Av-nasb- Ect

PastorFaulk · #1 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 06:38 AM

I have recently had one of my members come to me and ask about my choice of translation. I use a NASB. I have always used that translation because as I have learned to translate, I have found that my literal translation almost always mirrors the NASB word for word. I did not want to hijack the AV thread, but I wonder why AV/NKJV, as opposed to other translations. I do want to set parameters for the discussion so as to avoid confusion, I don’t want to deal with poor translations (message tniv niv ect.), I would like to keep this between solid orthodox translations.

larryjf · #2 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 09:24 AM

I am not sure what your question is so please clarify if this doesn't answer it...

The AV/NKJV use a different textual base than the NASB.

From my experience the NKJV is very similar to the NASB translation. The differences...
1 - they use different textual bases
2 - the NKJV seems to render nouns a little better than the NASB
3 - the NASB seems to render verb tenses a little better than the NKJV

For point #2 one example is the NASB rendering the Hebrew "ach" as "countrymen" instead of "brothers" consistently throughout the OT.

For point #3 one example is Jn 20:23 where the NASB reads "...their sins have been forgiven them..." while the NKJV reads "...they are forgiven them..."

fredtgreco · #3 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 11:57 AM

My experience has been that the NASB is the least accessible of the modern translations for the layman. It is indeed very literal, and a very accurate translation. But the English stylist was either on vacation, or Yoda sat in for him at times. For that reason, I don't have the NASB used generally in the congregation.

If one were not going to use the NASB, you have basically two choices: (1) AV/NKJV or (2) ESV. The NKJV is going to be similar (often more so than even the ESV), but have differences based on textual matters (i.e. Pastor, why are you not preaching on this phrase in my Bible). The ESV will be closer on textual issues, but a bit different in style, phraseology, etc.

etexas · #4 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorFaulk

I have recently had one of my members come to me and ask about my choice of translation. I use a NASB. I have always used that translation because as I have learned to translate, I have found that my literal translation almost always mirrors the NASB word for word. I did not want to hijack the AV thread, but I wonder why AV/NKJV, as opposed to other translations. I do want to set parameters for the discussion so as to avoid confusion, I don’t want to deal with poor translations (message tniv niv ect.), I would like to keep this between solid orthodox translations.

Dear Pastor, I assume yu are referring to my AV Thread of Thursday. Why AV for me? Firstly my good brother I never did or would suggest the NASB is not "orthodox", I made that clear in several post, the choice for me is the Hebrew and Greek undergirding the AV as opposed to that of the NASB. I further stated I would never judge another Christian for his/her choice of a Bible. I stand by that, I hope you are blessed in your use of the NASB and the Lord meets you in its pages. I assume this is the queston you are asking and I hope I have given an answer in Christian charity my Brother. Grace and Peace.

KMK · #5 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

My experience has been that the NASB is the least accessible of the modern translations for the layman. It is indeed very literal, and a very accurate translation. But the English stylist was either on vacation, or Yoda sat in for him at times. For that reason, I don't have the NASB used generally in the congregation.

Priceless!

etexas · #6 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

My experience has been that the NASB is the least accessible of the modern translations for the layman. It is indeed very literal, and a very accurate translation. But the English stylist was either on vacation, or Yoda sat in for him at times. For that reason, I don't have the NASB used generally in the congregation.

Priceless!

Chuckle! Yoda! I missed that on the first read!

PastorFaulk · #7 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fingolfin

Dear Pastor, I assume yu are referring to my AV Thread of Thursday. Why AV for me? Firstly my good brother I never did or would suggest the NASB is not "orthodox", I made that clear in several post, the choice for me is the Hebrew and Greek undergirding the AV as opposed to that of the NASB. I further stated I would never judge another Christian for his/her choice of a Bible. I stand by that, I hope you are blessed in your use of the NASB and the Lord meets you in its pages. I assume this is the queston you are asking and I hope I have given an answer in Christian charity my Brother. Grace and Peace.

Forgive me if I came off harsh in any way. The non orthodox translations I was hoping to leave out of the conversation were the paraphrases and politicaly driven bibles like the TNIV.

PastorFaulk · #8 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 06:31 PM

I need to clarify my inquiry. I am asking the men on this board because going through several Baptist schools we never dealt with why kjv or why nasb. I have had a member suggest that KJV or NKJV only is correct, and I was wondering if that line of thought had any merit, and what is the reasoning behind it. I have done a bit or research and have seen a few differences. For me it is hard getting over the KJV only mentality because I tie it with my dispensational brothers who often use it for their own gain.

Greg · #9 (**permalink**) 08-24-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

But the English stylist was either on vacation, or Yoda sat in for him at times.

Quite funny, you are!

KMK · #10 (**permalink**) 08-25-2007, 04:26 AM

I would suggest these threads:

KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority
Do textual variants give us confidence?

just for starters