Talk:New American Standard Bible

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Theological interpretation?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Franklin Logsdon propoganda 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delete this page 

message: Reference number 19 is no longer a valid reference link. 174.17.14.61 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is  not a "valid reference link"? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update references