Customer Reviews

New American Standard Ultrathin Reference Bible; Black Genuine Leather

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I have recently moved from using NIV as my main bible to the updated NASB. There's a huge amount of stuff on the web about which bible people 'should' use. From 'KJV only' on the one hand through to 'it doesn't matter'on the other hand. Lots of what's written is either bigoted nonsense or people riding hobbyhorses. Fact is that this translation is excellent and helps me (I'm a church pastor) get into the Greek & Hebrew more directly. It's well presented, the centre references are the best I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot!). The 'genuine leather' binding is worth the (little) extra cost. Once you start using this Bible I expect you'll want to A:Use it a lot and B: Use it for a long time. So invest. I would go so far as to say that to my mind this is probably the best translation for the serious student, and I've not seen a better presented edition-not at this or any price. Buy it. And in case you wondered, I don't work for the publisher (just the author.....)
Martin Bullivant

I recently bought the New American Standard Ultrathin Reference Bible; Black Genuine Leather. All in all, I'm pretty happy with my purchase. The Ultrathin is a nice size. The cover is genuine leather, and attractive. The print is a reasonable size for a fairly trim Bible. A modest concordance is included.

One thing that I noticed about this Bible is that the print is crisp, dark, and even. This makes it easy to read. I have some Bibles by Cambridge and Thompson Chains that cost much more, and yet, they have weak, uneven print.

There are a few things that I didn't like. There are no blank pages at either end for notes. I also didn't like the glossy pages for records in the front.

About translations: Translations can be literal, or dynamic. A literal translation gives you what the original text says, literally word for word. Care is even taken to preserve word count and order. Where ambiguity exists in the original text, it will exist in the translation, leaving the reader to determine what the text means. The NASB is a literal translation. A dynamic translation, on the other hand, gives you what the original text means. The translator invariably interprets the text for you. This leads to possible denominational influence in the translation. Word count and order will also vary from what was in the original text. A good example of a dynamic translation is the NIV. To sum up, the NASB will give you a really accurate reading of the original text, but may place conventional English grammar on its ear in places. It has been said that the NASB is so literal and accurate, that you could reverse translate it back into the original Greek! The NIV will make for smoother reading, but you are left with what the translators think the original text meant, not what it says. There is a big difference.

The NASB (like the NIV) relies on the latest manuscript evidence for the New Testament. There have been many manuscripts that have been found in the twentieth century that are incorporated into the NASB. These manuscripts are thought to be older, and therefore more accurate, than those used in the King James and other Textus Receptus based Bibles. However, text critical scholarship is not an exact science, so it would be a good idea to review the arguments for and against using a translation that included textual criticism in it's creation.

One of the major complaints about the NASB is the use of "wooden" English. Supposedly, this has been largely corrected in the updated 1995 version. Looking at the verses that I had previously memorized in the 1977 version, I do see some changes, but they tend to be modest and relatively infrequent.

This Bible has cross references and a concordance, but is not a "study Bible." If you want something less portable, but with more "helps" consider the Thompson Chain NASB, or perhaps an Open Bible NASB, or Scofield NASB.

Besides my minor quibble about the lack of blank endpapers for notes, this is a good value for someone who wants a portable NASB update version with a leather cover. Can't beat the price either.

I do not own this Bible, but I spent some time at the Christian book store comparing Bibles and unfortunately had to decline the purchase of this one. Nearly everything about it is top notch like the reviews say -- the cover, binding, layout, etc. However, I found the print to be difficult to read after several minutes and felt some eyestrain. It just seemed like a very light font, tightly packed, and slightly obscured by the print visible from the other side of the page. So before placing an order online I recommend you have a look at it in a bookstore first, especially if your near vision is not that great.

Font and bible size perfect. Alternate or "more literal" renderings in margins priceless. Multiple cross-references very helpful. The best original text (i.e., Greek/Hebrew) that the translation is based upon is still debated, so do compare with other "literal" translations (like the KJV/NKJV), but let the Holy Spirit guide, and listen to what He speaks to your heart. Like the paragraph format (as opposed to the verse-by-verse format) -- more easily readable. The best NASB format I've come across in years of searching.

I am writing this review specifically to help counter Mr. Merritt's unfortunate reaction to the NASB. I hope those that read this review will realize I am speaking of the NASB in a general sense, not the exact book listed on this particular page (i.e. my copy is from Holman).

Just to quickly address his concerns, if you buy the NASB, it would behoove you to find the section near the front that explains the formatting options. I can't speak to Mr. Merritt's version, but my copy of the NASB has "with the help of" in Gen 4:1 in italics. This is a specific choice by the translators to let the reader know this phrase was inserted because it appeared to be implied in the Hebrew. The italics warn us that it is not "literally" there. The passage in Matthew also has a footnote which, when the reader looks to the margins, indicates that the passage may also be translated "Keep asking", "Keep seeking", etc.

Perhaps Mr. Merritt's issue lies in the possible purchase of an NASB w/o the marginal notes. I would STRONGLY recommend against this choice since it hampers the intent of the translators which was to offer an accurate translation *and indicate passages where question remains on the correct translation*. I HAVE seen some NASB's that do not have the marginal notes, and this is a poor decision on the part of the publisher indeed.

The NASB is a *phenomally* accurate translation of the manuscripts and should be on the shelf of every Christian, since understanding what was actually said (as opposed to what this or that scholar thinks was said) is vital. And if you can't read the Greek or Hebrew (though the argument could be made that all Christians SHOULD be able to), the NASB is the closest you're going to get.

Mr. Merritt, I would urge you to look into alternate copies of the NASB. I fear you got one without the translation notes which is the source of your frustration. On this webpage, you can "look inside" this Bible. You will notice one of the pages has Gen 4:1 and you will see the italics. Search for a copy of the NASB with these notes and I think you will be MUCH happier :)

This NASB updated reference Bible is surprizingly readable yet generally very literal. The center column notes on variant readings or literal word meanings is quite useful as are the cross-references. A particular benefit of this edition, as opposed to other NASB's I have seen, is the arrangement of the text into paragraphs, with subheadings to alert the reader to what is occurring in the text below. I would have given this handy and durably bound volume 5 stars, except for two things: one is that is adopts the...convention among some Bible publishers of printing the words of Jesus in red. While the idea of highlighting these words is admirable, using a lower contrast red ink has the practical effect of making these words LESS VISIBLE to the Bible owner who actually wishes to read them. Among possible options for highlighting specific texts, including bold type, underlining, different fonts and type sizes, and indented paragraphs, printing in red is certainly the worst! My other thought is that if you're going literal, why not transliterate names, and YHWH in particular...

This Bible fits all me needs. I'm not a theologian, so for me, this is a beautifully bound, Red Letter, Gold-edged, well printed Bible. The print is large enough for my bi-focal glasses to read. The slim design makes it easy to carry to church and Bible study. Foundation Publications produces a wonderful product.

I have owned the NASB Ultrathin Ref. Bible and have used it everyday for 5 years. It is compact enough to go everywhere I go, and it does. It has held up extremely well and is no where near needing to be replaced despite heavy use. I own the bonded leather cover with the button flap. the button flap does an exellent job protecting the pages agaist such hazzards as car keys, nail files and what ever else may tatter them while in my purse. The construction of this bible is remarkably hardy. the only thing I wish it had at times is a ribbon marker. The print size is a bit small, but so is this bible, and if you write small enough you'll have room enough as I do to squeeze in plenty of notes. I currently own a macarthur, and a Thompson chain, but still rely on the NASB ultrathin as my favorite so far, and the one I always take to church.

I am not a Biblical scholar, but I do lead a lot of inductive Bible Studies. I like this Bible because it is a "word for word" translation, versus a "thought for thought" translation like the NIV. I usually use my NIV for reading as it is easier to understand, as do most of the people in my study. But, if I'm really studying the scripture deeply, it is helpful to know the actual words used versus the modern day interpretation. Also, this version of the NASB has columns in the center that list cross references that use the same word, making it more helpful to interpret correctly. If there are multiple possible meanings for a word, they are noted as well. I really enjoy this particular version of the NASB.

I gave this Bible five stars for this particular ISBN #. That score reflects solely on the quality of this edition of this Bible. I have owned this Bible for six years. Assuming it has not changed much in that time I would recommend it unreservedly. The leather binding has performed beautifully and has retained its original shine. It is reasonably flexible and will sit open at any place from Genesis through Revelation. The pages are nice and white and the font size is quite legible. For the price you can't beat it. I recently bought Bibles as gifts from a company regarded as "the best in the world." Though they are very nice, I can't see how their quality justifies a price four times the price of this one.

As far as the translation is concerned, I would offer one quibble (which does not reflect on my recommendation of this particular product). With the possible exception of the ESV, the NASB is supposed to be the "most literal" of all. It is generally very clear and I never sense, as with some less literal translations that I ought to be double-checking the wording to make sure something important is not being left out.

However, there are numerous places where a word or phrase is used in the text accompanied by a footnote. The footnote then informs us that the "literal" translation is something just as if not more intelligible than what the translators used. For instance, in Acts 22:3 we are told that Paul was educated "under" Gamaliel. The literal version is "at the feet of." A minor difference, but the latter is more informative and suggestive of the idiomatic quality of the original. One wonders why the translators, given that this is supposed to be "the most literal version", couldn't have just given it to us straight.

Another example is John 19:12 where the text reads: "...Pilate made efforts to release Him,..." The literal translation of "made efforts", we are told, is "was seeking." How is "made efforts" more clear or insightful than the plain old literal version? Beats me.

I am not aware of the above issue ever making more than a shade of difference in the meaning of a passage. On the whole this translation is excellent. And, again, this edition is a great deal.

Update: It seems the newer ones are printed in China. Mine is printed in Korea. For what it's worth.