What is the NAU

[ansbible]

Pretty much so.
I often hear preachers say " in the greek it says..."
Since i have 3 greek bibles,it piques my interest and i look it up.
No joke,they are WRONG about 1/3 of the time

So how does one arrive at the truth of what God's Word says.
My answer remains: study it yourself in the proper manner being faithful to the normative rules of language, context and logic.
I've written down a study on these rules to remind me of my duty to the Word of Go:
I am not a preacher by the way.
biblestudymanuals.net/properb.htm

 

[ansbible]

It could represent about a dozen different things.

https://www.acronymfinder.com/NAU.html

The NASB which was Updated in 1995 hence NAU

 

[Nehemiah6]

The NASB which was Updated in 1995 hence NAU

If a Bible needs to be updated every few years, that should be a red flag.

 

[Subhumanoidal]

It's never too late to repent and stand corrected so long as I am alive.

/facepalm
The thread is from 2013. The person you answered answered hasn't logged in since 2017.

 

[crossnote]

The only manner of true understanding is to be taught by the Holy Spirit.

You do well in pointing out the Holy Spirit has inspired the writing down of those writings which truly pertain to our progress in the spirit, but the bottom line always of learning truth is only by the Holy Spirit's teaching.

Otherwise our reading and study is in vain for the written code kills. It is the Spirit Who gives life.

Only??
The Holy Spirit uses His written Word to teach us by quickening it to our understanding, otherwise why did He inspire Scrip-ture?
Nope. It's both the Holy Spirit AND His Word at work in us.

 

[crossnote]

Pretty much so.
I often hear preachers say " in the greek it says..."
Since i have 3 greek bibles,it piques my interest and i look it up.
No joke,they are WRONG about 1/3 of the time

Especially, when they are quoting from the Old Testament, then they should either say, 'the Hebrew says' or 'the Septuagint says'.

 

[ansbible]

If a Bible needs to be updated every few years, that should be a red flag.

Recall that languages change - meanings become archaic, new meanings to words are added albeit not applicable to the passages at hand in a 16th century original translation, spellings change. So often words in the translated language might have a word here and there for which an intended use in an earlier century has become archaic and people in this century would not be familiar with an archaic meaning without an update using a word that would have the originally intended meaning unless a detailed study of 16th century English is constantly made. The 1611 KJV was updated in 1631 with some actual translation errors fixed - for example:
biblestudymanuals.net/kjv.htm#II, then in the 1800's when spellings of words were updated. Today, 16th century Elizabethan English is not studied well enough to keep up with archaic meanings of words which are still used in the 21st century for other meanings.

In any case, no one translation is perfect. Todays KJV is an excellent translation. Compared with the manuscript evidence, it is highly trustworthy but not perfect. Older manuscript evidence indicates that there are passages that were added and not part of the original. Better to compare manuscript evidence with a number of versions as you go verse by verse.

 

[crossnote]

Recall that languages change - meanings become archaic, new meanings to words are added albeit not applicable to the passages at hand in a 16th century original translation, spellings change. So often words in the translated language might have a word here and there for which an intended use in an earlier century has become archaic and people in this century would not be familiar with an archaic meaning without an update using a word that would have the originally intended meaning unless a detailed study of 16th century English is constantly made. The 1611 KJV was updated in 1631 with some actual translation errors fixed - for example:
biblestudymanuals.net/kjv.htm#II, then in the 1800's when spellings of words were updated. Today, 16th century Elizabethan English is not studied well enough to keep up with archaic meanings of words which are still used in the 21st century for other meanings.

In any case, no one translation is perfect. Todays KJV is an excellent translation. Compared with the manuscript evidence, it is highly trustworthy but not perfect. Older manuscript evidence indicates that there are passages that were added and not part of the original. Better to compare manuscript evidence with a number of versions as you go verse by verse.

The 1600's is one thing but 5-9 new translations/yr is a bit over the top, don't you think?

 

[ansbible]

The 1600's is one thing but 5-9 new translations/yr is a bit over the top, don't you think?

Yes I do. But revising one of the old standbys is not the same as all of these paraphrases that hardly pay any attention to context. Nevertheless, you have to be careful. I always look at a Greek / Hebrew interlinear to see if the version follows the words and does not try to editorialize beyond the context. Greek / Hebrew verbs are key because they dictate the action.

My favorites are NASB, YLT, NKJV, HOLMAN, AV, KJV, NIV compared with the CBL [Complete Biblical Library] interlinear to see which verse best fits the Hebrew or the Greek. Often I notice that there are several manuscripts that offer differing words which I might make annotations and indicate which entry has the best manuscript testimony. I use Comfort's book on manuscripts to help me. Most of the time I end up with the NASB / NAU (1995) or the NKJV then the KJV or YLT with occasional visits from the others. They are all so close to one another, but accuracy is key, not fluidity. I put bracketed inserts in the verse often because of manuscript evidence and because English grammar requires a consistency of verb tense, whereas in Greek / Hebrew you can mix them up thus provide more details as to how the action is portrayed. I have posted this arduous procedure below. I use it because my skill set as a writer, linguist is limited and I needed to develop a consistent procedure:

biblestudymanuals.net/properb.htm

 

[JaumeJ]

Only??
The Holy Spirit uses His written Word to teach us by quickening it to our understanding, otherwise why did He inspire Scrip-ture?
Nope. It's both the Holy Spirit AND His Word at work in us.

If any know Jesus Christ, Yeshua, is Lord, it is of the Holy Spirit.
Any understanding from reading and study is given only by the Holy Spirit.
Man, no man, is given to seize understanding from God, that is divine knowledge.

You do not need to be falling over, slain in the Spirit to have this gift, all qho know Jesus Christ is Lord has It, and it is a gift, never of knowledge derived from a fleshy mind, only as a gift from our Father.

 

[crossnote]

If any know Jesus Christ, Yeshua, is Lord, it is of the Holy Spirit.
Any understanding from reading and study is given only by the Holy Spirit.
Man, no man, is given to seize understanding from God, that is divine knowledge.

You do not need to be falling over, slain in the Spirit to have this gift, all qho know Jesus Christ is Lord has It, and it is a gift, never of knowledge derived from a fleshy mind, only as a gift from our Father.

Isaiah 8:20 NKJV
[20] To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[JaumeJ]

That Light is the Holy Spirit. Until we come to the Light we are in darkness.

 

[JaumeJ]

PS...…..When the Holy Spirit is leading a person, he or she may derive much truth anywhere, even in the garage among the tools. So studying other writings may be just fine for others, but for me I only look for understanding from the Word......God bless all in their endeavor to learn God's truth for His truth is constant.

 

[Oncefallen]

Guys...
A) this thread is so old none of the original participants are still active
B) there is no such thing as the NAU bible so the discussion pretty much falls apart there