A strong argument can be made that the 1901 ASV is the most literal and accurate English translation ever. The degree to which it consistently translates a given Greek word by a consistent English word is unequalled and helpful, as is the fact that it follows the often important Greek word order in the New Testament more than any other translation. But among the Bibles in print and more widely available the editions of the NASB, following in the tradition of ASV, carry forward its accuracy and general linguistic virtues with some modernization of language and improvements. Like every translation it has its shortcomings but on the whole it is more accurate than the rest of those currently in print.
Regrettably, few have the level of expertise in the original text to make evaluation of a translation’s relative merits. Too often judgments are made on the basis of subjective readability or popularity rather than the technical quality of the translation. It’s hard to take seriously those who would say a literal translation like the NASB is hard to read. If someone can’t read the NASB they need to go back to school. Their dislike is really against the original text not its literal translation.
But such is the consumer mindedness of our day even in direct relation to God’s Word. There must be “simplified” Bibles, we are told, for those who are intellectually challenged. With little thought they impugn the wisdom of God in giving his Word as He did.
Those furthermore who argue for the so-called “received text” theory of the “KJV only” school are off base to say the least- a subject we will not delve into here. The rational basis of that thinking often takes the form of statements like “if the inspired KJV was good enough for the apostle Paul is should be good enough for us all.” Let’s admit it’s not easy to argue with that kind of reasoning!
Those who argue for more periphrastic and interpretive translations along the lines of the NIV are putting linguistic theory against the fact that the original text is inspired in its actual words and grammar. Literalness therefore is the preeminent virtue in a translation.
Although many may balk at the statement, the fact is that exegesis, properly speaking, cannot be done on a translation since its words and grammar are not the ones that were inspired. Greek grammar and the semantic range of individual words simply do not equate to the English. Only to a degree therefore does an English Bible communicate God’s Word. Given that fact, the literalness, again, of a translation is far and away its most important attribute.
Recognizing each believer’s individual choice and responsibility in these things, we do urge the use of a literal translation, and among that select group of several in print we recommend the NASB.
The increasingly accepted idea among Reformed Baptist churches of a “mother church” controlling a church plant rests on several unsound notions; but particularly the extension of church authority beyond one local assembly to another in...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
The position that the Ten Commandments are the moral law is an inarguable tenant of Reformed Theology. In the 1689 2nd London Baptist confession it refers to the Ten Commandments as “this law, commonly called moral” (19:3) and declares...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Advocates of Theonomy insist on the continuation of the Jewish civil laws as being the divine application of moral law. As such, they say they cannot become obsolete. This notion however, ignores an important principle of divine revelation,...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
For the sake of discussion one might say that Peter had a tendency to fallinto Theonomy. On at least two major occasions he stumbled, once inaccepting (Acts 10) and another time in maintaining (Gal 2) the changedapplicability of Jewish law. In...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
There are numerous extra-biblical mandates for church planting insisted on by the rule makers of today. A sampling are these: a church planter must be an ordained pastor, a church planter must be a member of a church other than the one he is...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
When we speak of confessionalism we do not mean to suggest any idea of finality in terms of the human document with which we identify ourselves. We cannot agree for example with the mindset of doctrinal termination expressed by B.B. Warfield in a...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Many expressions of a carnal mindset make a passable appearance of legitimacy and reason. Such is often the case concerning the role of means in the Christian life. Too commonly it is said that the great thing to be realized about means is their...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God 2Cor 3:5 It is a common misconception among believers that an adequacy to spiritual good has become ours by nature as a part of...[ abbreviated | read entire ]
Is it proper to label the modern Emergent Church movement as an example of worldliness? The desire on the part of those defending that movement of course is to seek to define worldliness in such a way as that it does not apply to them. What...[ abbreviated | read entire ]