at people making judgements on Biblical text (for whatever reason) by pulling one single verse out of context. ...and often the verse isn't even a complete sentence.

I know this is off the subject, but I wish to say it here while you brought it up. I know pastors who are bad about jumping ALL over the Bible simply because they now have software that allows them to search and find fifty different verses using a specific word. Often all you get is glimpses of information that is completely out of context---but, I think the preacher thinks they look intelligent by jumping all over the Bible, when indeed it was the software that did the trick. .....sad indeed.

This is a perfect example of "context" and how it can be misused when applying it to the Bible.

Thank you for your post.

 

I believe the NASB is the most accurate English translation we have today.

 

It sure would be nice if churches would teach people how to read the passage in its context.

1 Cor 1:21, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (NASU95)."

1 Cor. 1:21, " For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (KJV)."

I fail to see the difference. </font>[/QUOTE]I already explained this the other day.

***********************************

1 Corinthian 1:21 from NASV

For since in the wisdom of God the R41 world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God R42 was well-pleased through the foolishness R43 of the message F15 preached to save R44 those who believe.

NASV says the message preached (Words of God) is foolish!
Paul was telling " method used in preaching the gospel looks foolish to the people of the world."

****************

In other words

NASV : The Message preached is foolish
KJV : Preaching is foolish

The message loooks foolish to the World - NASV
The method=called preaching looks foolish to the world- KJV

Then look at the original language

 

The exact wording is this:

τησ μωριασ του κηρυγματοσ

There is no mentioning about the contents above. Read carefully, refer to the Lexicon.
kerugmatos means: preaching, proclaiming.
Morias : foolishness, stupidity
Simply word-to-word translation is Foolishness of Preaching ( foolish method called Preaching). No mentioning that the message is foolish!

 

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

According to your hair splitting techniques, God possesses foolishness.

You are claiming that YOUR interpretation of those verses in comparing the KJV to the NASB is the only one, when there are many ways too look at it, and truth be told, anyone with a brain can tell you are twisting things.

But then again, I have become quite used to that around here.

 

not over the KJV, but over any modern versions.

 

If someone really likes to split hairs where is the demonstrative pronoun in the Greek text corresponding to that in the KJV "For after that. . ." What does that refer to?

Simply put if 1 Cor. 1:21 is read in KJV or NAS I don't see any probelm with the correct interpreation. In order to interpret a verse it must be read in its context

Such as Eph. 1:3. That verse is in the context of a prayer and too often people try to interpret it alone and teach something it does not.

If one were to do as you suggest then from Ps. 74:1 it says that God has rejected the people of God forever.

 

not over the KJV, but over any modern versions. </font>[/QUOTE]If that is true then why does Amos 4:4 in the KJV not agree with the LXX and MT texts and the NAS does?

 

Well from reading studies the NASB and ESV are pretty much neck and neck but the ESV is a little more fluid in reading.In the same study(I can't dig it out now it's buried in one of a hundered boxes,we are still settling in )the KJV graded out number 5 in over all accuracy,readability,and a few other measures.I am KJVP but I like the ESV a lot.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

World English Bible:
it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe

American Standard Version (ASV):
it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe

Third Millenium Bible:
it pleased God by it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.


Hebrew Names Version:
it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe

World English Bible:
it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save those who believe.

The Bible in Basic English:
it was God's pleasure, by so foolish a thing as preaching, to give salvation to those who had faith in him.

Young's Literal Translation:
it did please God through the foolishness of the preaching to save those believing.

The Darby Translation:
God has been pleased by the foolishness of the preaching to save those that believe

The Webster Bible:
it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.


King James Version: Douay-Rheims, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version (
it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.


Douay-Rheims, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) have the same context. (our preaching or our proclamation)


Am I alone?

The most important thing is to check with Greek Grammar. Where could you find the word "message"?

From my survey, as far as the Greek grammar is concerned, Darby is the most accurate (in grammar)


Check the followings:

1) Ephesians 3:9 -
God created all things thru Jesus Christ or without thru Jesus Christ ?
How many texts support NASV?
How many texts support KJV?

2) 1 Timothy 3:16
God was manifest in the flesh (KJV)
He who was revealed in the flesh,(NASV)

How many texts support KJV? and How many NASV?

I would not judge the accuracy by the number of many supporting texts, but in case of absence of supporting texts, there should be sufficient explanation for it.

[ December 31, 2005, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

My understanding about the No of texts are this:

Eph 3:9
Texts supporting NASB : 5
" KJV : over 500

1Tim 3:16
NASV : 3
KJV : over 500

If anyone knows the exact numbers and let us know them, it will be appreciated.

 

I get to use my new Christmas book!

The first known textual witness of Ephesians 3:9 is P46 (Chester Beatty II) from ~A.D. 250 which reads:
και φωτισαι παντας τις η [οι
κονομια του μυστηριου του αποκεκρυμ̣
μενου απο των αιωνωv’ εν τ̣ω̣ θω τ[ω τα
π̣[α]ν[τ]α̣ κτισαντι

I’ll paraphrase Bruce Metzger, who writes in his “Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament”

The text is decisively supported by A (Alexandrian text form), B (Vaticanus, Alexandrian text form), C (Alexandrian), D (Abschrift)-Western text form), F (Western), G (Boernerianus) (Western), P (Byzantine text form), and parchments 33, 1319, 1611, 2127 additionally most versions and early patristic quotations.

The words that follow which are disputed are “δια ιησου χριστου” (“by or throught Jesus Christ”)
These “additional” words are supported by many later miniscules and D (Claromontanus) (a western text), K (Byzantine text form), L, and P (Byzantine text form).

“Since there is no reason why, if the words were original, they should have been omitted, the committee preferred to read simply κτισαντι, …” (p535)

Rob