Daniel David
New Member
The NASB is hardly dynamic equivalence. Their philosophy of translation is vastly different than the NIV and most other versions embrace.
FEOnly
FEOnly
-
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
Terry_Herrington
New Member
I have never heard the NASB called a DE translation before. I've always heard that it is extremely FE.
Headcoveredlady
New Member
Another error can be found in 1 Corinthians 7. In the NAS married couples are told only to pray. But, in the KJV they are told to pray AND to fast.
Daniel David
New Member
HCL, once again I feel compelled to point out that this thread is about whether or not the NASB correctly translated its underlying text. If this was a thread on the differences between the NASB and the KJV, that would be a good point. This isn't that thread though. So it isn't a good point.
Headcoveredlady
New Member
HCL, once again I feel compelled to point out that this thread is about whether or not the NASB correctly translated its underlying text. If this was a thread on the differences between the NASB and the KJV, that would be a good point. This isn't that thread though. So it isn't a good point. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, than you tell me why the NAS tells the couple only to pray?
Headcoveredlady
New Member
The biggest and worst error I have found so far in the NAS not only invalidates Jesus' Sonship but also His Diety.
It can be found in Luke 2:33
It can be found in Luke 2:33
Daniel David
New Member
HCL, again, the NASB correctly translated its underlying text. It did not translate anything incorrectly. Does this make sense?
The Received Text has "and pray" in it. It isn't an error that the NASB did not correctly translate the Received Text as it didn't use the TR.
Daniel David
New Member
Are you trying to hijack the thread?
Besides, the NASB gives the best testimony to Christ being God. I do not mean this is a demeaning way, but if you understood some greek constructs, you would know this. Instead, you are regurgitating KJVO nonsense. Please pick another thread to do that.
Headcoveredlady
New Member
Are you trying to hijack the thread?
Besides, the NASB gives the best testimony to Christ being God. I do not mean this is a demeaning way, but if you understood some greek constructs, you would know this. Instead, you are regurgitating KJVO nonsense. Please pick another thread to do that. </font>[/QUOTE]You asked what errors were in the NAS. Are you saying that this is truth that Jopeph is Jesus' father?
Daniel David
New Member
No, I asked where the NASB incorrectly translated ITS underlying text. This isn't about where it differs from the KJV or the TR.
Btw, Joseph is the father of Jesus. He isn't in the biological sense, but by adoption practices (especially in that day), full and complete sonship is given to the one adopted. Luke 2 isn't saying Joseph is the biological papa. That is just more KJVO sensationalism trying to confuse people who are easily confused.
Don't forget that we are adopted into God's family. Do you want to argue that our sonship is suspect also?
VERY INFORMATIVE! As a silent reader of this thread since its beginning, here is what I have learned so far (and none of it has to do with the original premise of the thread):Originally posted by BrianT:
This thread is very informative, but in a different way that was originally intended. Some of you catch my meaning, I'm sure.Others, probably not.
1. People can't read nor can they comprehend the original question.
2. Because of #1, half think that the word "greek" must mean "KJV".
3. The other half think that the NASB must have been translated from the TR.
In either case with 2 and 3, the NASB is being compared to the KJV.
Daniel, I don't know how you have put up with this for 5 screens already! I don't think you are going to find your answers here - which is too bad, because I truly looked forward to seeing the real answers to your question.
timothy 1769
New Member
Scott: 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.
No doubt if you add a word ("merely") and delete a few you can eventually get the text to say whatever you want....
If not, please look at some of the positive examples of "adornment" in the OT.
OK, I'll do that if you look at some of the positive examples of ritual animal sacrifice and Sabbath keeping.
And to keep this discussion on track, remember God wants women to be beautiful and adorned - just not through shallow external means.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Welcome to the new covenant!
No doubt if you add a word ("merely") and delete a few you can eventually get the text to say whatever you want....
If not, please look at some of the positive examples of "adornment" in the OT.
OK, I'll do that if you look at some of the positive examples of ritual animal sacrifice and Sabbath keeping.
And to keep this discussion on track, remember God wants women to be beautiful and adorned - just not through shallow external means.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Welcome to the new covenant!
Headcoveredlady
New Member
Oh, I do apologize for not carefully reading your opening question.
I still think the NAS has errors like the two I mentioned and the one that Timothy mentioned. As soon as I switched to KJV I finally understood the text in 1 Peter 3. For years it had baffled me when I was NAS only. It contradicted 1 Tim 2.
Going back to Anabaptist land....
I still think the NAS has errors like the two I mentioned and the one that Timothy mentioned. As soon as I switched to KJV I finally understood the text in 1 Peter 3. For years it had baffled me when I was NAS only. It contradicted 1 Tim 2.
Going back to Anabaptist land....
VERY INFORMATIVE! As a silent reader of this thread since its beginning, here is what I have learned so far (and none of it has to do with the original premise of the thread):Originally posted by mesly:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BrianT:
This thread is very informative, but in a different way that was originally intended. Some of you catch my meaning, I'm sure.
1. People can't read nor can they comprehend the original question.
2. Because of #1, half think that the word "greek" must mean "KJV".
3. The other half think that the NASB must have been translated from the TR.
In either case with 2 and 3, the NASB is being compared to the KJV.
Daniel, I don't know how you have put up with this for 5 screens already! I don't think you are going to find your answers here - which is too bad, because I truly looked forward to seeing the real answers to your question.
</font>[/QUOTE]
Is this what the KJV translators did also?
By the way, I am not asking you to "delete" anything. I am asking you to break down English grammar so that you can see that my interpretation of what the NASB says here is at least as valid as your bias driven interpretation.
If this is too much fairness to ask of you then I am willing to just drop it.
So you think women's adornment has something to do with sacrificial or ceremonial law? Come on Timothy, you know better... We both know that we aren't to discard everything the OT has to say about morality.If not, please look at some of the positive examples of "adornment" in the OT.
OK, I'll do that if you look at some of the positive examples of ritual animal sacrifice and Sabbath keeping.
And the NASB does not contradict but rather supports this assertion.
Exactly. </font>[/QUOTE]This phrase, "its underlying text" is the W/H text. </font>[/QUOTE]Askjo, When someone intentionally repeats a falsehood having been shown that it is a falsehood... what is that called?
The NASB DOES NOT USE THE WESTCOTT-HORT TEXT. Each and every time you say that it does, you make your self guilty.
BTW, when are you going to actually answer my question concerning where God said that the KJV was the accurate manifestation of His Word?
skanwmatos
New Member
I am not sure what you base that opinion on, but in his 1981 book "The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament - Yesterday and Today," Bruce Metzger, certainly one of the most influential of textual critics, makes the following statement, "The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration."
Furthermore, in the introduction to the 24th edition of the Nestle’s Greek New Testament, editors Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland say, "Thus the text, built up on the work of the 19th century, has remained as a whole unchanged, particularly since the research of recent years has not yet led to the establishment of a generally acknowledged N.T. text" (Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 24th edition, 1960, p. 62).
I am sure we are all aware the latest editions of the Critical Greek New Testament are not identical to the 1881 edition of Westcott and Hort, but they are so similar as to be "as a whole unchanged" according to those who compile and publish them.