seeking info on accuracy of NASB

If your looking for fireworks, post a similar question in the "Versions" forum.
For a beginner in the versions debate the following should do.

The 'Big" three versions that are "generally" respected are KJV, NAS, And NIV. All are good.

KJV is quite poetic and generally accurate, the language is sometime obscure for those not use to Old English.

NAS ( http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/ ) is considered very literal translation, that's why seminary students like it. Because of this it's language is sometimes stilted and un-natural.

NIV is a more reader friendly version that flows easily but sometimes provides a less than literal translation based more upon what was originally intended by the author.

All three are good, but they are even better if they are read regularly. Choose the one you feel most comfortable with.

Rob

 

The NASB is the best translation available to the english speaking world.

 

The NASB is probably the most respected translation of its underlying text type.

The differences between the KJV and the NASB are due to the differences in the underlying texts. If you prefer the Alexandrian text type, the NASB is probably the bible for you. If you prefer the Byzantine text type, perhaps the KJV, NKJV would be a better choice.

 

First, welcome to the BB Plain Old Bill(POB). Second, let me say that your search for the word of God is over. That's right, I have the answer to all your problems.

BELIEVE THE KING JAMES BIBLE TO BE GOD'S INSPIRED, INFALLIBLE, AND INERRANT WORD OF GOD AND YOU WILL NEVER GO WRONG!

For more, go here; http://jesus-is-lord.com/nasv.txt

 

The NASB is a great Bible! There's a reason that almost all of the Southern Baptist professors prefer it. Comparing it to the original Greek manuscripts will give you a better comparison than comparing it with the KJV. Might I suggest talking to some of the students to get their opinion of the translation? Perhaps some professors would be good to approach as well.

 

I like the updated version better. The NASU 95 or comonly referred to as the NASB. It is less wooden in its language. It has gotten rid of all the thee's and thy's that were in the NAS of earlier.

 

I agree with the good things said so far about the NASB. I'd also direct your attention to the ESV, which I haven't got, but have read great things about.

 

The NASB is very precise, but it is more literal than even the KJV, so it can be a little less readable, it is a great study Bible though, probably why the seminary students like it. I would agree with many of the above. Any of the Big Three can be trusted. I have a study Bible with KJV,NASB,NIV and Amplified, it is great.

I have heard good things about the NET Bible, anyone use that?

 

I strongly prefer the Traditional original language text and therefore I like the KJV/NKJV.

However where the NASB is faithful to the TR, IMO it is great for the 21st century English speaker.

I don't use the NIV much, I prefer to make equivalences myself. But, I have found on many occasions that with difficult passages it can be very helpful.

HankD

 

I second this, The ESV is a little less literal but reads a lot better (IMO).

Of course, I think you should just stick with the KJV. GO TEAM!

 

Hmmmm. Interesting spin. Let's examine it a bit. The "small handful" of Greek manuscripts used by Erasmus to formulate his Greek text, and others used, in addition to the Greek texts published by Erasmus and his successors, were representative of the vast majority of all manuscript witnesses. In fact, of the 5 Greek texts used by Erasmus, 4 of them were Byzantine in nature, and one of them was Alexandrian. That means that 20% of the Greek texts used by Erasmus were Alexandrian.

Of the Greek texts used by the NA/UBS compilers, only about 3% were representative of the Alexandrian text and the rest were representative of the Byzantine text type.

It seems to me that Erasmus and the KJV translators not only examined ALL the evidence, but also, in fact, assigned a greater numerical supremacy to the Alexandrian text type than the translators of the NASB!

Ain't "spin" wonderful, especially if honesty is not a priority?

 

Actually, I understood what Dr Bob was saying from his point of view.

But personally the innuendo of dishonesty toward anyone here is troubling to me including those aimed at the KJVO and their double-speak/double-standard of which they are totally unable to see.
It is one thing to point out these inconsistencies but another to assign motive to them.

I have been guilty of assigning evil intent of motive to others and have come to grips with it.

We all are predudice in our personal views and even when we are down right wrong I don't believe anyone here is intentionally giving wrong (if indeed it is) information.

HankD

 

Uh, I was referring to my spin, not Dr. Bob's.

 

Erasmus had 5 Greek manuscripts in his possession when he compiled his Greek text. They were MSS 1, 2, 2ap, 4ap, and 1r. MS 1 is a representative of the Alexandrian text type (I.E., Aleph and B). Also both Tregelles and Kenyon remark on the fact that Erasmus had access to Vaticanus via his friend Paulus Bombasius who was a Professor of Religion at the Vatican. Kenyon says, "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Vaticanus) as proof of its superiority to the received text." (Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts" London, 1896, page 133.)

That appears to be what he did!

See above.

Uh, no, I didn't. Please see my response to HankD above.