NASB more accurate than KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by jstrickland1989, Dec 22, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jstrickland1989

    jstrickland1989
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've heard a lot about this lately. That the NASB is the most accurate of all the English Bible's, and is the closest thing to the real thing. I was startled about this comment, but started to do a little research on it. Now here's my question, what do you guys think? And, please, will all due respect, don't post if all you're going to say is " I BELIEVE THE KJV IS THE ONLY TRUE BIBLE OUT THERE!!!!!!" I would love some evidence to your posts. Thanks

    James
     
  2. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you've heard this because the NASB leans more closely to a word-for-word translation (though no translation can really be word for word) while others such as the NIV lean towards the thought-for-thought translation. These are just really 2 different ways and philosophies of translation.

    It might help if you read about different translation philosophies for Bibles today. These are both pretty good at explaining it:

    A very brief essay on it:
    http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-translations.html

    "Why So Many Versions?"
    http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=663
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NASB is probably the most accurate literal translation.

    At the risk of instigating a KJVO issue here, I do need to add the following to help you also understand there is more of an issue than just a literal translation:

    There are different sets of Greek New Testament groupings. The NASB tends to lean towards the older documents found in Alexandria, among others.

    It is not a translation of the majority or Byzantine text. So, if you prefer these texts then you would probably be better off with a newer version of the KJV such as the New King James Version which uses the Textus Receptus which is closer to the Majority Text than the Alexandrian texts.

    I am NOT trying to tell you which is the best set of underlying texts, I just want to make those who read this and are new at it to realize that there are different underlying texts.

    One thing that the NASB does do is print verses missing in certain texts either as footnotes or notations and then tell that they are not found in some manuscripts. This is very good, in my opinion so that you can decide for yourself if the verses should be considered as scripture or not.

    Some believe they were added by well-meaning scribes trying to clarify their work and others feel as if they were left out by scribes who simply skipped them while writing large documents.

    The NASB is good at clarifying this and giving you the option whereas a few of the newer translations just leave them out.
     
  4. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe a better question would be:
    Is the NASB the most accurate to the texts it was derived from than others derived from those texts.

    Comparing the NASB and KJV is like comparing apples and oranges. They have slightly different underlying texts.

    Well maybe not apples and oranges, but oranges and tangerines. [​IMG]
     
  5. procyon

    procyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    0
    My church believes that KJV is the Bible. But I use the NASB because I consider it a very accurate translation. The NASB is based on the Revised Version of 1885, the time of the Great Revival in God's Word in England.

    These two versions are good, ie. NASB and NKJV. And for added measure, I employ the Amplified Version to get the amplification of the text.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Good point. But it begs a further question.

    "Just because a translation uses FORMAL EQUIVALENCE as its mode, does that mean it is more accurate to the underlying text than one employing DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE?"

    The NASB is of the first type, the NIV of the later.
     
  7. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have come to the opinion that the NASB is the most accurate translation, due to the fact that I find it to be the best translation of IMO the best textual line.

    I use NASB, NIV, NKJV and NLT, I have yet to find a need for any others.
     
  8. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob, IMHO, formal equivalence translations are more accurate to their root texts than dynamic equivalence translations. True, it is impossible to have a 100% word-for-word translation, but OTOH it is even more difficult in many instances to see inside the writer's head in order to know just what he was thinking when he wrote the original. In some instances it is plain from the context exactly what the writer meant, but in other cases the writer's thoughts are not always so clear. Formal equivalence translations, IMHO, do not require as much guessing in the translation process as the dynamic equivalence translations.
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree with Dr. Bob. A formal equivalence translation can be horrible if the translator doesn't know what he/she is doing, or doesn't have a good grasp of the language being translated, or the language being translated into.

    I agree in theory with the rest of you that "in general" Formal Translation would be better---considering that all other issues are equal.

    This; however, certainly doesn't preclude a very bad Formal Equivalance translation. Think about it.
     
  10. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Simple testing tools for the versions:

    Ephesian 3:9 ( God created all things with or without Jesus Christ)

    1 Timothy 3:16

    1 John 5:7

    and other 14 verses which are omitted in NIV ( even though some like NASV have them in bracket)
     
  11. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is another Bible Creation, not the Bible Translation by NASV:

    check Genesis 12:16 where NASV is far away from
    Word-to-Word.

    The exact word-to-word translation is :
    to him there were flocks of sheep, flocks of oxen,...

    The context doesnt clarify who is he (either Abimelech or Abram). In such case it has to be left to the commentary or interpreter.
    Moreover NASV states : Abimelech "gave" (nathan is never shown in that sentence, Creation of Word!)

    Translators are doing more than what they are supposed to.
     
  12. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Simple tools don't always work. By that criterion, Joseph Smith's Inspired Version passes the test.
     
  13. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can find much more problems with any other version than KJV, but they are not worthy of my time!
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    ONE WARNING. This is NOT a thread on KJVOnlyism. It WILL BE SHUT DOWN if it continues in this direction.

    I realize this is questioning whether the NASB is more accurate than the KJV, but we will not tolerate statements without substantiation that the KJV is the only Bible in English that is good.

    Are we clear?
     
  15. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
  16. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you because the NASB is not accurate than the KJV.
     
  17. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eliyahu discussed on the NASB reflecting to how accurate it is than the KJV because he pointed out at NASB's accuracy and showed that many verses in the NASB diminished any important doctrines. This is not KJVOnlyism.
     
  18. Eliyahu

    Eliyahu
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,762
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question in this thread is about whether NASV is better than KJV or not. We cannot say yes or no without proper comparison.

    FYI,I am not KJVO but KJVB - KJV Best.
     
  19. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct! [​IMG]
    So am I. [​IMG]
     
  20. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    The NASB,ESV the more I read especially the latter I find it extremely well translated. But I believe both the NASB and ESV are both very accurate.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...