Does the NASB have a future?

[CredoBiblicist]

I recently saw the CBA best selling list of Bibles and was sad to see the NASB down in 10th. True the list is based on sales in Christian bookstores only so it is a little hard to say how well the NASB is doing overall. But it's rare I see someone with one.

Does anyone still use it as their main Bible and does your Church use it?

I myself prefer the majority text line rather than the critical, so obviously my faves are the KJV and NKJV. But as far as the critical text goes, for me the NASB is the best from that lineage by quite a distance, yet it's one of the least popular. I think it has the best translation of John 3:16 of any of the critical text Bibles, I never understood why the word begotten was abandoned. Yes sometimes it maybe a little difficult but no more so than the KJV or NKJV and of course those 2 always do well and remain popular. Is it because it has the word American in it? It gets little to no promotion vs other versions e.g The ESV has had a lot of promotion and is touted as the Bible of the future despite it basically being a minor revision of the RSV. Maybe there's no simple answer as to why, but in my opinion it is greaterly underrated and unappreciated. It's a sad state when you see it in 10th and the NLT 1st.

Thoughts on the NASB, it's future and performance sales wise?

 

[dysert]

I've been a member of at least a half dozen churches over the years. None of them ever used the NASB. I agree that it's a very accurate translation, but it's suffered from a few problems:
1. It is somewhat harder to read (e.g., as compared with equally good translations like the NKJV, HCSB, and ESV)
2. It wasn't marketed very well (e.g., as compared with the NIV)
3. The Lockman Foundation has always been too protective of its copyright.

I still use it a little bit for study, but even at that, having access to the original languages plus access to the aforementioned translations almost makes the NASB unnecessary.

 

[hedrick]

Begotten was abandoned because use of the word elsewhere strongly suggests that it means simply "only son." The roots from which a word is built don't always tell you what it means in use.

There's a 1995 edition that isn't bad in terms of readability. I don't think it's worse than the ESV. A lot of Bible sales seems to do with PR and fads. The REB was a great translation, but has pretty much vanished.

 

[Radagast]

I never understood why the word begotten was abandoned

Because most modern translators believe "only begotten" is a mistranslation of the Greek.

 

[BloodBoughtChad]

We actually do not have any translations of the Majority Text. The KJV & NKJV are translated from the Textus Receptus. However, the Textus Receptus does agree more with the Majority Text than the Nestle-Aland or USB.

My church uses the NKJV, which is my main Bible as well. I do prefer theTextus Receptus over the critical text, but not legalistically. I've been down the road of KJV Onlyism and it damaged my walk with the Lord.

The NKJV is beneficial due to the fact that it is translated from the Textus Receptus, but also contains thousands of references letting you know what the Nestle-Aland, UBS & Majority Text all read.

 

[St_Worm2]

My church still uses the NASB as its main translation (our pew Bibles are NASB for instance). Many in the congregation use other translations, of course, with the newer ESV being their first choice if they want something different than the NASB.

As for me, it is always the translation I turn to first. I started with the NIV 24 years ago (when I became a Christian), but once I started to really study and memorize the Bible, the change to the NASB made perfect sense.

I don't believe it's ever been a big seller, has it?

--David

 

[childofdust]

Thoughts on the NASB?

I have it, but haven't really used it.

What do you like about the translation?

Usually, I start off by doing my own translation from Hebrew and then comparing the Hebrew and my translation to a bible to see what that bible thought. That gives me a rough idea of how it might deal with other texts.

Here, for example, are a few verse from my translation of Psalm 68:

Earthly kingdoms, sing to Elohim!
Hymn to the Sovereign!
Exalt!
To him who rides through the eastern skies,
look! He presents his voice—powerful thunder!
–68:34-35, the heavenly fire

Then the NASB:

Sing to God, O kingdoms of the earth,
Sing praises to the Lord, Selah.
To Him who rides upon the highest heavens,
which are from ancient times;
Behold, He speaks forth with His voice, a mighty voice.
–68:33-33, NASB

Most of the differences between myself and NASB come from style choices.

NASB prefers to be a lot more wordy, whereas I prefer (especially in poetry, which is very terse) to be less so. If the Hebrew is six words, I prefer to use eight or nine instead of twelve or thirteen (the KJV or NKJV will sometimes turn 6 Hebrew words into fifteen or sixteen!!!).

NASB doesn't do anything with the word “selah,” whereas I feel like I have to give some sort of explanation, otherwise it's pointless to put it there.

NASB likes to capitalize pronouns that it thinks might be referring to the deity. I don't care for that myself, but that's just my preference. The NASB, however, runs the risk of messing it up because it has to decide every time whether a pronoun is referring to god or not...very tricky.

I prefer to use the actual names of god like Elohim or YHWH, but NASB wants to use something else. Again, personal preference.

Since I'm translating from the Hebrew, I like to follow the Hebrew versification, but the NASB uses something else (Latin?). So that's weird. The psalm has 36 verses in Hebrew, but NASB thinks it only has 35.

In terms of actual grammar and syntax, the NASB is pretty good in these two verses. I would only have a few qualms. But I won't go into them unless someone wants me to start posting Hebrew.

That said, I'd say the NASB is okay. Not great, but not bad. A comparison of this verse with the NRSV, for instance, shows A LOT of similarity. Though I think I would actually prefer the NASB to NRSV in these verses.

Maybe the NASB just isn't different enough to make it interesting?

It's no Robert Alter translation (one of the best!), that's for sure:

Kingdoms of earth, sing to God,
hymn to the Master.
To the Rider in the utmost heavens of yore.
Look, He makes His voice ring, the voice of strength.
--Psalm 68:33-34, Book of Psalms by Robert Alter

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I've used the NASB for years. Sometimes check it aginst others I like--the NKJV,youngs Literal and a few others. Childofdust says, "NASB likes to capitalize pronouns that it thinks might be referring to the deity. I don't care for that myself, but that's just my preference. The NASB, however, runs the risk of messing it up because it has to decide every time whether a pronoun is referring to god or not..." This is actually a feature I very much prefer. Common sense dictates whether the pronouns NASB considers to be Deity are accurate. I find agreement with 95% of their choices, and the few I question are nonetheless interesting for the translation choice.

Sorry to see this fine version losing popularity. I plan to stick with it, works well for me.

 

[ananda]

Thoughts on the NASB, it's future and performance sales wise?

I doubt the NASB has a bright future. Most members of watered-down Christianity today prefer "easy-to-read" over accuracy, so they wouldn't necessarily go for the NASB first.

Other, more seriously studying believers who do prefer accuracy would probably go for something more literal than the NASB.

 

[ebedmelech]

I think when it comes to literal word for word the NASB cannot be beat.

When I was saved in 87 I bought an NASB..but I attended a "Independent Baptist Church" and as a young babe in Christ they convinced me KJV was best.

As I matured I went back to my NASB. It's what I like.

It may not be top dog...but many will tell you it's the most accurate...that's what I like. I doesn't always read well...but it's well translated.

Most will like readability and the NASB is only ok there...but it's great for study.

 

[jehoiakim]

While I prefer the NASB the ESV is fairly new and similar in its translation approach it is also a bit easier to read so it is giving the NASB a run for its money I imagine it will move up in the standings once the ESV has worn out its 15 minutes of fame, not that the ESV is a bad translation or anything

 

[dysert]

While I prefer the NASB the ESV is fairly new and similar in its translation approach it is also a bit easier to read so it is giving the NASB a run for its money I imagine it will move up in the standings once the ESV has worn out its 15 minutes of fame, not that the ESV is a bad translation or anything

The ESV is indeed easier to read (and I believe it reflects more modern scholarship than the NASB). Unfortunately for me, the one big thing about the ESV is that it doesn't capitalize the pronouns for deity. So I continue to use the NKJV, HCSB, and NASB for studying. There seem to always be tradeoffs :-(.

 

[Mikhael The Archangel]

The ESV is closing in on 12 years of existence and is becoming more popular by the day. The ESV Study Bible by Crossway is one of the best selling study bibles of this century. Many KJV/NKJV/NASB churches are adopting it and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has somewhat recently adopted it as their "official" text, and have even published a very nice and extensive study bible using the ESV text. The RCC in Australia has adopted the ESV as their "official" text. The ESV isn't some kind of fad that will fade away. It's a rock solid translation that is being embraced much like the 1984 NIV. It's here to stay, at least for awhile.

The ESV doesn't capitalize pronouns for deity because (and I take this directly from the ESV preface): "It has seemed best not to capitalize deity pronouns in the ESV, however, for the following reasons: first, there is nothing in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that corresponds to such capitalization; second, the practice of capitalizing deity pronouns in English Bible translations is a recent innovation, which began only in the mid-twentieth century; and, third, such capitalization is absent from the KJV Bible and the whole stream of Bible translations that the ESV seeks to carry forward."

 

[Eloy]

I recently saw the CBA best selling list of Bibles and was sad to see the NASB down in 10th. True the list is based on sales in Christian bookstores only so it is a little hard to say how well the NASB is doing overall. But it's rare I see someone with one.

Does anyone still use it as their main Bible and does your Church use it?

I myself prefer the majority text line rather than the critical, so obviously my faves are the KJV and NKJV. But as far as the critical text goes, for me the NASB is the best from that lineage by quite a distance, yet it's one of the least popular. I think it has the best translation of John 3:16 of any of the critical text Bibles, I never understood why the word begotten was abandoned. Yes sometimes it maybe a little difficult but no more so than the KJV or NKJV and of course those 2 always do well and remain popular. Is it because it has the word American in it? It gets little to no promotion vs other versions e.g The ESV has had a lot of promotion and is touted as the Bible of the future despite it basically being a minor revision of the RSV. Maybe there's no simple answer as to why, but in my opinion it is greaterly underrated and unappreciated. It's a sad state when you see it in 10th and the NLT 1st.

Thoughts on the NASB, it's future and performance sales wise?

Since 1611 A.D. there has not been any English Holy Bible that matches nor surpasses the KJV. The newer versions are not Holy Scripture, but mere vain commentaries and poor ones at that.

 

[CredoBiblicist]

Thanks for all of the contributions, I enjoyed reading them. I'll soon get either a MacArthur NASB or the Zondervan NASB study Bible.

 

[dysert]

Thanks for all of the contributions, I enjoyed reading them. I'll soon get either a MacArthur NASB or the Zondervan NASB study Bible.

There'd be no question for me. As the owner of the MacArthur NKJV study Bible I'd go with his edition again. (In fact, I think he has an ESV study Bible as well.)

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Since 1611 A.D. there has not been any English Holy Bible that matches nor surpasses the KJV. The newer versions are not Holy Scripture, but mere vain commentaries and poor ones at that.

In our tradition; Lutheranism, we used Luther's German Bible, which, like the KJV was translated from the same sources and cross referenced St. Jerome's Vulgate.

In the early 1900's, when the North American Lutheran Churches transitioned to English, the only readily available Bible was the Protestant KJV; so we used it. Likewise, when we moved from a German Liturgy, we "borrowed" the KJ language of the the Anglican tradition for our Mass and the services of the Daily Office.

From a literary stand point, the beauty of the English language of the KJV is unequalled. From an accuracy stand point, it, like Luther's translation and that of Jerome, they were the best of the best for their time. Since that time, other manuscripts, some much older than those used in these translations have came to light. Refusing to acknowledge these and using them as a reference to verify the accuracy of translation is, in my opinion, a grave error held by those who are King James only.

Translations are translations, none are "perfect"; which is why Bible scholarship continues, and translations are revised, study Bibles have cross references added. The Holy Spirit is at work as scholars strive to bring fourth God's word in the most complete, accurate, and contextual way so that the faithful may read, hear and learn God's word, as God intended.

Granted, there have been bad translations, slanted by personal and denominational theologies and agendas. These are few and far between, and for the most part have had only fleeting popularity.

For English speaking Lutherans, we lost out when the KJV was adopted, in that the both Luther's Bible and the Lutheran edition of the Latin Vulgate retained the Apocrypha, the KJV did not. Despite this fact, various canticles and antiphons taking from these books, and quotes from these books on our Confessions (The Book of Concord) were retained.

After much study and deliberation our Synod has officially adopted the ESV for both study and liturgical use; the ESV is available with the Apocrypha. Our Synod has recently also published the Apocrypha in a "Study" version with notes and cross references. Something which was almost lost, has finally been restored.

In our most recent Service Book, we have 5 settings of the Mass, 4 use the ESV but the original English translation of the Mass, using KJ English has been restored as well (we do use the others, but we use this one the most of all). The beauty of the Language was missed.

While "officially" we use the ESV, our Synod still considers the KJV, NKJV, RSV, and many other translations as valid, and does not condemn persons or Congregations which retain their use. Because the KJV is very familiar, our Pastor occasionally chooses to use it for selected readings, particularly at our Christmas services; not because it's better, but it's the one that almost all can recite by heart.

 

[REPHAIAHPEDAHEL]

The NASB still has a future. I use it among my other bibles