Daniel David
New Member
So, does everyone concede that it doesn't translate anything WRONG?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What are the errors in the New American Standard?
- Thread starter Daniel David
- Start date
Daniel David
New Member
No, objections?
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
The question should be "what is right with the NASb?" But I digress.
The NASb is clearly in error regarding Romans 14:10;The vast majority of manuscripts--not the corrupt Catholic/Egytptian ones--read "The judgment seat of Christ",therefore tying the same subject to 1st Corinthians 3:11-15,and 2nd Corinthians 5:10.Scripturaly speaking(1st Peter 4:11),the term "judgment seat of God"(NASb,ASV,NRSV,NIV,etc,ad nauseam)would be nonsense.God will not be judging anyone from a "seat."
He(God the Father) will sit on a throne(Rev 20:11).Crowns are passed out at the judgment seat(1st Thess 2;James 1;1st Peter 5;1st Corinthians 9;2nd Tim 4;There will be NO crowns at the great white throne judgment.
Now before anybody says it,I know that Jesus is God;I know this.But what we have here is TWO seprate events by two members of the Godhead,one by God the Father(Rev 20:11),and God the Son(Romans 14:10).The NASb is in error...Doctrine affected...
The NASb is clearly in error regarding Romans 14:10;The vast majority of manuscripts--not the corrupt Catholic/Egytptian ones--read "The judgment seat of Christ",therefore tying the same subject to 1st Corinthians 3:11-15,and 2nd Corinthians 5:10.Scripturaly speaking(1st Peter 4:11),the term "judgment seat of God"(NASb,ASV,NRSV,NIV,etc,ad nauseam)would be nonsense.God will not be judging anyone from a "seat."
He(God the Father) will sit on a throne(Rev 20:11).Crowns are passed out at the judgment seat(1st Thess 2;James 1;1st Peter 5;1st Corinthians 9;2nd Tim 4;There will be NO crowns at the great white throne judgment.
Now before anybody says it,I know that Jesus is God;I know this.But what we have here is TWO seprate events by two members of the Godhead,one by God the Father(Rev 20:11),and God the Son(Romans 14:10).The NASb is in error...Doctrine affected...
I agree with you, A-A because I found the fact about Polycarp (69-155 A.D.). This man witnessed this phrase, "the Judgment Seat of Christ " in the EARLIEST time.
Polycarp warned, "Whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord, that one is the firstborn of Satan."
He also warned, "Those who pervert the oracles of the Lord....let us return the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning."
He witnessed the writings of many verses from the autographs.
Daniel David
New Member
Hey, KJVOs, I would appreciate it if you would demonstrate the ability to read and comprehend the original post.Originally posted by Askjo:
The NASB is still faithful to 45 MSS of 5255 MSS. That means that the NASB is faithful to 1% manuscript evidences.
I am asking for places where the NASB incorrectly translates from its underlying text. This isn't about which text is superior, or how many differences exist between the NASB and the KJV.
If you can't understand the point, please refrain from posting.
So far, there hasn't been a single example. As you keep dancing around the issue, it only solidifies the idea that you lack basic reasoning skills.
Daniel David
New Member
No one? You mean with all the volumes out there about the wicked NASB, I am supposed to believe that no one can post an example of where they translated something WRONG? Amazing.
timothy 1769
New Member
Did you find "merely" in the Greek?
First of all, the KJVO could care less about the faithfulness of the NASB English to the Greek text because:
1) Most don’t care about the Greek text, the radical KJVO exalts the English of the KJB (1611-1769) above the Greek and Hebrew.
2) Those among them who do give any notice to the underlying Greek Text would say that the NASB English text is based upon one of the Wescott and Hort “corrupted” versions of the Textus Receptus and is therefore itself “corrupted”. This is why you have few takers (IMO).
I am not KJVO and I have found the NASB to be meticulously accurate in their translation of the underlying text for instance Hebrews 4:9
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, {namely,} Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
NASB 1995 Lockman Foundation.
“for a little while” is in the underlying Greek text both TR and otherwise, the NASB and the RSV include it, others (KJV included) omit the “little while”.
But I’ll play the devil’s advocate and give a passage or two which are considered weak or in error by at least one author that I found on the web:
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
NASB 1995 Lockman Foundation.
The choice of the word “abolish” is criticized.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated {it} by His angel to His bond-servant John,
NASB 1995 Lockman Foundation.
The choice of the word “communicated” is criticized.
“abolish” can probably be shown to have a theological nuance which is debatable and subjective.
I think I agree with the Revelation 1:1 criticism of “communicated” from the Greek word “semion” [Strong’s 4591 : 1) to give a sign, to signify, indicate. 2) to make known.
Personally, I wouldn’t elevate this to an error but a poor choice (IMO) and I only bring it up because this is the purpose of this thread, to show translational “errors” in the NASB and there are those (at the above named site in particular) who do believe it to be an “error”.
HankD
1) Most don’t care about the Greek text, the radical KJVO exalts the English of the KJB (1611-1769) above the Greek and Hebrew.
2) Those among them who do give any notice to the underlying Greek Text would say that the NASB English text is based upon one of the Wescott and Hort “corrupted” versions of the Textus Receptus and is therefore itself “corrupted”. This is why you have few takers (IMO).
I am not KJVO and I have found the NASB to be meticulously accurate in their translation of the underlying text for instance Hebrews 4:9
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, {namely,} Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
NASB 1995 Lockman Foundation.
“for a little while” is in the underlying Greek text both TR and otherwise, the NASB and the RSV include it, others (KJV included) omit the “little while”.
But I’ll play the devil’s advocate and give a passage or two which are considered weak or in error by at least one author that I found on the web:
Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
NASB 1995 Lockman Foundation.
The choice of the word “abolish” is criticized.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated {it} by His angel to His bond-servant John,
NASB 1995 Lockman Foundation.
The choice of the word “communicated” is criticized.
available at http://members.aol.com/bob78999/translations.html
“abolish” can probably be shown to have a theological nuance which is debatable and subjective.
I think I agree with the Revelation 1:1 criticism of “communicated” from the Greek word “semion” [Strong’s 4591 : 1) to give a sign, to signify, indicate. 2) to make known.
Personally, I wouldn’t elevate this to an error but a poor choice (IMO) and I only bring it up because this is the purpose of this thread, to show translational “errors” in the NASB and there are those (at the above named site in particular) who do believe it to be an “error”.
HankD
Daniel David
New Member
Hank, thanks for the info. I think the examples given demonstrate that in various places, a word can be chosen that is better or worse, but not wrong.
Some words are so similar, it doesn't necessitate an error be charged.
For example, you take the words breeze, gale, hurricane, gust, windy, tornado, etc.
They all share a common meaning. Some are more forceful in what they communicate. In some cases, it would be wrong to use one word for another. In other cases, it might be perfectly fine.
Some words are so similar, it doesn't necessitate an error be charged.
For example, you take the words breeze, gale, hurricane, gust, windy, tornado, etc.
They all share a common meaning. Some are more forceful in what they communicate. In some cases, it would be wrong to use one word for another. In other cases, it might be perfectly fine.
timothy 1769
New Member
Inserting "merely" in 1Peter 3:3 is just plain wrong, with no support whatsoever in the Greek. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from The Message, but not from such a generally literal translation as the NASB.
Daniel David
New Member
Wow, it is like talking to a wall.
You are imposing your interpretation upon what they did. If they say they added it for clarity (much like the KJV and italics), you call it a wrong translation. I believe it is implied and completely justified. Now, you can argue that they shouldn't have included it, but then, you would have to argue that the KJV shouldn't have included its italics either.
It is your interpretation that governs the idea of this being wrong to you.
Btw, I see you didn't answer if this also includes the husband and wife together in private. Must a woman not adorn herself then either?
You are imposing your interpretation upon what they did. If they say they added it for clarity (much like the KJV and italics), you call it a wrong translation. I believe it is implied and completely justified. Now, you can argue that they shouldn't have included it, but then, you would have to argue that the KJV shouldn't have included its italics either.
It is your interpretation that governs the idea of this being wrong to you.
Btw, I see you didn't answer if this also includes the husband and wife together in private. Must a woman not adorn herself then either?
timothy 1769
New Member
Originally posted by Daniel David:
Wow, it is like talking to a wall.
The truth is like that.
You are imposing your interpretation upon what they did. If they say they added it for clarity (much like the KJV and italics), you call it a wrong translation.
Because it contradicts the literal meaning, and Paul's parallel passage.
I believe it is implied and completely justified.
Perhaps because that's what 21st century man would deperately like to believe? Find even ONE translation before 1900 that includes or even implies "merely". The vast majority of modern Christianity has been so brainwashed on this issue that many can't even admit what the Greek text literally says.
Now, you can argue that they shouldn't have included it, but then, you would have to argue that the KJV shouldn't have included its italics either.
Italics are fine for explicating, not contradicting the Greek text. Find ONE example of KJV italics contradicting the underlying text, turning a verse completely on it's head and contradicting other clear statements in the Bible.
It is your interpretation that governs the idea of this being wrong to you.
My "interpretation" is what it literally says. You, and the NASB, add to the text without any apparent justification whatsoever, other than that's probably what you'd really like it to say.
Btw, I see you didn't answer if this also includes the husband and wife together in private.
At your request.
Must a woman not adorn herself then either?
A woman should adorn herself at all times. The question is - how? Not externally. That's prohibited by God.
1 Peter 3
3Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing-- 4but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. (ESV)
Wow, it is like talking to a wall.
The truth is like that.
You are imposing your interpretation upon what they did. If they say they added it for clarity (much like the KJV and italics), you call it a wrong translation.
Because it contradicts the literal meaning, and Paul's parallel passage.
I believe it is implied and completely justified.
Perhaps because that's what 21st century man would deperately like to believe? Find even ONE translation before 1900 that includes or even implies "merely". The vast majority of modern Christianity has been so brainwashed on this issue that many can't even admit what the Greek text literally says.
Now, you can argue that they shouldn't have included it, but then, you would have to argue that the KJV shouldn't have included its italics either.
Italics are fine for explicating, not contradicting the Greek text. Find ONE example of KJV italics contradicting the underlying text, turning a verse completely on it's head and contradicting other clear statements in the Bible.
It is your interpretation that governs the idea of this being wrong to you.
My "interpretation" is what it literally says. You, and the NASB, add to the text without any apparent justification whatsoever, other than that's probably what you'd really like it to say.
Btw, I see you didn't answer if this also includes the husband and wife together in private.
At your request.
Must a woman not adorn herself then either?
A woman should adorn herself at all times. The question is - how? Not externally. That's prohibited by God.
1 Peter 3
3Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing-- 4but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. (ESV)
