Sermon Tone Analysis

Why I use the New American Standard Bible

Why I like it over the English Standard Version <ESV>

These were my reasons for wanting to switch from the ESV to the NASB:

1) NASB includes verses and portions of verses that are more commonly found in the byzantine line of manuscripts, but they bracket them in the text so you know that some manuscripts, usually the Alexandrian, don't often contain that verse or words etc.

The ESV simply leaves it out, they do often footnote it, but when you're reading (or at least while I'm reading) I almost always miss the fact that there was a missing verse there or section.

I just like to be aware of the variance rather than miss it.

2) NASB capitalizes pronouns in reference to God.

This isn't a major issue, but it's something I much prefer, I find it aids in my studies.

I know the philosophy of the ESV is that it doesn't want to assume for the reader, that it will allow more critical thinking or something, but I've never come across it where I or anyone with any evidence believed it was mistakenly capitalizing something.

Even if it did, make a note . . .

3) Old Testament references are capitalized for easy detection.

I have many times read through in the ESV without taking note it was a reference to the OT, because sometimes it's mixed right in the text and you obviously don't look at the footnotes for every single verse as you read, or I don't think of it anyway.

4) NASB italicizes added words, this is very helpful to me, especially as a Bible student.

5) NASB is slightly more literal.

Now, I'm no language expert so I like the fact that the NASB leans more towards literalness than the ESV (though both are quite literal as far as translating to English goes).

Notes on KJV:

ACCUSATION: Many KJV only people claim that the NIV & NASB leaves out certain words, sentences & verses which are very important to scripture.

The FACT is that the KJV ADDED words, sentences & verses to HOLY scripture.

The NASB restores scripture, translating only the words that actually existed in scripture.

Wherever words are absent from the NASB, it's only because those words were absent from original scripture as shown by the oldest surviving manuscripts.

KJV only people try to prove the NASB wrong by comparing NASB with KJV as if the KJV was the ORIGINAL scripture, yet the KJV is only just ONE MORE TRANSLATION of scripture, NOT THE ORIGINAL!

We must compare any translation & all translations with the oldest manuscripts we have available to us.

Most pastors & people who are KJV only activists claim that the KJV is 100% accurate with nothing added or taken out.

Yet every bible scholar on the planet (of all religions & denominations) all agree that the true name of GOD was removed from the scriptures & replaced with the words "the LORD" throughout the Old Testament.

There isn't even a question about it, we KNOW that occurred!

It's established fact!

The only debate is what was His True Name that was removed.

(Click here for proof what it was).

So when people tell you that the KJV is 100% the word of GOD with nothing added or taken away, they show their ignorance of proven bible history.

ACCUSATION: Many KJV only people claim that the NIV & NASB leaves out certain words, sentences & verses which are very important to scripture.

The FACT is that the KJV ADDED words, sentences & verses to HOLY scripture.

The NASB restores scripture, translating only the words that actually existed in scripture.

Wherever words are absent from the NASB, it's only because those words were absent from original scripture as shown by the oldest surviving manuscripts.

KJV only people try to prove the NASB wrong by comparing NASB with KJV as if the KJV was the ORIGINAL scripture, yet the KJV is only just ONE MORE TRANSLATION of scripture, NOT THE ORIGINAL!

We must compare any translation & all translations with the oldest manuscripts we have available to us.

Question: Why is the name "Lucifer" only in KJV in ?

Answer: The word "Lucifer" was never used by GOD to refer to the devil.

It was never used in any bible until the Catholic Church translation called the Vulgate by St. Jerome.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=BT0002678

The Latin word lucifer just means "light bearer or morning star".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

The Assyrian bible (that the KJV is translated from) said "hêlêl or heylel" in , not "Lucifer".

The Greek Septuagint that Jesus and the first century church used said "heōsphoros".

So the use of the name Lucifer was a Catholic invention.

So NASB translates more correctly.

The Latin name "Lucifer" although never used by GOD/Jesus, has now come to refer to only Satan.

Therefore it refers to Satan.

NOT Jesus.

Some people try to say that refers to Jesus.

That's because the people that say that, are evil people.

The Latin word could refer to any star of the sky or even to Jesus but that does not mean that Jesus is Satan as some evil people try to claim.

It just simply means star or light.

Were KJV Translators Inspired?

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

King James Version (KJV) Compared to New American Standard Bible (NASB)

http://www.isawthelightministries.com/kjv.html

The Not-So-Exact King James Bible

https://bloggingtheword.com/the-blog/the-less-than-literal-kjv

By; Timothy Berg

It is sometimes assumed that the King James Version is the most literal translation of the Bible into English.

Many have assumed it to be a more exact translation than every contender.

In fact, in some circles, every single word of the KJV is revered, and it is assumed that the KJV translators labored to choose exactly the most accurate word to express in English the Greek or Hebrew original text.

In some extreme circles, some even go so far as to claim that these translation choices were inerrant.

But such a passion for exactness on the part of the KJV translators is an overblown myth, distinct not only from reality as seen in their translation work, but also from their own stated intentions.

In their introductory preface, the translators to the reader, they explained much about their work.

And in their latter section they make it plain that such a carefulness with words was not only not their MO - it was a model that they eschewed in favor of a more carefree approach.

The KJV Translators On Why They Rejected The Constancy of Extreme Literalness

Reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identity of phrasing

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done...For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?

why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free?

use one precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?

...we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings...Add hereunto that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling...also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature, we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us."

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done...For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?

why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free?

use one precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?

...we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary changings...Add hereunto that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling...also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature, we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us."

(David Norton, Ed., The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha: King James Version, Revised edition, 1:xxxiv–xxxv.

Hereafter NCPB.)

Liberty With Words In Translation

I have examined the structure and overall argument of their preface at great length, but zoom in on their latter section here.

Under the 15th heading of their preface, reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identity of phrasing, the translators take up their second and final specific note about procedure; the liberty they have taken with words so as to avoid pedantry.

Two basic issues are taken up.

First is liberty with words, the bulk of the section.

It addresses three different aspects of this liberty; lack of consistency in how they render certain words and phrases, then (much more briefly), the partiality they showed to some words, and finally, the diversity they took with what words they did choose.

Second, in a final note, they also address their choice to preserve traditional language and yet reject what they consider Catholic obscurantism.

Shunning Consistency In Rendering Words And Phrases – Verbal And Unnecessary Changings

To the first issue they note,

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way."

It is likely that they have in mind here Hugh Broughton.

Broughton was generally regarded as perhaps the greatest Hebrew scholar of that age, though he didn't end up working on the KJV, (contrary to claims that the KJV translation committee contained the whole of the best scholars of the age).

He felt that belief in the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture demanded the most literal translation possible.