SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : General Topics : What about the New American Standard Bible (NASB)?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread









 What about the New American Standard Bible (NASB)?

The New American Standard Bible (NASB or NASV) is a revision of the 1901 American Standard Version and was produced by a team of translators working with the Lockman Foundation, the publisher of the Amplified Bible. The NASB was produced as a more conservative counterpart to the Revised Standard Version., which was published in 1946 (NT) and 1952 (whole Bible). Work began on the NASB in 1959 and the New Testament was issued in 1963 and the complete Bible in 1971. The original foreword to the New Testament stated, "It has been the purpose of the Editorial Board to present to the modern reader a revision of the American Standard Version in clear and contemporary language." A similar statement appears in the preface to the 2002 NASB Thinline Bible..

ANSWER:

1. The New American Standard Version is basically a literal translation like the King James Bible, and as such it is superior to the modern dynamic equivalencies such as the New International Version.

2. In spite of its largely conservative approach to translation technique and the evangelicalism of its translators (as opposed to the rank theological liberalism of the translators who produced the Revised Standard Version), the NASB cannot be trusted because it is built upon the unsound scholarship of liberals and Unitarians.

The NASB is built upon the English Revised Version of 1885 and the American Standard Version of 1901 (which was the American edition of the English Revised). At least three Christ-denying Unitarians were on these translation committees (George Vance Smith, Ezra Abbot, and Joseph Henry Thayer). The committees also included many men of modernistic views, such as Philip Schaff (twice brought to trial for heresy), William Robertson Smith (who was evicted from the Free Church Theological College for his modernism), B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (both of whom denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture and Christ's substitutionary atonement and believed in evolution), and Anglican Broad Church members William Moulton, George Milligan, R.C. Trench, Edward Bickersteth, Benjamin Kennedy, A.P. Stanley, Robert Payne Smith, William Humphrey, and John Vaughan.

3. In spite of its basically conservative, literal approach to translation methodology, the NASV cannot be trusted because it is based on the corrupt Greek New Testament that was produced through the skeptical pseudo-science of modern textual criticism.

The NASV is based on the corrupt critical Greek New Testament as opposed to the Greek Received Text underlying the Reformation Bibles. The critical Greek New Testament is built upon a handful of strange manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt, which was a hotbed of theological heresy in the centuries following the apostles. Frederick Scrivener, a prominent textual scholar of the 19th century, testified, "It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that THE WORST CORRUPTIONS TO WHICH THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS EVER BEEN SUBJECTED, ORIGINATED WITHIN A HUNDRED YEARS AFTER IT WAS COMPOSED; and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior MSS. to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens, thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Received Text" (Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, II, 4th edition, 1894, pp. 264, 265).

Not only do the manuscripts preferred by modern textual critics (chiefly the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus) disagree in thousands of places from the vast majority of other extant manuscripts, they also disagree among themselves in thousands of places.

The modern critical Greek New Testament is built upon the strange and unbelieving principle that the alleged purest text of apostolic Scripture (the Alexandrian or Egyptian as represented by the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts) was set aside in the fourth century and was replaced with an artificially created recension (the Traditional or Byzantine text) that was formed by conflating various extant texts, and that it was the impure recension that became the Bible of the churches for 1,500 years of church history until the alleged best text was recovered in the 19th century through the principles of modern textual criticism. This was a foundational principle of Westcott and Hort (the Lucian Recension) and it has remained foundational to modern textual criticism into the 21st century, even though it flies in the face of any scriptural and reasonable doctrine of divine preservation.

The omissions alone in the critical Greek text equate the deletion of the entire books of 1 and 2 Peter from the modern version New Testaments.

The NASV omits outright or casts serious doubt upon 43 entire verses in the New Testament. It omits outright the following sixteen: Matthew 17:21; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; 24:40; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7. It further casts serious doubt upon another twenty-seven verses (Matthew 18:11; 23:14; Mark 16:9-20; Luke 24:12; John 7:53-8:11) by putting them in brackets or by separating them from the previous passages and adding footnotes that discredit their authority.

The NASV also omits a significant portion of another 174 verses, not including those it casts doubt upon with marginal notes.

The NASV, following the critical Greek text, weakens key doctrines of the Bible. An example is the doctrine of Christ's deity. The omissions and changes in the NASV do not result in the complete removal of this doctrine, but they do result in an overall weakening of it.

Consider the following examples:

Mark 9:24 -- The father's testimony that Jesus is "Lord" is omitted.

Mark 16:9-20 -- This glorious passage is bracketed, signifying that it is not considered apostolic Scripture. A footnote says, "Later mss add vv 9-20," clearly implying that it is not authentic. With this omission, the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Mark ends with no resurrection or glorious ascension and with the disciples fearful and confused.

Luke 23:42 -- The thief's testimony that Jesus is "Lord" is omitted.

John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 -- "only begotten Son" changed to "one and only"

John 1:27 -- "is preferred before me" is omitted

John 3:13 -- "which is in heaven" is omitted, thus removing this powerful witness to Christ's omnipresence

John 6:69 -- "thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God" is changed to "you are the Holy One of God," thus destroying this powerful witness that Jesus is the very Christ, the Son of God, a doctrine that was under fierce assault in the early centuries.

John 8:59 -- "but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by" is replaced with "but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple," thus destroying the miracle of this scene. Whereas the Greek Received Text teaches here that Jesus supernaturally went out through the midst of the angry crowd that was trying to kill Him, the modern versions have Jesus merely hiding Himself.

Acts 8:37 -- The eunuch's glorious testimony that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is bracketed and a footnote says, "Early mss do not contain this verse," signifying that it is not apostolic Scripture.

Romans 14:10 -- "Christ" changed to "God"; the "judgment seat of Christ" identifies Jesus Christ directly with Jehovah God (Isaiah 45:23), whereas the "judgment seat of God" does not.

1 Cor. 15:47 -- "the Lord" is omitted

Eph. 3:9 -- "by Jesus Christ" is omitted

1 Tim. 3:16 -- "God" is omitted, thus removing one of clearest references to Jesus Christ as God in the New Testament

1 John 5:7 -- The glorious Trinitarian confession is omitted, even though it has more manuscript and versional evidence than most of the Alexandrian readings preferred by modern textual critics, including many of those listed above. For example, the omission of Mark 16:9-20 is supported by only three Greek manuscripts of the hundreds that are extant and that contain this passage.

The same can be demonstrated for the doctrine of the virgin birth, the blood atonement, the ascension, and ecclesiastical separation. All of these are weakened in the modern versions.

The NASV further attacks the doctrine of fasting. Though the word "fasting" is not removed entirely from the modern versions, the doctrine that fasting is a crucial element of spiritual warfare is removed. In this context the NASV omits the entire verse of Mat. 17:21, plus the word "fasting" in Mk. 9:29; Acts 10:30; 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 6:5; and 2 Cor. 11:27.

Krispy

 2005/9/9 8:18
5nva
Member



Joined: 2003/8/15
Posts: 179


 Re: What about the New American Standard Bible (NASB)?

Krispy:

At first glace I just wanted to point out that my NASB does not omitt these verses like you stated in this paragragh.

It omits outright the following sixteen: Matthew 17:21; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; 24:40; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7.

My NASB also does not omitt Mat. 17:21 and does not change the word fasting as you stated in this paragragh.

In this context the NASV omits the entire verse of Mat. 17:21.

I have not had time to research everything else you stated but the fact that these are errors in your argument would cause me to cast doubt on the rest of what is stated.

I may be wrong about this but I looked up these verses in my NASB and they are there.

I personally think the NASB is a good translation and when I study God's word I use the NASB along with the KJV and they always seem to be saying pretty much the same thing. One may use a different word but when you study verses through with a concordance the Lord brings it all together.

Sorry if I've disappointed you.

Mike


_________________
Mike

 2005/9/9 8:40Profile
Joshua99
Member



Joined: 2005/5/19
Posts: 118
Austin Tx.

 Re: What about the New American Standard Bible (NASB)?

Apart from your detail sumary on why I shouldn't use the NASV, what translation do you not find fault and error with? I have always in all my research used multible translations to find the heart of God in study. Being that the Truth of the Word of God is in Spirit, and requires the Holy Spirit for anyone to come to understand the wisdom that lies between the words and thoughts written in scripture, I believe the hour we live in now, time would be better spent reveiling the truth God has given to you, rather than finding fault and error. I know you will not except this, nor see why I am saying this. but to lift up the Name of Jesus, seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Speak the Word of God in all Truth, so by what you speak will bring encouragement and hope. Blessings


_________________
Bryan

 2005/9/9 8:57Profile









 Re:

Let me ask you this... in your copy of the NASB does it refer you to the footnotes where it says something like "the oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not have this verse"? If so... it's the same thing.

When the footnotes say "the oldest and most reliable" it is referring to the Alexandrian Text, which there is absolutely no proof that it is the oldest and most reliable.

As to the verses you are claiming I missed it on, I know for a fact that the NASB I have on my shelf does in fact omit these verses.

Krispy

 2005/9/9 8:58
5nva
Member



Joined: 2003/8/15
Posts: 179


 Re:

Krispy:

My NASB does have something like that mentioned in the footnotes, but this is not the same as omitting the verse. Omitting the verse means to remove it like it does in the NIV.

Also, I have a NASB right here with me now and I have checked and those verses are present in my bible for me to read.

I also agree with Joshua99 and will humbly receive what he is saying. I will continue to use my NASB and KJV together and seek the Lord and ask the Holy Spirit for understanding.

God bless you my friend.

Mike


_________________
Mike

 2005/9/9 9:05Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Apart from your detail sumary on why I shouldn't use the NASV, what translation do you not find fault and error with? I have always in all my research used multible translations to find the heart of God in study. Being that the Truth of the Word of God is in Spirit, and requires the Holy Spirit for anyone to come to understand the wisdom that lies between the words and thoughts written in scripture, I believe the hour we live in now, time would be better spent reveiling the truth God has given to you, rather than finding fault and error. I know you will not except this, nor see why I am saying this. but to lift up the Name of Jesus, seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Speak the Word of God in all Truth, so by what you speak will bring encouragement and hope. Blessings



Truth is important. If you dont have the truth in front of you... you have false. Unlike you, I see this issue very important in this day of apostacy.

I'm not telling you what to do. You make up your own mind. All I'm doing is providing information. Whenever someone brings up something that needs to be addressed, the automatic response is "stop telling me what to do!" from some. I dont understand this.

Krispy

 2005/9/9 9:14
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: What about the New American Standard Bible (NASB)?

krsipy writes, and not for the first time...

Quote:
the NASB cannot be trusted because it is built upon the unsound scholarship of liberals and Unitarians

You can hold a preference for the Byzantine text without quite such an extreme statement. Personally I think the scholarship and theology behind the KJV could be challenged on very similar grounds. The churchmanship of its chief Anglican scholars and its elevation of the 'status quo' is evident throughout. In many ways it is an 'anti-protestant' version and was specifically designed to alter key aspects of truth found in Tyndale and the Geneva Bible.

The NASB is better than the KJV in its rendering of verb tenses, prepositions and most things to do with ecclesiastical patterns. The piety of some of its key translators is extremely questionable as was their persecution of non-conformists.

In this sense you should not 'trust' the KJV either. Check it out and check out the NASB too.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/9/9 9:20Profile









 Re:

Bashing the NASB like its the Watchman's bible i believe is Non-Christlike. Saying it could lead us into apostasy. Well, so could anything; KJV, NLT, Amplified. It doesn't matter what version you use (to some degree yes) that will lead you into apostasy but the person who preaches outta it. Someone might say 'well, i believe this, cause my bible says it'. Well put a few bibles together and lets truly figure out what God meant by it, and looking it all within context.

Each and every verse should be taken carefully and with a strong eye on them. I don't think anyone should EVER just use ONE bible. But numerous to compare and contrast.

But above all of that, I think its best to just say "Lord, where shall I go for You to speak to me today? Or what passage do You wanna teach me this very hour in my life"...etc..etc.

 2005/9/9 14:34









 Re:

YeshuaIsMyGd... ever heard of the Alexandrian Text? Ever heard of the Received Text? Do you know the history of them? If you dont, find out. Then we'll talk more.

Krispy

 2005/9/9 16:17
Gery
Member



Joined: 2005/8/29
Posts: 95
0

 Re: NASV

Dear Brethren,

I find that diffirent Bible translations are actually a help in getting the best out of God's Word. The NASV is one translation that I do not yet have, but I would like to get one.
Look, I agree that some translations are more accurate and I even agree that certain verses were left out or wording changed. What is important is that we should be conscious of these facts. If you are going to choose to defend the Trinity, please don't use a NIV. The KJV is better. But then again, Jehovah's Witnesses will prefer that same KJV to prove some of their lies.

A Christian should be a fervent Bible Scholar and go in as deep into the meaning of God's Word as possible. Rather thank God for the many translations that He has given us.

In Him,
Gery

 2005/9/9 16:45Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy