NASB - The Best Bible for Apologetics

[dalcent]

I appreciate we all need and should have a good Catholic Bible. However Karl Keating recommends in Catholicism and Fundamentalism p.305 buying a copy of the King James Version as it makes discussion with fundamentalists easier.

I don’t encounter much “King James-onlyism” in England but plenty of argumentative evangelicals. When I pull out my New American Standard Bible (Updated 1995) Visual Reference Large Print Edition and quote scripture, believe me they take notice!

I also have the NASB,NASB+ & NAS77 on www.e-sword.net with all the Strong’s numbers and concordances etc. E-sword is usually free but this add-on is one of the few chargeables at $20. Actually I am a bit jealous Catholics don’t have an equivalent of the NASB. They’ve got Large-print editions, Keyword Greek-Hebrew editions, excellent software, endless resources!

Ignatius, I want the RSV_2CE for my PC please with all the Strong’s Greek and Hebrew words embedded in the program, and I’d like a large-print edition for easy reading. And I’d like an Interlinear New Testament and a Concordance please.

Now, an example. I was speaking with a highly educated evangelical scientist about Assurance of Salvation which he advocates. I pulled out my NASB, wow, he said. I simply would have been greeted with a smirk if I pulled out our “official” UK bible the Jerusalem. The NASB he affirmed “is the most faithful version to the Hebrew and Greek texts and the most literal… I’ve never known any evangelical who actually uses it though.” I had his full and undivided attention.

I quoted 1 Cor 15: 1, and especially verse 2:
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

The NASB commands great respect amongst scholarly, thinking evangelicals: you know, the type who actually might end up in the Catholic Church.

Frankly, whilst incomplete it is I believe the best translation out there. Anyone familiar with this masterpiece care to deny this? Sure I could gripe over a couple of biased verses but nothing is closer to the original languages. Coupled with its software/concordance resources it is a deadly weapon for the Catholic Faith! After all, the best, most accurate Bible can only point Romewards!

 

[dalcent]

dalcent:

I appreciate we all need and should have a good Catholic Bible. However Karl Keating recommends in Catholicism and Fundamentalism p.305 buying a copy of the King James Version as it makes discussion with fundamentalists easier.

I’ve recommend using the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible against these people. It pulls the rug from under them. First you show them you have the Critical Text recovering the 1611 original.

The standard editions of the 1611 King James Bible (or Authorised Version) currently available give, with little variation, the text as established by the Oxford edition of 1769…In this new edition of the King James Version the text has been collated with the translators’ original work in order to give the reader as closely as possible the exact text that the translators decided on

Secondly, they get to discover the Original had the full Catholic canon (although the deuteros are between the Testaments). This powerfully shows them the weakness of the link between their unalloyed Reformation faith (obvious fantasy) and the KJV. Let’s face it, the KJV was really the product of 17th-century conservative Episcopalians and there is nothing fundamentalist about it all (it’s very honest), except the doctrines they project onto it!!!

KJV New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha Black French Morocco leather (Leather Bound) $80

Paperback version$11

Witness to them with it! It’s a powerful tool and the presence of its *original *Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals really throws them! Actually you can make them feel stupid for using their 1769 revision which many claim virtually dropped down from heaven in the form they use it.

 

[MrS]

While it is a good thing to want a translation that is “easy” to understand, and can be relied on to give an accurate redition of the oral Tradition that preceeded it…

I think that some will then rely on their own talents (actual or perceived) to interpret that “easy” or accurate translation.

therefore…

I enjoy using a parallel bible along with my DR and RSV… and the DR with Haydock commentary is such a blessing… it helps to understand what the Church thinks first… thus removing the temptation to self-interpret.

I am often right in what I think the bible is revealing (humble huh? ), but the important part is the confirmation by the Church which started it all and continues to teach today.

In another thread, a new Catholic said it well when commenting that many people think that if they pray to the Holy Spirit, read Scripture, and are sincere with an open heart, they will have the Truth revealed. They are wrong. The division and opposing beliefs that are the fruits of this kind of thinking show us that the Holy Spirit is NOT present …
You won’t have the Holy Spirit giving division.

 

[dalcent]

While it is a good thing to want a translation that is “easy” to understand, and can be relied on to give an accurate redition of the oral Tradition that preceeded it…

I think that some will then rely on their own talents (actual or perceived) to interpret that “easy” or accurate translation.

Are you confusing the easy Catholic New American Bible with the super-accurate almost transliterated evangelical New American Standard Bible. It’s a common mistake.

The NASB is extremely accurate, certainly not “easy” I think it has the highest reading age of all today’s bibles. The point is the NASB is the closest to the original texts, sometimes wooden, impressively faithful.

I don’t deny your Douay Rheims and RSV choice except for Apologetic work. The DRB is Catholic to the nth. (Its decision to render presbyter as priest is wrong. It’s use of penance throughout instead of repent is sectarian. It is quite a biased translation and in our era no bibles do this! Look you’re using the Haydock Commentary, you’re nostalgic, you don’t beleive that today’s Catholic biblical scholars are worth their salt. My OP isn’t meant to be an attack on the DRB, such iconoclasm isn’t going to make me popular round here. Perhaps this digression is for another thread.)

The RSV is considered liberal because of it’s anti-Christian bias in many OT passages. The RSV translator’s decision to to render ‘virgin’ as ‘young woman’ entirely ruined in the view of most evangelical/fundamentalists!

My line of thought is about what Bible to battle the evangelicals with!

Whether this post generates heat or light, one fact is undeniable. There is a problem as to which Bible to use for Apologetics with born-again Christians. They won’t accept the Douay Rheims , they’ll be deeply suspicious of anything approved by ‘Catholicism.’ They RSV is considered tainted by liberalism.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,
I have been told that the NASB is THE closest translation to the original text there is. Our church actually recently switched to the NASB version. Im not sure what we used before that

Is there a catholic NASB version? Im assuming if there is the only difference would be the apocrypha books would be in it.

 

[Melchior]

While it is a good thing to want a translation that is “easy” to understand, and can be relied on to give an accurate redition of the oral Tradition that preceeded it…

I think that some will then rely on their own talents (actual or perceived) to interpret that “easy” or accurate translation.

therefore…

I enjoy using a parallel bible along with my DR and RSV… and the DR with Haydock commentary is such a blessing… it helps to understand what the Church thinks first… thus removing the temptation to self-interpret.

I am often right in what I think the bible is revealing (humble huh? ), but the important part is the confirmation by the Church which started it all and continues to teach today.

In another thread, a new Catholic said it well when commenting that many people think that if they pray to the Holy Spirit, read Scripture, and are sincere with an open heart, they will have the Truth revealed. They are wrong. The division and opposing beliefs that are the fruits of this kind of thinking show us that the Holy Spirit is NOT present …
You won’t have the Holy Spirit giving division.

I am cinfused by your statement, the Bible is the written tradition. No translation is based on an oral tradition. No the oral tradition is entirely seperate, the OT scriptures were written and not oral same with the Gospels and Epistles. An Epistle is a letter after all.

As for the NASB it is the most accurate translation of 66 of the books of the Bible. The ESV (English Standard Version) is as accurate and more readable as it captures the poetic books better.

 

[dalcent]

Certainly, I agree we need to read Scripture with commentaries. I prefer the Navarre series and the Ignatius Study pamphlets. And the Catechism too!

 

[MrS]

I am cinfused by your statement, the Bible is the written tradition. No translation is based on an oral tradition. No the oral tradition is entirely seperate, the OT scriptures were written and not oral same with the Gospels and Epistles. An Epistle is a letter after all.

As for the NASB it is the most accurate translation of 66 of the books of the Bible. The ESV (English Standard Version) is as accurate and more readable as it captures the poetic books better.

If we agree that Oral Tradition is Truth and existed before the NT,
and the early Church was taught by and through the Truth of Oral Tradition…
and then the Holy Spirit, leading the Church into all Truth, oversaw the writings we now accept as the NT.,

this “translation”, in the form of the Gospels and letters, was based on the Truth of the Oral Traditions.

If we give any credance to the Bible as being the only source of Truth for mankind… we have caved to the error of Sola.

Short of mastering the original languages and how they were received by the people of those times… we are subject to translations. But even the best Bible translation should not prevent us from asking, and the Eunich did… “…how can I know, unless I have someone to teach me…”

Hence I encourge the “nostalgic” DR with Haydock… and discourage “modern scripture scholars” (like Brown for instance), who suggest revisionist **** to replace much of what the Church (not the Bible) has taught for centuries.

For apologetics… Consider the CASB (Vol I is on Matthew) from this site www.catholicintl.com and the soon to be released Vol II on the Apocolypse.

 

[dalcent]

Hi,
I have been told that the NASB is THE closest translation to the original text there is. Our church actually recently switched to the NASB version. Im not sure what we used before that

Is there a catholic NASB version? Im assuming if there is the only difference would be the apocrypha books would be in it.

There was no Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut in the NASB and there are no apocrypha/deuterocanonicals. The translation is not perfect and would have been even better if Catholics with similar goals produced it. There are itsy-bitsy niggly bits that betrays it was produced outside the cloister of the Church. However, the study tools supplied with the NASB make me even more certain Catholicism is true 'cos I can see how and why they occassionally cheat.

However, IMHO the NASB is easily the best Apologetics bible and far and away the best 66/73rds of the Bible in English too. Likewise, if we really have a ministry to Jehovah’s Witness we would have to read their New World Translation. The NASB is a different beast to the NWT because it’s very transparent to the original texts and essentially honest.

ALLFORHIM, Don’t get too hung up on the “Apocrypha”. Less than 1% of the quotes in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are cited from the Deuterocanonicals compared to about 70% from the NT and the rest from the Hebrew OT.

The reason there isn’t a Catholic NASB is that Biblical Interpretation is assigned to the scholars & doctors in the Catholic Church who know the original lanuages like their mother tongue and many other scholarly discipline besides such as 1st-century mesocosmic Palestinian history, etc.; e.g. like research in astrophysics or cancer cures are left to the fully educated and qualified professionals. Surely there’s an analogy here that is valid. An evangelical privately interpreting the Bible is often like a space cadet* or some nut advocating curing cancer by eating garlic or wearing crystals. Well meaning but plain daft: they reject where the true knowledge lies in exchange for personal sincerity and/or reinventing the wheel.

one who shows difficulty in grasping reality or in responding appropriately to it; a spacy person—in other words, the fringe element”*

The Catholic Church produces dumbed down Bibles these days for the Masses (oh no another pun): e.g. the NAB, NJB, CCB etc… Few Catholics really want to wrestle with the Sacred Scripture themselves, i.e. checking the Church’s dogmas against the evangelical & other sects (many people on these forums especially here in ‘Sacred Scripture’ are excluded from these charges ).

However, we ALL live in a post-modern post-Dignitatis Humanae world, an age of information, where people can and do change their allegiances when confronted with good evidence. An educated layman can work well with the NASB and get to the (Catholic) truth if his preformed antecent evangelical theology is receptive to maturation or completion: that is reach its potential completion (Catholic fullness) rather than stagnation i.e. witness the smug genus ‘Baptist’ or ‘Reformed’ and their selective and one-dimensional interpretation of scripture.

 

[Fidelis]

I agree with the OP’s basic argument; that, for apologetics purposes, having a version of the Bible non-Catholic Christians (NCC’s) respect is very helpful. Having said that, most NCC’s are bowled over to see a Catholic carry **any **Bible, especially if it is well-worn and the wielder actually can find his way around it. Dusty, oversize family Bibles with the pages still stuck together don’t count.

I also find it ironic that the OP states that the “King James Only” phenomena is rare in England among NCC’s – especially since Americans identify that version with the land of it’s orgin. Next thing you’ll tell me is baseball is more popular in New Zealand than in Brooklyn!

As far as the RSV goes, I often hear this comment…

The RSV is considered liberal because of it’s anti-Christian bias in many OT passages. The RSV translator’s decision to to render ‘virgin’ as ‘young woman’ entirely ruined in the view of most evangelical/fundamentalists!

…but I never hear any other examples of the RSV’s so-called liberal bias. This one example is well-known by all and easily overcome by a little explanation, but are there so many other instances of liberal bias in the RSV so as to make it unusable? If you have more examples, I’d like to hear them.

 

[RonRule]

I agree with Dalcent.

The NASB is highly respected and used by thinking, serious Evangelical Protestants.

The new ESV is also gaining traction in this demographic.

Many protestants have an extremely high suspicion of “catholic bibles” and would begin to immediately dismiss your argument if you quoted from one, even if they know zilch about the details of the translation (I would’ve when I was a evangelical).

Many are also suspicious of the NIV, and pointing out to them how it translates the same greek word as *tradition *in negative contexts and *teachings *in positive contexts would be interesting to them and open up an avenue of discussion.

Of course, the best is the old evangelist trick (Tim Staples likes to remind us of this one) of showing them in their Bibles.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think the NASB is the least bad Protestant version.

It still is biased.

 

[dalcent]

Well the Catholic changes to the Protestant RSV are barely anything and I contend the NASB is easily more Catholic (i.e. accurate) than the RSV whether CE or not.

Romans 11:20 in the RSV:CE has ‘…only through faith’ whereas the NASB following the Greek does not have ‘only’ smuggled in by the Protestant translation team.

Anyway my title/subtitle is ‘NASB - The Best Bible for Apologetics.’ We are providing “Catholic Answers” to them!

 

[pnewton]

I agree whole-heartedly that the use of teh NASB is valuable in talking to many protestants. I still have a couple and it was my primary translation for years as a Baptist. What I like best about it is the way it is internally consistent in the way it translates verb tenses, which also coincides to the way I learned to translate the Greek verbs. Therefore, one can get an accurate understanding of which tense is being used without knowing Greek, or reading the Greek if you do know it.

 

[Manfred]

I’ve often said in other threads that I fail to see how the RSV/RSV-CE is ever going to be an effective evangelizing tool for Catholics to use with Protestants. Evangelicals hated it so much they produced the NASB (very good, I agree) and the NIV (Non-Inspired Version). And Fundamentalists accept KJV only. And neither will give you any points for using your D-R, NAB, JB, NJB.

I would probably prefer the KJV, not the most accurate, but certainly the best-known English version in the world. Not to mention poetic. It’s even got an Apocrypha!

For a complete list of what needs fixin’ in the RSV, see the thread “RSV-CE Needs Corrections”.

 

[porthos11]

Talking of the NASB, has anyone come across the Hebrew-Greek Keyword Study Bible? Its word study portion looks interesting. I would expect it to have a Protestant/Evangelical slant in whatever notes it has, but how about the word study portion? It’s available in several translations, including KJV, NIV and NASB (1977 version).

 

[Melchior]

If we agree that Oral Tradition is Truth and existed before the NT,
and the early Church was taught by and through the Truth of Oral Tradition…
and then the Holy Spirit, leading the Church into all Truth, oversaw the writings we now accept as the NT.,

this “translation”, in the form of the Gospels and letters, was based on the Truth of the Oral Traditions.

If we give any credance to the Bible as being the only source of Truth for mankind… we have caved to the error of Sola.

Short of mastering the original languages and how they were received by the people of those times… we are subject to translations. But even the best Bible translation should not prevent us from asking, and the Eunich did… “…how can I know, unless I have someone to teach me…”

Hence I encourge the “nostalgic” DR with Haydock… and discourage “modern scripture scholars” (like Brown for instance), who suggest revisionist **** to replace much of what the Church (not the Bible) has taught for centuries.

For apologetics… Consider the CASB (Vol I is on Matthew) from this site www.catholicintl.com and the soon to be released Vol II on the Apocolypse.

I mean this with all respect, but you are missing the point and confusing catagories. The text of scripture is not based on oral tradition. Scripture is the written tradition. This has nothing to do with Sola anything either. There is an oral tradition to be sure. But scripture is not it. I am not saying scripture is the only source, but for even the Catholic church it the prime source, Prima Scriptura not sola scriptura. I believe authority and tradition are also neccesary.

I do however thank you for your other recommendations and agree with you. I would howver caution to not overreact to protestantism, the churhc relies on scripture as the primary source for teahcing and revelation, if not the only one.

Blessings,

Mel

 

[dalcent]

Talking of the NASB, has anyone come across the Hebrew-Greek Keyword Study Bible? Its word study portion looks interesting. I would expect it to have a Protestant/Evangelical slant in whatever notes it has, but how about the word study portion? It’s available in several translations, including KJV, NIV and NASB (1977 version).

I had the KJV of this book, Spiros Zodhiates’ book was good but his Baptist bias is very evident in the study notes, I gave it away: it was too annoying even before I was a Catholic. He explains the Greek in light of Baptist theology, even a child could see through of his dishonesty.

In our age we can get the information quicker using software such as www.e-sword.net. The KJV+ (the + means Greek, Hebrew and Concordance tools included) is free. The whole project is basically free. But the NASB study set needs an unlock key from Lockman who charge $20

 

[dalcent]

Hi,
I have been told that the NASB is THE closest translation to the original text there is. Our church actually recently switched to the NASB version. Im not sure what we used before that

Is there a catholic NASB version? Im assuming if there is the only difference would be the apocrypha books would be in it.

ALLFORHIM,

You’ve got the best Bible, it’s like owning a $800 metal detector, top-of-the-range! Now you have no excuse, go out and search and hunt for the exegetical treasures: Catholic truth!

Actually I feel a little guilty calling Spiros Zodhiates’ Hebrew-Greek Keyword Study Bible childish! I’m not sure why he handles Scripture so badly. Perhaps dishonesty was the wrong word!

Why do evangelicals misread so much Scripture. Do they think defending an untenable position pleases God? Are they that convinced that God is an Evangelical.

Even when you confront (most of) them with seemingly irrefutable evidence it is like water off a ducks back. They just can’t/won’t see Catholic truth.

I’m thinking of verses like James 2:24, Matt 16:18-19, 2 Thess 2:15, 1 Tim 3:15, John 6:53-58, 1 Cor 11:27. Surely, it has to be a problem in the spiritual dimension: Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

 

[MrS]

I mean this with all respect, but you are missing the point and confusing catagories. The text of scripture is not based on oral tradition. Scripture is the written tradition. This has nothing to do with Sola anything either. There is an oral tradition to be sure. But scripture is not it. I am not saying scripture is the only source, but for even the Catholic church it the prime source, Prima Scriptura not sola scriptura. I believe authority and tradition are also neccesary.

I do however thank you for your other recommendations and agree with you. I would howver caution to not overreact to protestantism, the churhc relies on scripture as the primary source for teahcing and revelation, if not the only one.

Blessings,

Mel

your point is noted… perhaps what I was not making clear was that the One Holy Spirit was using many human writers… each with his own style, or emphasis, or presentation of the One Truth… a “translation” if you will (and even if you won’t )