Question about bible translation?

[Rippon]

Why do some Ministers preach out of the NASV ( When I do this[usage of only NASV] this will be my use of for both editions) when it's "hard to understand'?

It's been my experience that in their explanation of the text they will reword things in such a way that it sounds much like the NLT or NIV.

They should just cut to the chase --it would save a lot of time.

 

[Cody2]

I would suggest getting a King James Bible. The new versions are translated from corrupt manuscripts and altered by the traditions of men. This link has articles exposing the NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASV, NLT and etc. I do not endorse the Calvinistic teachings at the bottom of the page, but the information on manuscript evidence is outstanding.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

God bless

 

[McCree79]

Here we go.....

 

[Rippon]

The new versions are translated from corrupt manuscripts and altered by the traditions of men. This link has articles exposing the NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASV, NLT and etc.

The source from which you derived your information is corrupt.

KJVOism is a vain tradition of men.

 

[Logos1560]

The new versions are translated from corrupt manuscripts and altered by the traditions of men.

You fail to demonstrate that your accusation is correct.

You ignore the fact that the makers of the KJV altered the pre-1611 English Bibles in some places, following Church of England doctrinal views and King James's divine-right-of-kings view, and they borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

You evidently are following the traditions and opinions of men evident in a modern, man-made KJV-only theory.

 

[Inspector Javert]

You fail to demonstrate that your accusation is correct.

You begin probably 50% of your posts with this inane statement...
You've "failed to demonstrate" that purple unicorns don't exist therefore, you must be wrong on the issue.

You really should research "burden of proof" better. It gets distracting and annoying.

You ignore the fact that the makers of the KJV altered the pre-1611 English Bibles in some places

Of course they did....
If you understood the KJV view you would grasp that that's to be expected.
Most KJVO's don't think the "pre-KJV" English Bibles were perfect.
If they thought that...
There'd be no need for a new translation would there??????

DUH! :laugh:

following Church of England doctrinal views and King James's divine-right-of-kings view,

Genetic fallacy....look it up.
Also a non-provable assumption you assert about their motivation.
To borrow a hack phrase:
"You've 'failed to demonstrate' that a strict adherence to the "Divine right of kings" appreciatively influenced their choices in translation.

and they borrowed a number of renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

No, they likely translate the same way.

Anyone might reasonably imagine that the Rheims is probably QUITE CORRECT in numerous, I daresay even MOST translational choices they made. Their scholars could read the Original Languages couldn't they?

Does that meand they "FOLLOWED" it???
Or can we at least conclude that they translated the same or similarly....maybe because it stands to reason that the translators of the Rheims could read the Original Languages TOO!!!!
That would make sense.

You've "failed to demonstrate" :laugh: that they were "following" rather than possibly simply coming to similar conclusions. Which may indeed be perfectly correct.

You evidently are following the traditions and opinions of men evident in a modern, man-made KJV-only theory.

You evidently would benefit from some knowledge of Epistemology and logic.

 

[Van]

Okay thanks for all the comments and debate. I got another question now. Why do some Ministers preach out of the NASV ( When I do this[usage of only NASV] this will be my use of for both editions) when it's "hard to understand'?

Well between the two NASB versions (77 and 95) I think the 95 is quite a bit easier to understand than the 77 or older translations.

The reason may be that it is the version they have studied from the most, and therefore can rely on their personal library of study notes and prior sermons.

Personally, I believe the NASB95 is the most accurate English translation of the Bible, and when a meaning is not clear to me, I can look at other translations (NKJV, NET, HCSB, WEB) and almost always discern the meaning and sort of toss it in parenthetically.

And to make clear, I have never been a "teaching pastor" but as a layperson, have taught in adult Sunday School and Small Group settings.

 

["Lil" Possum Preacher man]

Well between the two NASB versions (77 and 95) I think the 95 is quite a bit easier to understand than the 77 or older translations.

The reason may be that it is the version they have studied from the most, and therefore can rely on their personal library of study notes and prior sermons.

Personally, I believe the NASB95 is the most accurate English translation of the Bible, and when a meaning is not clear to me, I can look at other translations (NKJV, NET, HCSB, WEB) and almost always discern the meaning and sort of toss it in parenthetically.

And to make clear, I have never been a "teaching pastor" but as a layperson, have taught in adult Sunday School and Small Group settings.

Thanks.

 

[robustheologian]

I would suggest getting a King James Bible. The new versions are translated from corrupt manuscripts and altered by the traditions of men. This link has articles exposing the NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASV, NLT and etc. I do not endorse the Calvinistic teachings at the bottom of the page, but the information on manuscript evidence is outstanding.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

God bless

*Sigh*

So you believe a links articles on every translation of the Bible except KJVO but then don't endorse the other teachings???

So how do you know what's correct and what's not?

 

[McCree79]

*Sigh*

So you believe a links articles on every translation of the Bible except KJVO but then don't endorse the other teachings???

So how do you know what's correct and what's not?

KJVO.....because King James said so!!!
That Lebron can play some hoops also!
.......it makes about has much sense as other KJVO arguments

*For those who don't follow the NBA, Lebron James's nickname is King James.

 

[Robert William]

Hey everybody I was wondering are there other people that use the NASV [New american Standard version or bible](77) ? I am now using it and I kinda like it. Also how does it compare to ESV and New King James?

:thumbsup:

Great translation, mine is an NASV John MacArthur study bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

:thumbsup:

Great translation, mine is an NASV John MacArthur study bible.

Great combo of a really good translation, and really good study notes!

 

["Lil" Possum Preacher man]

okay now I am wondering... should I preach from the NASV(either or editions of it) ? I ask because I am just really getting started in ministry and would like to know. I received my call for ministry a year or so ago ( I am 17) and now I really would to start Preaching. The first full length sermon I did was with the MEV or Modern English version. I consider my audience when I preach also.

 

[McCree79]

okay now I am wondering... should I preach from the NASV(either or editions of it) ? I ask because I am just really getting started in ministry and would like to know. I received my call for ministry a year or so ago ( I am 17) and now I really would to start Preaching. The first full length sermon I did was with the MEV or Modern English version. I consider my audience when I preach also.

Like you said "consider my(your) audience.". Don't let translation get in the way of the audience. I think the NASB95 is perfectly fine for preaching. I wish more people used it. If you can get away with the NASB95, run it. However, most baptist use NIV.....so you may want to consider that as your primary source of scripture.

 

["Lil" Possum Preacher man]

Like you said "consider my(your) audience.". Don't let translation get in the way of the audience. I think the NASB95 is perfectly fine for preaching. I wish more people used it. If you can get away with the NASB95, run it. However, most baptist use NIV.....so you may want to consider that as your primary source of scripture.

Oh I don't know maybe. I think I might stick with the NASV or NKJV . My church uses as a pew bible the Holman Christian Standard version . Yet alot of my congregation as far as I could tell uses New King James.

 

[padredurand]

Oh I don't know maybe. I think I might stick with the NASV or NKJV . My church uses as a pew bible the Holman Christian Standard version . Yet alot of my congregation as far as I could tell uses New King James.

I use the NASB exclusively as my pulpit Bible. What I do is ask someone in the congregation to read a verse or passage from what translations they have.

In my notes for today I had the opening phrase of II Timothy 1:5 in my notes from three translations:

 CEV: I also remember the genuine faith
 KJV: When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith
 LITV: taking recollection of the unpretended faith in you

We had an individual with a Revised Standard, another with a NKJV and a lady with a tablet with a dozen versions available. Calling on those to read involve them in the teaching and reinforces the point being made.

 

[Tom Bryant]

okay now I am wondering... should I preach from the NASV(either or editions of it) ? I ask because I am just really getting started in ministry and would like to know. I received my call for ministry a year or so ago ( I am 17) and now I really would to start Preaching. The first full length sermon I did was with the MEV or Modern English version. I consider my audience when I preach also.

I used to quote a number of different translations, but it really confused people. It was almost like I was searching for a version support what I wanted to say rather than the other way around. So I finally just stuck with the NASB.

I am not sure what you mean by "I consider my audience". Can you explain that?

 

["Lil" Possum Preacher man]

I used to quote a number of different translations, but it really confused people. It was almost like I was searching for a version support what I wanted to say rather than the other way around. So I finally just stuck with the NASB.

I am not sure what you mean by "I consider my audience". Can you explain that?

I'm sorry for the confusion, what mean by "I consider my audience" is that I take into consideration weather or not who I am preaching to can understand what I am reading.

 

[Alcott]

I'm sorry guys can we please not debate stuff here all I was wanting to know was if other people use the NASV(77).

Why '77? That one still uses "Thee" and "Thou." The '95 got rid of those on the logical grounds that the manuscripts do not use special pronouns for the Deity.

 

["Lil" Possum Preacher man]

Why '77? That one still uses "Thee" and "Thou." The '95 got rid of those on the logical grounds that the manuscripts do not use special pronouns for the Deity.

I just got it that's why and the lady I got it from to her it was sentimental to her and because she let me have it It is sentimental to me.