What are the errors in the New American Standard?

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Askjo:
NASB on Luke 2:33 And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.

Only 16 MSS said, "father", However 43 MSS said, "Joseph." Why did the NASB not accept 43 MSS instead of 16 MSS?

This word, "father" is incorrect because it is undoctrinal.

DID IT CORRECTLY TRANSLATE ITS UNDERLYING TEXT?

If you can't comprehend what you read, just say so.

 

[Askjo]

Very interestingly, the NASB contradicted the prophecy from the Old Testament with the New testament. Why did the NASB mess up with the prophecy?

Ok, let us look closely on the prophecy.

NASB Psalm 69:21 They also gave me gall for my food And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

NASB Matthew 27:34 they gave Him wine to drink mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.

Only 25 MSS said, "wine." These 32 MSS said, "Vinegar." Why did the NASB reject massive manuscript evidences?

 

[BrianT]

We should be selling tickets to this thread.

 

[Daniel David]

Askjo, I am gunna have to ask you to ignore the thread as you have no idea what you are talking about.

It is like everyone at the water cooler is talking about the college football bowls only to have you walk up and talk about what color you painted your house.

I publicly accuse you of loitering on my thread.

[ December 11, 2003, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
DID IT CORRECTLY TRANSLATE ITS UNDERLYING TEXT?

If you can't comprehend what you read, just say so.

Any MSS supporting the MV readings agreed with the KJV. Any MSS supporting the MVs and the KJV will show their readings.

For Example, Sinaitic Syriac manuscript supporting MVs agreed with the KJV and rejected the MVs on Matthew 26:42.

 

[Daniel David]

Hello, McFly, is anybody home?

This isn't about the various underlying texts. It is about whether or not the NASB was faithful to translate accurately from the text the translators chose. In other words, did they ever incorrectly translate a word(s) from the ecclectic text.

We all know it is different from the KJVs underlying text.

- Olsen, what are you doing standing around? I ought to have you arrested for loitering.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
1 Peter 3
3   (1) Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

"merely" is incorrect, it horribly warps Peter's message and flatly contradicts Paul's parallel passage:

1 Timothy 2
9   Likewise, I want (1) women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,

If these translations are correct, the Holy Spirit made a boo-boo.

In fact there is no Greek support whatsoever for "merely" in the 1st Peter passage, this is a good example of how corrupt our modern translations can be.

As usual, context simply does not bear KJVO charges out:

3 Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;
4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands;
6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

Sarah wasn't just 'internally' beautiful. The Bible makes it clear that she was also very beautiful externally even as an older woman. Two kings with numerous wives and concubines wanted Sarah because of her appearance.

It isn't the NASB or NKJV that create a contradiction here. It is any version that does not use a word similar to "merely". Peter could not have used Sarah as his model if his intent was to condemn any sort of external adornment or beauty.

Daniel David is right also in saying that this supposed error is a child of your own biased interpretation. 1 Peter 3:3 (NASB) leaves some ambiguity. It is not necessary to read it as an endorsement of "braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses." Properly, faithfully interpretted, these verses in the NASB represent supporting, complimentary passages.

 

[timothy 1769]

Read carefully, external beauty is not prohibited but external beautification is. In any event, the beauty of a meek, quiet and submissive spirit is appreciated even by the unsaved.

We know how Sarah beautified herself, because Peter tells us - by being meek, quiet, and submissve.

 

[timothy 1769]

Inserting "merely" has Peter endorsing beautification via braided hair and gold. Paul categorically condemns such external adornment:

1Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Inserting "merely" has Peter endorsing beautification via braided hair and gold.

Nope. It has Peter giving examples of what a woman obsessed with external beauty would fixate themselves on.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Some people just don't understand this thread.

Askjo, start a new thread with that issue. I'd be happy to reply to it there.

God bless,
Brian

Well, the NASB correctly translated its underlying text while at the same time rejecting some of its supporting manuscripts.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Inserting "merely" has Peter endorsing beautification via braided hair and gold.

Nope. It has Peter giving examples of what a woman obsessed with external beauty would fixate themselves on. </font>[/QUOTE]ME'RELY, adv. Purely; only; solely; thus and no other way; for this and no other purpose

Merely means "only". You would have Peter saying to beautify yourself not onlywith gold and braided hair but also with a meek and quiet spirit, thereby contradicting Paul.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Askjo:
Well, the NASB correctly translated its underlying text ...

Exactly.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Reminder to all - be careful but with the choice of words/language used and with the attitude shown by your words.

We are DEBATING, not deriding. We are focusing on the issue, not personality.

You get the pix, I trust.

 

[Daniel David]

I just wanted to give a public apology for my use of certain words and phrases here. I got carried away quoting movie lines, and wasn't demonstrating tact and care in all of my choices.

I apologize for offensive and/or hurtful words.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Apology noted on this end. And appreciated you "blowing the whistle" and notifying me of your OWN thread when you realized you could not edit it yourself.

New motto: "Edit twice. Post once."

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Inserting "merely" has Peter endorsing beautification via braided hair and gold.

Nope. It has Peter giving examples of what a woman obsessed with external beauty would fixate themselves on. </font>[/QUOTE]ME'RELY, adv. Purely; only; solely; thus and no other way; for this and no other purpose

Merely means "only". You would have Peter saying to beautify yourself not onlywith gold and braided hair but also with a meek and quiet spirit, thereby contradicting Paul. </font>[/QUOTE]Do me a favor Tim, read I Peter 3:3-4 in the NASB without the subordinate clause of "braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses". Hopefully that will clear up the problem you have with this passage.

If not, please look at some of the positive examples of "adornment" in the OT. In one passage, (Ezekiel, I think), the Bible actually has an example of how God adorned Israel like a woman. It was an expression of honor and love. Further, the words that both Paul and Peter use had a context related to the styles of their day. The underlying principle isn't to forbid all beautification but to avoid vanity.

 

[Askjo]

The NASB incorrectly translated:
from three to thirty
from angel to eagle
from son to servant
from city to gate
from dead bodies to garments
from confess to give praise
from God to throne
And many, many others.

This is not faithfulness in translation.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by Askjo:
The NASB incorrectly translated:
from three to thirty
from angel to eagle
from son to servant
from city to gate
from dead bodies to garments
from confess to give praise
from God to throne
And many, many others.

This is not faithfulness in translation.

Are those examples where it mistranslated the greek text it came from? Again, this isn't about the other witnesses, etc. This is about the NASB and the ecclectic text.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
]Are those examples where it mistranslated the greek text it came from? Again, this isn't about the other witnesses, etc. This is about the NASB and the ecclectic text.

It is diabolical "dynamic equivalency" translation.