Jehovah s Witnesses and others: Which translators are correct? The ASV or NASB?

Well...there's more to the "story" in both cases.

The ASV was correct in wanting to transliterate the tetragrammaton

(that definitely is the superior option)

but

even though those translators did choose a superior option

they chose a relatively poor transliteration. (They should have used "Yahweh" as had some previous English translations, but they wanted to cater to U.S. KJV readers, who as a group were MUCH more familiar and comfortable with "Jehovah".)

Why transliterating the tetragrammaton is the superior option:

http://bible-reviews.com/topics/tetragrammaton-ren...

The NASB

it seems to me

gives a trite excuse

for what was a FINANCIAL decision.

I believe

that the real reason the NASB officials used the traditional "the LORD"

is because ***that made the translation more marketable***.

-- (Really, the same reason that the ASV used "Jehovah" rather than "Yahweh")

If it were out of respect for Jewish tradition or doctrine, why does the translation trample all over Jewish tradition or doctrine in so many passages, taking the conservative Protestant stance instead? It's because the translation intentionally targeted the conservative Protestant market, as can clearly be seen in MANY translation choices made...including that one.

That doesn't make it WRONG. They produced a Bible that was much more accurate and word-for-word literal than most previous offerings, and that was their primary goal. BUT...they were catering to the conservative Protestant market, and that influenced their translation choices, often to the detriment of the accuracy and precision of the translation.

To say that another way: the translation COULD have been better than it is IF they had not concerned themselves with appealing to consumers, IF they had concerned themselves only with producing the most accurate and precise translation possible (and hang it if no one bought it). But extremely few Bible translations are produced WITHOUT attempt to cater to some particular target audience, and indeed, we would have a far less varied selection of translations if Bible producers did not consider the financial (or other mundane) rewards of engaging in such an expensive enterprise.

Bottom line:

in this one respect

(rendering the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah" vs. "the LORD")

the ASV is superior to the NASB.

The only name under heaven is God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

"What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."  --William Shakespeare

As a Christian I am warned about "striving over words". While I have not done a word count I am pretty sure that the Bible stresses the office or title more then the actual name. "Lord", "Lord of Lords" and similar expressions are more prevalent then the actual name. Even the word "God" is a title and not a name.

Jesus came along and stated there were several relationships we might have:

1. Enemy

2. Servant

3. Friend

4. Son (family)

Just as it is socially impolite to call my Dad "Bill" in public and he would get upset if I used it in private, the use of the word "Father" takes precedence over any "proper name" for God. I do not know of any one who can be considered equal to my Father in Heaven that would qualify to actually use his familiar name. I know several who qualify as his enemy and they are very open about it. Such should never refer to the Father as Father. Because they are alienated from him, I don't think it matters to them what they call my Father in Heaven.

As for which translation is best- when in question use Youngs Literal Translation, a good dictionary and realize Greek Syntax is not English Syntax.

BEST ARE KING JAMES AND REVISED..I AM METHODIST.