What are the errors in the New American Standard?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Daniel David, Dec 8, 2003.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    For this thread, I would like you all to tell me the errors of the New American Standard. Now, based on the text it comes from, where were words translated incorrectly. This isn't a thread about where it is different from other versions. I only want to know where they translated its underlying text wrong.

    Please do not compare to other versions (even of the same underlying text).
     
  2. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    4,000+ adulterated words in the NASB -- for example of changing various things -- 67%; removing various things -- 24%.
     
  3. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think you read his post carefully.
     
  4. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for demonstrating you can't read either.

    I want to see errors of where the NASB incorrectly translated ITS underlying text.
     
  5. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    1 Peter 3
    3   (1) Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

    "merely" is incorrect, it horribly warps Peter's message and flatly contradicts Paul's parallel passage:

    1 Timothy 2
    9   Likewise, I want (1) women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,

    If these translations are correct, the Holy Spirit made a boo-boo.

    In fact there is no Greek support whatsoever for "merely" in the 1st Peter passage, this is a good example of how corrupt our modern translations can be.
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    OK, start with number 1 as an example, then we can go on to the 3999 that are left.

    HankD
     
  7. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    oops, double post
     
  8. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Genesis 12
    7 The LORD (1) appeared to Abram and said, "(2) To your descendants I will give this land." So he built (3) an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.

    Descendants should be translated with a singular word such as "seed" or "offspring" so that it can refer to Christ.

    Galatians 3
    16 Now the promises were spoken (1) to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "(2) And to your seed," that is, Christ.
     
  9. Elk

    Elk
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    0
    My only real complaint is John 3:13.

    I know some people who will read no other Bible than the New American Standard Bible.
    Actually, the published ones that have the marginal notes, alternate renderings, and literal Hebrew and Greek renderings are pretty great.
    But I feel that all marginal notes that were prepared when the Bibles were translated are essential to all the translations...without them the Bible translation seems to be somewhat weakened in my opinion.
     
  10. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    But does it disagree with its underlying text? That is my question.
     
  11. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Descendants" is an accurate translation of the Hebrew text that underlies the NASB. Don't make me explain the purpose of this thread again to you.
     
  12. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    It denies the true meaning of the text. Doesn't sound very accurate to me.
     
  13. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Either version you use, KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc., it is an interpretational issue, not translational.

    I cannot at this time verify whether or not "merely" is in the greek text. Maybe later tonight. That wouldn't be an error though.

    However, especially in the 1 Peter context, it is about a woman and her behavior toward her husband. The woman should try to look her best and beautiful toward him. The context says nothing about being in public. Perhaps you are of the opinion that a woman should not try and look good for her husband in his presence. I don't know. I do believe a woman has an obligation to look her best. If that involves fancy hair, plain hair, make-up, no make-up, lingerie or a long black robe, she should look good for him in his presence.

    Your interpretation is forced and assumes much. Stick with the word, not what you want the word to say.

    Again, you could take "merely" out of the version and it would not effect the interpretation at all. In fact, the interpretation I have, I developed from the KJV (back when I used it).
     
  14. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your interpretation, concerning external adornment, is not in agreement with the literal meaning of the text.
     
  15. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Daniel David:
    Your interpretation is forced and assumes much. Stick with the word, not what you want the word to say.

    Please list my assumptions, as you see them. Perhaps I can learn something.
     
  16. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps you are of the opinion that a woman should not try and look good for her husband in his presence.

    I believe a woman should look beautiful for her husband, but not through external adornment.
     
  17. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, it is an accurate translation of the Hebrew, which was written approx. 1450 years prior to Paul writing Galatians. The promise is to the descendants through THE descendant. Paul understood this in proving why the Abrahamic covenant is still superior to the Mosaic.

    Some have eyes but do not see.
     
  18. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Daniel David:
    Some have eyes but do not see.

    At least we can have unity on this thought, heh. :D
     
  19. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is getting off the subject. Feel free to start a new thread. I disagree that it violates the literal understanding though.
     
  20. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would rule out in private also then. Do you really want to argue this point?
     

Share This Page

Loading...