I don't want to start a theological debate, either. Not the place to do it. At the same time, many who prefer the NASB do so because they prefer functional equivalence and carefulness in getting the Hebrew/Aramaic & Greek into the target language as accurately as possible, always recognizing that English ≠ Greek ≠ Hebrew ≠ Aramaic, that idioms must be rationally handled. I also like to see English that is as transparent as possible to those who don't know anything about the original languages. For instance, in Rom 7:7-8 the English only reader who has an NASB in front of him would be able to see the ἐπιθυμία/ἐπιθυμέω relationship which is totally obscured in the KJV. Also, look at Acts 18:1-6, especially vv. 4-5. The NASB handles the imperfects masterfully there, which makes what is going on much clearer. The ESV gets one of them, the KJV (and NKJV) treats them all as aorists.
Many say the NASB is" wooden" — I have not found it so, and I'm picky. I think someone said it and a bunch of people have been quoting him. Most versions have some clunkiness somewhere, including the much touted ESV. There is no perfect translation. Or what is perfect for one is an offense to another. That's why I took Greek & Hebrew as an old lady. I love Greek, but at this point have a love-hate relationship with Hebrew.
I just ordered a Schuyler Thinline NAS95 Credo in Imperial Blue. I only have one print Bible in the NAS95, an inexpensive one with very small print (too small for old eyes) and some sort of fake leather cover. I mean to make the Schuyler Bible last for the rest of my life (I turn 67 a week from Sunday).
Edited by Julia Falling, 25 December 2018 - 08:17 PM.