# Av-NASB- Ect



## PastorFaulk (Aug 24, 2007)

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 (Aug 24, 2007)

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 (Aug 24, 2007)

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 (Aug 24, 2007)

PastorFaulk said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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


----------



## PastorFaulk (Aug 24, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2007)

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 (Aug 24, 2007)

fredtgreco said:


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





Quite funny, you are!


----------



## KMK (Aug 25, 2007)

I would suggest these threads:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=20221
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=22188

just for starters


----------

