Talk:New American Standard Bible

Theological interpretation?

At one point, the article says there is no theological interpretation. At another point it says that the translation purposefully harmonizes the Old Testament to the New Testament. How can both these statements be true? john k 18:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

They cant. The whole point of the NASB is to keep the text as literal and transparent to the original languages as possible and avoid interpreting the text for the reader. This is one of the guiding principles for the NASB, and why it is a widely respected translation. The statement, "deliberately interpreting the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New Testament" contradicts the rest of this article, which makes statements concerning the integrity of the translation (not in dispute by any authoritative source that I know of), then makes a statement which I think in effect raises a question concerning the NASB's integrity without a basis for doing so. I think any deliberate harmonization would be in violation of the translation philosophy which guided this work. Also, the NASB does contain ambiguous passages and extensive footnotes which, at times, would not necessarily aid such a harmonization effort. PS: This article is almost word for word identical to this one: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/New-American-Standard-BibleJeremy 22:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that the NASB is regarded as the most literal. The statement about harmonizing the texts is unsourced and, as far as I know, bunk. It should be removed unless someone can provide a valid source.

Actually, the harmonization is a standard procedure with Evangelical versions. The Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version have both been lambasted for decades for not harmonizing the Old Testament prophecies with New Testament interpretations. Michael Marlowe has also strongly criticized the New English Translation on his Bible-Researcher website for the same reason. Is the NASB the most literal? Of the versions done in the past fifty years, yes. Is it the most accurate? That's a different question. I've read studies of comparisons between it and the Nestle-Aland, and yes, it was the most accurate (though there were some interesting textual differences). Now for the final question: "is it totally accurate?" Of course not. Nothing is, nor can be. It's a translation, after all. As for harmonizations, how about "almah" in Isaiah 7:14? The New Testament follows the Septuagint's parthenos (virgin) instead of the Hebrew almah (young woman) -- the explicit word for virgin in Hebrew is bethulah. Is this legitimate? From a New Testament perspective, of course. Is it legitimate for an Evangelical version to use the New Testament as a template for it's interpretation of the Old Testament? Of course. Is it legitimate to deny that this is being done? No, it is not -- nor is it even necessary, because it isn't a criticism. In fact, the English Standard Version has actually advertised such harmonization as one of it's strongest selling points. I'm not sure this really needs citation. I just googled "NASB harmonization Isaiah 7:14" and found pages of articles on the subject, both pro and con. Tim 14:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Computer Assisted?

Wasn't this one of the first (perhaps only) that involved computer analysis in the area of textual compilation? Perhaps it should be mentioned in the article.

Acts 27:23 in the NASB changes the scripture from "The angel of God" as in KJV to "An angel of God."

This completely changes the meaning of this passage stating that we belong to an angel of God.

We instead belong to THE ANGEL OF GOD (Jesus)as written in KJV . What is your outlook on this??

F. Miller

I think you have the wrong talk page.

NPOV

'Sometimes called the Catholic Bible, the RSV, has also has been criticized for containing the deuterocanonical books in keeping with the first officially canonized-Christian Bible'. This is certainly not NPOV. Plus, if you read the article on RSV, you will see that it did not originally contain the Apocrypha. The people who wrote this article seem to have liked the NASB so much as to forget about contradicting statements such as: 'the NASB's translators went back to ... deliberately interpreting the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New Testament' and 'the greatest perceived strength of the NASB is its reliability and fidelity to the original languages without theological interpretation'. I cannot even guess what 'no work will ever be personalized' might mean! Please, could someone have mercy on this article? I don't know much about the NASB myself, but it is quite obvious that some things could be changed for the better in this article.

Franklin Logsdon propoganda

Information was entered from the following links; http://www.tbaptist.com and http://www.wayoflife.org. Both are not in compliance with wikipedia's policy of neutral sources. The http://www.tbaptist.com claims Use The Bible God Uses — King James Version. The claims by http://www.wayoflife.org have been refuted by the Lockman foundation http://www.aomin.org/lockman.html. Let's try and keep this mature and on the adult side of things. Bibleman777 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

The link to literalword.com keeps being added. Originally it was being added by one of the site's creators. I believe links such as this fail the WP:EL based on "...you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked" and second, the link provides no additional or new information about the subject and third, there is no information in detail about the sites creators and whether there is any copyright violation. Basileias (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to this page, the site received permission from Lockman. Additional information that the link provides that is not included in the Wikipedia article is the entire NASB with NASB formatting. However, since you have more experience as novice editor than my dabbling with Wikipedia, I defer to your judgment about the site.99.35.129.220 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What is on that page looks like a copy from the preface of the NASB. Basileias (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Protestant

The NASB is a Protestant translation. It needs to mention that in the first sentence. The Catholic translations say they are Catholic translations in the first sentence, so the Protestant ones need to say Protestant in the first sentence. Saxophilist (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source saying it's Protestant? StAnselm (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who knows about Bible translations knows it's Protestant. Saxophilist (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that it is a Protestant translation. However, the issue is that the branding of the Catholic editions wasn't made by Protestants, it was made by Catholics. It seems that the same is happening here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

One needs only to look at the first edit of the New American Bible Revised Edition to see when that term was added and by whom. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, it doesn't come under "common knowledge" in terms of Wikipedia:Common knowledge. The thing is, "Catholic" means "having the imprimatur" of the Catholic church. But there is no "Protestant" church, so the terms are not strictly complementary. I am not aware of any Protestant denomination that has adopted, or even endorsed, the NASB. The other thing is, many Protestants don't use "Protestant" as a self-designation. StAnselm (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A quick and easy way to determine if a Bible is Protestant is to count the books. If there are only 66, it is Protestant. Also, if you look at the translation team of the NASB, I doubt you will see a single Orthodox or Catholic Christian mentioned. Saxophilist (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You're still just asserting this. Again I ask for a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel has adopted it, although not officially but only out of common use, as their official translation. Other than that, I do understand the points that StAnselm is making.

This is the list of the translation team: http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php . Their belief system is not listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Their beliefs are stated. Here is what that link you posted says: "The translators come from Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, Disciples, Southern Baptist, Nazarene, General Association of Regular Baptist, Congregational, Independent Baptist, Free Methodist, and still other denominations."

These are all denominations of Protestantism. Saxophilist (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, presumably these translators were trying to produce an accurate and unbiased translation. The question is, did they succeed, or does their "Protestantism" come through? StAnselm (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty fair translation. However, their Protestantism comes through very clearly because they are missing 7 books of the Old Testament. Saxophilist (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And so are the Jews! Oh my! Do you mean to tell me that the Catholics are the only group to use these? Wow!

The Eastern Orthodox have those 7 books, plus a few more. What's your point?Saxophilist (talk) 06:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Look. I've got a degree in Biblical studies and I fully understand who uses what translations. The Easter Orthodox do not use all of the Apocryphal books that the Latin Rite churches do and they have some that you don't use. But you'll also notice that I wrote "Catholic". Perhaps I should have written "catholic" since they are the ones who feel the need to expand the canon that was more-or-less closed in the fourth century.

However, that's not what this discussion is about. It's about the Roman Catholic sense of superiority and exclusivity bleeding into areas where it does not belong. Roman Catholics felt the need to distinguish that their translations are to be used by Roman Catholics. Not that I've ever seen a bible in the household of any lay Roman Catholic. If you have any further questions about this, take it to talk:Deuterocanonical books as I will not be responding to your trolling. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trolling at all. Why are you getting so worked up? Also, have you ever even been to the house of a Catholic? I think most Catholic that I know have a Bible. Also, I'm pretty sure the Eastern Orthodox use all of the 7 Deuterocanonical books that the Catholic Church uses. Also, I think that the canon decided in the 4th century is the one that Catholics use today. Anyways, please grab your Bible and look up Ephesians 4:32. Saxophilist (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

For crying out loud you're an idiot and I've had enough of this stupid sectarian argument. To purgatory with you and your bridge. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you just insult those you disagree with? Saxophilist (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I make the edits those people should have made instead of wasting other editors' time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And then you insult them.... Saxophilist (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are herby ordered to get down off your high-horse...now. Basileias (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Who? Saxophilist (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There. Now none of the so-called "Catholic" translations say that they're Catholic translations only that they are approved for use in RC services. Feel free to change that. I have also removed the contentious use of "Protestant" wherever I found it. If you feel so inclined, you may add "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" or "Latin Rite" or whatever you choose back to those "Catholic" editions, however, please don't take that as a cause to add "Protestant" back to the other articles. Happy new year. The Lord be with you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your opposition to the bible being referred to as a protestant translation, it appears to be a fact that is both relatively incontrovertible and quite relevant. I don't get how this is a sectarian issue Aluchko (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Catholics make it clear that their translations are approved for use in RC services. No such distinction is made by other groups and as such would be an imposition on those groups. Imagine that your province were to want to make a distinction related to a specific product and engage in a marketing campaign to that effect: "buy Alberta beef". If we were discussing beef from other provinces, why would we need to impose a label to distinguish it from "Alberta" beef? That's a bad analogy, but the best I could muster. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete this page

I typed in "NASB" on goolge and I got this instead of Nikcloedn all starts brawl can you guys remove this page? I'd really appreciate it thanks <3 boo — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapleStorie (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Update references

Reference number 19 is no longer a valid reference link. 174.17.14.61 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

In what way is BeDuhn, Jason David (2003). Truth in Translation -- Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. University Press of America. p. 35,39. ISBN 978-0761825562. not a "valid reference link"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)