-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Nasb
- Thread starter Christos Anesti
- Start date
Any description of the the NASB that stops short of calling it a counterfeit is inadequate. The NASB is missing 64,000 plus words from the New Testament. How can one even consider it to be a "Bible"? It is no better, or worse than its counterfeit cousins, the RSV, RV, NIV, CEV, etc. all of which are only partially translated from a perversion of the New Testament that did not even exist until 1895 or so.
That no Bible translation of the New Testament has ever been taken completely from the 1895 text alone should speak volumes in and of itself. To consider any "Bible" translated from the 1895 text as the Word of God is to deny the Bible's own admonition against adding to or taking away from God's Word.
Do your research, people!
That no Bible translation of the New Testament has ever been taken completely from the 1895 text alone should speak volumes in and of itself. To consider any "Bible" translated from the 1895 text as the Word of God is to deny the Bible's own admonition against adding to or taking away from God's Word.
Do your research, people!
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2002
- 28,344
- 45,852
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
And the translation(s) you use would be ... ?
Never mind, I Googled "64,000 missing words". Your translation is the AV.
One thing I did find was that the NIV does not include a number of verses that the AV does. That's something I did not know, so thank you for pointing that out. But the same cannot be said for the NASB! From what I saw, all of the NIV's "missing" verses are included in the NASB text (they are set apart by brackets, but they are there). So the "64,000" missing words does not hold true for the NASB.
In closing, I have NO desire to enter into a discussion with you or anyone else about the AV -vs- other translations of the Bible.
--David
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jan 28, 2002
- 28,344
- 45,852
- 69
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hey Christos, I LOVE the NASB too and use it as my principle translation. In Study Bible form, I own both the NASB Study Bible and the MacArthur Study Bible. I like them both but normally prefer to have MacArthur's study notes on hand rather than Zondervan's.
I've heard that the famous Hebrew professor, Gleason Archer (from TEDS), said that if one of his students translated the entire OT with the same exact words the NASB uses, his student would receive, at worst, an A- for his translation work. The NASB's word for word accuracy is impressive!
--David
Upvote
0
Similar threads
