SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : NASB?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )
PosterThread
Clutch
Member



Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 NASB?

These are a couple of questions that I have for my pedantic British friend Ron Bailey. Perhaps he will find time to respond, and edify.
Hi Ron,

Have you recently found a better tranlation than the AV? I've noticed that you're using that NASB translation a lot in your devotional postings.

Speaking of translations, it was brought to my attention this week, by a thinking Pastor that in II Cor. 4:4 the Greek word Theos is the same word that was used when Paul said god little "g" and God big "G". Pastor X said that he had a difficult time describing Satan as " the god of this world", due to the unpleasantness he suffered prior to Pauls writing.

The Pastor said that he thinks God (big G) has blinded those who are lost, until they BELIEVE, then lifts the vail and reveals His glory through His Son Jesus of Nazerath (or something to that effect). Could my faithful translators of the AV erred? I don't recall anywhere else in scripture where Satan is refered to as "god of this world"?


II Cor. 3:12 ¶ Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
1 ¶ Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

If you get a chance let me know what you think, and what I've misspelled.

Thanks,
Clutch

P.S. :-P


_________________
Howard McNeill

 2004/5/16 19:11Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re: NASB?

Hi Clutch
you say These are a couple of questions that I have for my pedantic British friend Ron Bailey. Perhaps he will find time to respond, and edify.


Have you recently found a better tranlation than the AV? I've noticed that you're using that NASB translation a lot in your devotional postings.

You want 'pedantic'... you got it! I presume you are quoting my little comment that my use of the KJV is 'only temporary until I find a better version'. At least I hope that is what I said. Pedantically, the NASB and its granddad the ASV is probably a better 'translation' but not a better 'version'. (imho)

As a 'translation' the RV/ASV was a work of tremendous scholarship and integrity. It is probably the most 'readable' of the 'literal equivalence' translations. The American translation committee was even better than the English and consistently used Spirit instead of Ghost and other improvements. The ASV which comes free with programmes like Online Bible and E-sword is a wonderful tool FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT, but I have problems with the New Testament. And this is why I do not regard the RV/ASV/NASB as a better VERSION.

The problem is not the 'translation' but the underlying philosophy of manuscript selection. (Getting into deeper waters now). There is little dispute regarding the 'best' manuscripts for the Old Testament, so when you add a better translation to the best sources you get a better version. (I say better, not perfect) However, when you add a better translation to 'inferior' manuscripts you get an inferior version. So, in my opinion, the RV/ASV/NASB family is a better 'version' as regards the Old Testament, but an inferior 'version' as regards the New Testament.

The 'translation' philosophy of that family is 'literal equivalence' or, if you like, pedantic! Precise directions are better if you start from the right location, but if you start from the wrong location the very pedantry may lead you astray. You may notice that my quotes from the NASB are usually from the Old Testament.

So in what ways is the translation, not the version, better? The RV/ASV/NASB is more pedantic/accurate in its translation of prepositions and verb tenses. Generally it is even more word-for-word 'literal equivalence' than the KJV, although I have spotted some exceptions.

So. I have not yet found my 'better version' but as a tool for study I have used the RV/ASV/NASB family for many years to great personal profit.

OK? is that pedantic enough? ;-)

Good to hear from you, Clutch.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/5/18 13:36Profile
matthew
Member



Joined: 2004/4/22
Posts: 57


 Re:

I have been using a NASB for one of my main sources of study for the New Testiment (as well as old). Not being a scholar in the origional languages, should I stop using the NASB for the New? How concerned should I be?

matthew


_________________
matthew bauer

 2004/5/18 13:55Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re:

To anyone wondering what version they should use, I'd suggest two books:

(I might not have the titles exactly right)

D.A. Waite's [u]Defending the King James Bible[/u]

James White's [u]The King James Only Controversy[/u]

I'd advise reading both before coming to conclusions.

 2004/5/18 14:12Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 37521
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

I have been using the NIV translation for the most of 2004 and have found it very easy to read and to contextulize to others. But I find that the KJV has an awesomeness about it and a reverence that its Gods word. We so glibly read the scriptures sometimes and forget that this is God speaking to us! When listening to some speakers on this site speak so slowly and surely when reading the KJV with awe and reverence it makes me tremble. When I also see pictures of men of old who have old KJV bibles in their hands clutching hard because its so precious to them, its Gods message to usward. I pray and hope I can recaptured the reverence for the word of God like the men of old had.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2004/5/18 14:17Profile
Clutch
Member



Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Re:

Hi Ron,
Thank you for your reply. It took a little while, but I think I finally figured out what you said. I guess I do like pedantics, because I sure regard Ron Bailey, and his teachings very highly. I believe words mean something.

I disagreee with one comment that you made, probably because of the fundamentalist segment of chandalier swingers that I relate with. You said:
"There is little dispute regarding the 'best' manuscripts for the Old Testament, so when you add a better translation to the best sources you get a better version."

We would disagree and say: "there is BIG DISAGREEMENT". We contend that there are no better manuscripts for the Old Testament than the Masoretic Text. We would add that the Alexandrian manuscripts are inferior and polluted though they are older.

Like you said (paraphrased), "where you start from has a lot to do with where you end up." My opinion is, that the manuscripts that came down through the Masoretic Priesthood; (whose job it was to maintain scriptural continuity by exactly replicating the original language into the written WORD) are superior to those that came from Egypt.

Do you ever recall anything good originating from Egypt? Therefore, I believe the King James version is the most RELIABLE English translation.

Also, you never did address the big "G", little "g" part of the original post. :-x

I LUV YOU MAN,
Clutch :-P


_________________
Howard McNeill

 2004/5/19 8:12Profile
Agent001
Member



Joined: 2003/9/30
Posts: 386
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 Re: NASB?

Clutch,

Quote:
Speaking of translations, it was brought to my attention this week, by a thinking Pastor that in II Cor. 4:4 the Greek word Theos is the same word that was used when Paul said god little "g" and God big "G". Pastor X said that he had a difficult time describing Satan as " the god of this world", due to the unpleasantness he suffered prior to Pauls writing.

The Pastor said that he thinks God (big G) has blinded those who are lost, until they BELIEVE, then lifts the vail and reveals His glory through His Son Jesus of Nazerath (or something to that effect). Could my faithful translators of the AV erred? I don't recall anywhere else in scripture where Satan is refered to as "god of this world"?

First, every English translation that I have consulted translates [i]theos[/i] in "[i]god[/i] of this world" with a small [b]g[/b].

Second, you are right this is the only place where Paul uses the term "god" for Satan. [i]2 Corinthians of The IVP New Testament Commentaries[/i] says,
Quote:
Unbelievers cannot see the gospel's light because their minds have been blinded by the god of this age (v. 4). This is the only place where Paul refers to the adversary of God's people as a god. He is usually called Satan or the devil--although in Ephesians 2:2 he is named "the ruler of the kingdom of the air." It could well be that these are traditional formulations Paul used because of their familiarity to his readers. But there is no denying the power of this being. He can destroy the flesh (1 Cor 5:5), masquerade as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14) and empower his servant, the antichrist, to work all manner of miracles, signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9). Paul's thorn in the flesh is attributed to him (2 Cor 12:7), as is tempting (1 Cor 7:5), scheming against (2 Cor 2:11; Eph 6:11) and trapping (2 Tim 2:26) the believer. On more than one occasion Paul experienced firsthand his active opposition to the gospel (1 Thess 2:18).

There are also difficulties with your friend's suggestion, "[b]God[/b] of this age". The problem comes from [i]"of this age"[/i]. If [i]theos[/i] is to be translated as the one true God, a natural question arises, why did Paul used [i]"of this age"[/i] to qualify God?

I think Paul is consistent in other places in using [i]"this age"[/i] to refer to the period of time in which the current worldly system ([i]cosmos[/i]) runs. "Philosopher of this age" (1 Cor. 1:20). "Wisdom of this age" (1 Cor. 2:6). "Rulers of this age" (1 Cor. 2:6,8). "Wise by the standard of this age" (1 Cor. 3:18).

Ron can probably come up with a better solution, especially with the insight of the original language. I gather if I don't post before he does, then there probably is no need for me to post.
:-P


_________________
Sam

 2004/5/19 9:28Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Clutch
you write I disagreee with one comment that you made, probably because of the fundamentalist segment of chandalier swingers that I relate with. You said:
"There is little dispute regarding the 'best' manuscripts for the Old Testament, so when you add a better translation to the best sources you get a better version."

We would disagree and say: "there is BIG DISAGREEMENT". We contend that there are no better manuscripts for the Old Testament than the Masoretic Text. We would add that the Alexandrian manuscripts are inferior and polluted though they are older.

This is exactly my point. Other than the RSV all translations of the Old Testament have begun with the Masoretic text; that is what I meant by "there is little dispute regarding the best manuscripts for the Old Testament.". In other words because everyone, other than the translators of the RSV begin at the same point. If you start with the Masoretic text (as the RV/ASV/NASB family does) it ought to be possible to improve on the KJV given the advances in linguistic skills that we have today. The problem of the personal philosophy of the translator will always impact the translation. Any modern translator will tell you that it is impossible to remove all interpretation from translation. The nearest to this would be something like YOung's Literal Translation which can be very useful for study, but is not easily read otherwise.

I think I would hold the same views of the New Testament documents as you and your chandalier swinging buddies, (favouring the Byzantine/Majority/Received Text family) but this puts us into a minority as regards evangelicals (in the UK anyway).

It is possible to get an RV/KJV interlinear Bible which means that you can use the RV for the Old Testament and the KJV for the New Testament. It is published by Cambridge University Press. The only print they do makes the book rather bulky for hand-held preaching but it is a valuable study aid. I used one for 2/3 years and found it very helpful.

While on this note. Many fine Bible scholars, Vine, Scroggie, Campbell Morgan had a preference for the RV (ASV). Some prophetic scholars regard the RV/ASV almost as 'inspired' in the Old Testament. Spurgeon once said he feared that the inferior RV New Testament would gain acceptance on the back of the excellence of the RV Old Testament; that would be my concern too. I will see if I can find Spurgeon's quotation.

I see Sam has pitched into 'g' versus 'G'. I will comment later.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/5/19 12:56Profile
philologos
Member



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

 Re:

Hi Sam
you write Ron can probably come up with a better solution, especially with the insight of the original language. I gather if I don't post before he does, then there probably is no need for me to post.

I know you are joking but this is one of the reasons I sometimes wait before posting. I love the idea of a 'forum' which was the Roman market place. Room for everyone to add their 2c (or 2p from this side the water). :-D We all 'know in part' and I do believe that God's voice is to be heard in His church so I listen and think before I choose.

Do you recall Francis Bacon's comment (1561-1626)
"Read not to contradict and confute,
nor to believe and take for granted,
nor to find talk and discourse,
but to weigh and consider.

Some books are to be tasted
others to be swallowed
and some few to be chewed and digested"

What he says of writers I would repeat for 'post-ers'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/5/19 13:06Profile
Clutch
Member



Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Re:

Hi Ron and Sam,
Always good to hear from a couple(2) of the 7000, that have not bowed their knee to Baal. Ron, my understanding of the RSV/ASV is that it was supposed to a revision of the KJV. What happened is that the translators delved into the most ancient texts for both testaments making it all suspect in my opinion.

The Enlish speaking world has not had a real revival in about 100 years, since SOMEONE got the bright idea to change the bible, and make it easier to understand. There are so many English translations on the market now, that I can't (nor do I desire)to keep up. I heard someone say that there are 38,000 errors in the NIV. Isn't that one based upon the same manuscripts as the RSV/ASV?

Like you said, I'll keep my AV 'til something better comes along.

Clutch ;-)

P.S. Sam you're right. Sometimes Ron doesn't leave a lot left to be said. But when he say's something we know it's worth listening to , eh? 8-)


_________________
Howard McNeill

 2004/5/19 13:47Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy