# Quality of the NASB?



## God'sElectSaint

I don't want to be one to keep  But the topic of manuscripts and English translations have been of high interest for me lately. Want I want to ask is about the New American Standard Version. I have never read it much but in studying translations lately I see a lot of good things about it's accuracy/literalness. I enjoy watching MacArthur and he preaches from it and I often like what I hear. I was thinking of getting a cheap copy of it to add to my library. I am sure someone on PB uses it. So, is it really that accurate and scholarly? Is it really that wooden as some say? am I missing out by not using this version of God's word? Is it strictly a critical text based translation? Michael Marlowe for instance, who I find to be a fair critic, says the NAS is no more literal than the NKJV and he even says the NKJV sometimes exceeds it. So, NAS users what is your case for the NAS? and of course any critics what is your case against the NAS?


----------



## KeithW

Technically it is the "New American Standard Bible" (NASB). 

The NKJV and NASB are based on different New Testament text types. The former on the Textus Receptus and the latter on the critical text. I would recommend having translations from both text types.

Knowing that the NASB is a more literal translation, I tried reading a couple of books in it last year. My thought was let me figure out what the literal translation might mean instead of translators maybe taking a particular translation too far. I finally had to put the NASB down because of the awkwardness of the English. The problem for me was not the literal translation itself, but that the additions added by the translators to supposedly "help" made it more awkward. I found if I skipped over the translator's additions it typically read easier, and with no loss of meaning.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Yes I am aware of the textual base differences though even if you don't prefer the TR the NKJV makes up for it in it's extensive footnotes. I have heard this awkwardness claim but I read the ASV 1901 and I rather like it and I would suppose that is even more awkward the NASB. I noticed a second ago that Michael Marlowe thinks the old ASV is more accurate then the NASB and better for close study.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I used the NASB as my regular Bible for many years. I never thought of it as wooden or awkward reading, but i have seen comments to the contrary. It is indeed very accurate. I personally have no problem with the Critical Text of today. Along the way, I got the NKJV and ESV as companion Bibles for study and comparison. My daily reader now is usually the ESV.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Jimmy the Greek said:


> I used the NASB as my regular Bible for many years. I never thought of it as wooden or awkward reading, but i have seen comments to the contrary. It is indeed very accurate. I personally have no problem with the Critical Text of today. Along the way, I got the NKJV and ESV as companion Bibles for study and comparison. My daily reader now is usually the ESV.



Yeah I've been reading through it a little past couple hours and I have yet to see the Yoda like qualities attributed to it but they could be somewhere in it. I think it could be pretty useful. I use a lot of translations off and on. I find the KJV to be the one I most prefer. I kinda want to narrow my studies down to 2 main bibles. The ESV is up and down for me, I have the ESV study bible which is a great resource! Sometimes I really enjoy it and then other times I find it very disappointing. NKJV is good but I feel like I mine as well use the KJV for a TR translation. I'm thinking the NASB would be a good supplement bible for my studies. I honestly would prefer ASV 1901 which I use online, hard to find a decent printed copy of that though. From what I've seen the ASV id quite a bit more accurate and it's use of the plural pronoun "Ye" is helpful. Honestly I think ESV leans toward dynamic equivalent more then it's marketing suggest.


----------



## Captain Picard

God'sElectSaint said:


> Jimmy the Greek said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used the NASB as my regular Bible for many years. I never thought of it as wooden or awkward reading, but i have seen comments to the contrary. It is indeed very accurate. I personally have no problem with the Critical Text of today. Along the way, I got the NKJV and ESV as companion Bibles for study and comparison. My daily reader now is usually the ESV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I've been reading through it a little past couple hours and I have yet to see the Yoda like qualities attributed to it but they could be somewhere in it. I think it could be pretty useful. I use a lot of translations off and on. I find the KJV to be the one I most prefer. I kinda want to narrow my studies down to 2 main bibles. The ESV is up and down for me, I have the ESV study bible which is a great resource! Sometimes I really enjoy it and then other times I find it very disappointing. NKJV is good but I feel like I mine as well use the KJV for a TR translation. I'm thinking the NASB would be a good supplement bible for my studies. I honestly would prefer ASV 1901 which I use online, hard to find a decent printed copy of that though. From what I've seen the ASV id quite a bit more accurate and it's use of the plural pronoun "Ye" is helpful. *Honestly I think ESV leans toward dynamic equivalent more then it's marketing suggest.*
Click to expand...


For what it's worth, Dr. James White has called the ESV "the NASB w/o semicolons", and he's worked on translation committees. Full disclosure: I read and value critical-text Bibles, and Dr. White's findings on textual criticism and Bible translation are viewed with high dudgeon by the Byzantine-text preferred folk. So don't just take my word for it. But I like the ESV. And NASB. And NKJV.


----------



## JimmyH

I have a wide margin NASB and it is the only Bible in which I underline and make margin notes. I've also read that it is 'wooden', but I believe that is more from a preaching at the pulpit point of view. For reading and study it is fine for me. 

If you are very interested in translations get a copy of the NET Study Bible. It not only contains study notes, but translator's notes as well. It is also considered to be a very literal translation, perhaps equal to, or surpassing, the NASB. 

Of course the NASB is a revision of the ASV of 1901, which is a revision of the RV of 1885, which is a revision of the KJV of 1769 (If I recall correctly)


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Captain Picard said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jimmy the Greek said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used the NASB as my regular Bible for many years. I never thought of it as wooden or awkward reading, but i have seen comments to the contrary. It is indeed very accurate. I personally have no problem with the Critical Text of today. Along the way, I got the NKJV and ESV as companion Bibles for study and comparison. My daily reader now is usually the ESV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I've been reading through it a little past couple hours and I have yet to see the Yoda like qualities attributed to it but they could be somewhere in it. I think it could be pretty useful. I use a lot of translations off and on. I find the KJV to be the one I most prefer. I kinda want to narrow my studies down to 2 main bibles. The ESV is up and down for me, I have the ESV study bible which is a great resource! Sometimes I really enjoy it and then other times I find it very disappointing. NKJV is good but I feel like I mine as well use the KJV for a TR translation. I'm thinking the NASB would be a good supplement bible for my studies. I honestly would prefer ASV 1901 which I use online, hard to find a decent printed copy of that though. From what I've seen the ASV id quite a bit more accurate and it's use of the plural pronoun "Ye" is helpful. *Honestly I think ESV leans toward dynamic equivalent more then it's marketing suggest.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, Dr. James White has called the ESV "the NASB w/o semicolons", and he's worked on translation committees. Full disclosure: I read and value critical-text Bibles, and Dr. White's findings on textual criticism and Bible translation are viewed with high dudgeon by the Byzantine-text preferred folk. So don't just take my word for it. But I like the ESV. And NASB. And NKJV.
Click to expand...


I respect Dr.White highly though I don't with him completely in the area of textual criticism I still consider his views and I've watched a lot of his stuff on the King James Only Controversy and find it very sound and I'm glad he exposes those cultist types who are troubling the body of Christ. Like I said once you narrow it down to the good accurate translations(NASB,NKJV,ESV,KJV) it's pretty much text bases and preference from there. The ESV isn't bad it's my churches translation, I would consider it a more free formal equivalent and it's literary qualities are quite nice but I think the NKJV for instance is a more solid in terms of adherents to the original text.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

JimmyH said:


> I have a wide margin NASB and it is the only Bible in which I underline and make margin notes. I've also read that it is 'wooden', but I believe that is more from a preaching at the pulpit point of view. For reading and study it is fine for me.
> 
> If you are very interested in translations get a copy of the NET Study Bible. It not only contains study notes, but translator's notes as well. It is also considered to be a very literal translation, perhaps equal to, or surpassing, the NASB.
> 
> Of course the NASB is a revision of the ASV of 1901, which is a revision of the RV of 1885, which is a revision of the KJV of 1769 (If I recall correctly)



Hmm. The NET Bible? I've heard some about it I heard the footnotes are extensive. Thanks Jimmy I might check this out. Do you own one?


----------



## JimmyH

God'sElectSaint said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a wide margin NASB and it is the only Bible in which I underline and make margin notes. I've also read that it is 'wooden', but I believe that is more from a preaching at the pulpit point of view. For reading and study it is fine for me.
> 
> If you are very interested in translations get a copy of the NET Study Bible. It not only contains study notes, but translator's notes as well. It is also considered to be a very literal translation, perhaps equal to, or surpassing, the NASB.
> 
> Of course the NASB is a revision of the ASV of 1901, which is a revision of the RV of 1885, which is a revision of the KJV of 1769 (If I recall correctly)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. The NET Bible? I've heard some about it I heard the footnotes are extensive. Thanks Jimmy I might check this out. *Do you own one?*
Click to expand...


I do. Daniel Wallace is the senior NT editor and that put it on my radar. I find it to be very good as a reference for a layman such as I am. I have a hard copy, and a kindle copy, but prefer the hard copy. I'm an old guy and like a book in my lap, turning pages. It is well worth having AFAIC.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

JimmyH said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a wide margin NASB and it is the only Bible in which I underline and make margin notes. I've also read that it is 'wooden', but I believe that is more from a preaching at the pulpit point of view. For reading and study it is fine for me.
> 
> If you are very interested in translations get a copy of the NET Study Bible. It not only contains study notes, but translator's notes as well. It is also considered to be a very literal translation, perhaps equal to, or surpassing, the NASB.
> 
> Of course the NASB is a revision of the ASV of 1901, which is a revision of the RV of 1885, which is a revision of the KJV of 1769 (If I recall correctly)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. The NET Bible? I've heard some about it I heard the footnotes are extensive. Thanks Jimmy I might check this out. *Do you own one?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do. Daniel Wallace is the senior NT editor and that put it on my radar. I find it to be very good as a reference for a layman such as I am. I have a hard copy, and a kindle copy, but prefer the hard copy. I'm an old guy and like a book in my lap, turning pages. It is well worth having AFAIC.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I like a book as well. It looks very interesting. Looks like the translators are very transparent in the notes, that's a good thing. The ESV study bible has some pretty good resources. I use my KJV Matthew Henry study bible a lot. I really enjoy his commentary. Ya know I regret choosing the ESV study bible though, as I recently noticed the KJV reformation heritage sb and that looks really good! I might have to still get one.


----------



## DMcFadden

Edward,

Many of your questions are similar, yet it is obvious that you have studied all of this pretty closely (even viewing James White videos). If you want a plebiscite on PB opinions, there are NUMEROUS past threads on the subjects of translations where you can pretty much read what most of us think, endlessly argued. When it comes to translations we get around to the same questions on the PB every few months.

Yes, the NASB is a fine translation that takes its rightful place alongside MANY other fine translations, useful for study, depending on your purposes.

It renders the parataxis and syntaxis in the original language in a word-for-word manner. This is great if you do not know Hebrew or Greek and want a 10 foot sign announcing "this is a continuous present tense" or "this is a perfect tense with past actions involving on-going consequences into the present." If you are trying to read from the pulpit, it can be a pain.

The two questions that must be asked in my opinion, are as follows: 1. which textual tradition and 2. what translation philosophy.

Your choices for #1 are primarily KJV or NKJV for a majority text type and everything else for the CT. For question #2, you have KJB, NKJV, ESV, NASB for the more formal correspondence type; the NIV, NLT, God's Word, etc. for the dynamic equivalent type; and Living Bible and The Message for the paraphrastic ones. The HCSB is essentially literal but has some things in common with the dynamic as well.

Since I believe in using the formal correspondence type, I typically use the ESV, supplemented by the KJV and NKJV. In the last few years, none of the others have been on my radar. And, since my denomination has pretty much adopted the ESV, it is the only Bible I preach from anymore. Besides, the NASB is just too tedious to use in my opinion. If you want to know how the original Greek read, why not use the original Greek and cut out the middle man?


----------



## Pilgrim

1. Michael Marlowe is right about the NASB vs. the NKJV. This is probably most clear in the OT, where the NKJV probably retains more Hebraisms than any other modern translation. Often the NASB will render it in more modern English idiom. I noticed this as a newbie when comparing the translations. Not infrequently will the NASB have "_Lit_._ xyx_" in the margin and the NKJV (and KJV) will have it in the text. I said to myself "If it's supposed to be the 'most literal' why pull punches like this?" And this was true even to some extent with the 1977 and isn't just a problem with the 1995 update. So in many regards the NKJV is every bit as "literal" as the NASB. And I'd think almost everyone would agree that it has superior literary quality, etc. Marlowe's initial review of the NKJV was rather negative because of his disagreement with its textual basis. But as you can see he doesn't see that as being as big of a deal as before. He seems to have cooled somewhat toward the ESV as well. His skewering of the NLT is priceless and the review of the NET is rather revealing. 

2. I've seen at least one report on FB that there is a revision of the NASB in the works that will be released in the near future. Hopefully they won't move much further in the direction of making it "more readable." If they do that it may render it irrelevant.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

DMcFadden said:


> Edward,
> 
> Many of your questions are similar, yet it is obvious that you have studied all of this pretty closely (even viewing James White videos). If you want a plebiscite on PB opinions, there are NUMEROUS past threads on the subjects of translations where you can pretty much read what most of us think, endlessly argued. When it comes to translations we get around to the same questions on the PB every few months.
> 
> Yes, the NASB is a fine translation that takes its rightful place alongside MANY other fine translations, useful for study, depending on your purposes.
> 
> It renders the parataxis and syntaxis in the original language in a word-for-word manner. This is great if you do not know Hebrew or Greek and want a 10 foot sign announcing "this is a continuous present tense" or "this is a perfect tense with past actions involving on-going consequences into the present." If you are trying to read from the pulpit, it can be a pain.
> 
> The two questions that must be asked in my opinion, are as follows: 1. which textual tradition and 2. what translation philosophy.
> 
> Your choices for #1 are primarily KJV or NKJV for a majority text type and everything else for the CT. For question #2, you have KJB, NKJV, ESV, NASB for the more formal correspondence type; the NIV, NLT, God's Word, etc. for the dynamic equivalent type; and Living Bible and The Message for the paraphrastic ones. The HCSB is essentially literal but has some things in common with the dynamic as well.
> 
> Since I believe in using the formal correspondence type, I typically use the ESV, supplemented by the KJV and NKJV. In the last few years, none of the others have been on my radar. And, since my denomination has pretty much adopted the ESV, it is the only Bible I preach from anymore. Besides, the NASB is just too tedious to use in my opinion. If you want to know how the original Greek read, why not use the original Greek and cut out the middle man?



Thank you Dennis. I did not notice how extensively covered these topics were in the past on PB. The past threads will definitely suffice me.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Pilgrim said:


> 1. Michael Marlowe is right about the NASB vs. the NKJV. This is probably most clear in the OT, where the NKJV probably retains more Hebraisms than any other modern translation. Often the NASB will render it in more modern English idiom. I noticed this as a newbie when comparing the translations. Not infrequently will the NASB have "_Lit_._ xyx_" in the margin and the NKJV (and KJV) will have it in the text. I said to myself "If it's supposed to be the 'most literal' why pull punches like this?" And this was true even to some extent with the 1977 and isn't just a problem with the 1995 update. So in many regards the NKJV is every bit as "literal" as the NASB. And I'd think almost everyone would agree that it has superior literary quality, etc. Marlowe's initial review of the NKJV was rather negative because of his disagreement with its textual basis. But as you can see he doesn't see that as being as big of a deal as before. He seems to have cooled somewhat toward the ESV as well. His skewering of the NLT is priceless and the review of the NET is rather revealing.
> 
> 2. I've seen at least one report on FB that there is a revision of the NASB in the works that will be released in the near future. Hopefully they won't move much further in the direction of making it "more readable." If they do that it may render it irrelevant.



Chris thank you. I think Michael Marlowe makes some excellent points. I think the KJV and ASV will suffice me well. I have noticed that with the ESV usually when it's margin note says "lit.xyz" The KJV/ASV usually has that in the text. I think these two fine translations will suffice my studies KJV/ASV and the NKJV if archaism are confusing.


----------



## Pilgrim

God'sElectSaint said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Michael Marlowe is right about the NASB vs. the NKJV. This is probably most clear in the OT, where the NKJV probably retains more Hebraisms than any other modern translation. Often the NASB will render it in more modern English idiom. I noticed this as a newbie when comparing the translations. Not infrequently will the NASB have "_Lit_._ xyx_" in the margin and the NKJV (and KJV) will have it in the text. I said to myself "If it's supposed to be the 'most literal' why pull punches like this?" And this was true even to some extent with the 1977 and isn't just a problem with the 1995 update. So in many regards the NKJV is every bit as "literal" as the NASB. And I'd think almost everyone would agree that it has superior literary quality, etc. Marlowe's initial review of the NKJV was rather negative because of his disagreement with its textual basis. But as you can see he doesn't see that as being as big of a deal as before. He seems to have cooled somewhat toward the ESV as well. His skewering of the NLT is priceless and the review of the NET is rather revealing.
> 
> 2. I've seen at least one report on FB that there is a revision of the NASB in the works that will be released in the near future. Hopefully they won't move much further in the direction of making it "more readable." If they do that it may render it irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris thank you. I think Michael Marlowe makes some excellent points. I think the KJV and ASV will suffice me well. I have noticed that with the ESV usually when it's margin note says "lit.xyz" The KJV/ASV usually has that in the text. I think these two fine translations will suffice my studies KJV/ASV and the NKJV if archaism are confusing.
Click to expand...


Do you have a physical copy of the ASV or do you simply read it in electronic format?


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Pilgrim said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Michael Marlowe is right about the NASB vs. the NKJV. This is probably most clear in the OT, where the NKJV probably retains more Hebraisms than any other modern translation. Often the NASB will render it in more modern English idiom. I noticed this as a newbie when comparing the translations. Not infrequently will the NASB have "_Lit_._ xyx_" in the margin and the NKJV (and KJV) will have it in the text. I said to myself "If it's supposed to be the 'most literal' why pull punches like this?" And this was true even to some extent with the 1977 and isn't just a problem with the 1995 update. So in many regards the NKJV is every bit as "literal" as the NASB. And I'd think almost everyone would agree that it has superior literary quality, etc. Marlowe's initial review of the NKJV was rather negative because of his disagreement with its textual basis. But as you can see he doesn't see that as being as big of a deal as before. He seems to have cooled somewhat toward the ESV as well. His skewering of the NLT is priceless and the review of the NET is rather revealing.
> 
> 2. I've seen at least one report on FB that there is a revision of the NASB in the works that will be released in the near future. Hopefully they won't move much further in the direction of making it "more readable." If they do that it may render it irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris thank you. I think Michael Marlowe makes some excellent points. I think the KJV and ASV will suffice me well. I have noticed that with the ESV usually when it's margin note says "lit.xyz" The KJV/ASV usually has that in the text. I think these two fine translations will suffice my studies KJV/ASV and the NKJV if archaism are confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a physical copy of the ASV or do you simply read it in electronic format?
Click to expand...


I read it on e-sword. I would love to have a nice copy of it though but they are very scarce and hard to find


----------



## Pilgrim

God'sElectSaint said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Michael Marlowe is right about the NASB vs. the NKJV. This is probably most clear in the OT, where the NKJV probably retains more Hebraisms than any other modern translation. Often the NASB will render it in more modern English idiom. I noticed this as a newbie when comparing the translations. Not infrequently will the NASB have "_Lit_._ xyx_" in the margin and the NKJV (and KJV) will have it in the text. I said to myself "If it's supposed to be the 'most literal' why pull punches like this?" And this was true even to some extent with the 1977 and isn't just a problem with the 1995 update. So in many regards the NKJV is every bit as "literal" as the NASB. And I'd think almost everyone would agree that it has superior literary quality, etc. Marlowe's initial review of the NKJV was rather negative because of his disagreement with its textual basis. But as you can see he doesn't see that as being as big of a deal as before. He seems to have cooled somewhat toward the ESV as well. His skewering of the NLT is priceless and the review of the NET is rather revealing.
> 
> 2. I've seen at least one report on FB that there is a revision of the NASB in the works that will be released in the near future. Hopefully they won't move much further in the direction of making it "more readable." If they do that it may render it irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris thank you. I think Michael Marlowe makes some excellent points. I think the KJV and ASV will suffice me well. I have noticed that with the ESV usually when it's margin note says "lit.xyz" The KJV/ASV usually has that in the text. I think these two fine translations will suffice my studies KJV/ASV and the NKJV if archaism are confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a physical copy of the ASV or do you simply read it in electronic format?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it on e-sword. I would love to have a nice copy of it though but they are very scarce and hard to find
Click to expand...


I think Star Publications finally has an ASV reference editon back in print. But it pricey considering that the materials used appear to be inferior. I think it may at least be smyth-sewn however.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

Pilgrim said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Michael Marlowe is right about the NASB vs. the NKJV. This is probably most clear in the OT, where the NKJV probably retains more Hebraisms than any other modern translation. Often the NASB will render it in more modern English idiom. I noticed this as a newbie when comparing the translations. Not infrequently will the NASB have "_Lit_._ xyx_" in the margin and the NKJV (and KJV) will have it in the text. I said to myself "If it's supposed to be the 'most literal' why pull punches like this?" And this was true even to some extent with the 1977 and isn't just a problem with the 1995 update. So in many regards the NKJV is every bit as "literal" as the NASB. And I'd think almost everyone would agree that it has superior literary quality, etc. Marlowe's initial review of the NKJV was rather negative because of his disagreement with its textual basis. But as you can see he doesn't see that as being as big of a deal as before. He seems to have cooled somewhat toward the ESV as well. His skewering of the NLT is priceless and the review of the NET is rather revealing.
> 
> 2. I've seen at least one report on FB that there is a revision of the NASB in the works that will be released in the near future. Hopefully they won't move much further in the direction of making it "more readable." If they do that it may render it irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris thank you. I think Michael Marlowe makes some excellent points. I think the KJV and ASV will suffice me well. I have noticed that with the ESV usually when it's margin note says "lit.xyz" The KJV/ASV usually has that in the text. I think these two fine translations will suffice my studies KJV/ASV and the NKJV if archaism are confusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a physical copy of the ASV or do you simply read it in electronic format?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it on e-sword. I would love to have a nice copy of it though but they are very scarce and hard to find
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Star Publications finally has an ASV reference editon back in print. But it pricey considering that the materials used appear to be inferior. I think it may at least be smyth-sewn however.
Click to expand...


Yeah I seen that on their Website. $100 for Imitation leather is very pricey! I'd probably have better luck in garage sales and old book stores.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

JimmyH said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a wide margin NASB and it is the only Bible in which I underline and make margin notes. I've also read that it is 'wooden', but I believe that is more from a preaching at the pulpit point of view. For reading and study it is fine for me.
> 
> If you are very interested in translations get a copy of the NET Study Bible. It not only contains study notes, but translator's notes as well. It is also considered to be a very literal translation, perhaps equal to, or surpassing, the NASB.
> 
> Of course the NASB is a revision of the ASV of 1901, which is a revision of the RV of 1885, which is a revision of the KJV of 1769 (If I recall correctly)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. The NET Bible? I've heard some about it I heard the footnotes are extensive. Thanks Jimmy I might check this out. *Do you own one?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do. Daniel Wallace is the senior NT editor and that put it on my radar. I find it to be very good as a reference for a layman such as I am. I have a hard copy, and a kindle copy, but prefer the hard copy. I'm an old guy and like a book in my lap, turning pages. It is well worth having AFAIC.
Click to expand...


I decided to get an NASB at christianbookstore.com This is what i ordered NAS Updated Ultrathin Bible, Genuine Leather in black: 9781581350265 - Christianbook.com It's pretty nice looking for $25 I think. Says genuine leather but we'll see about that.


----------

