NASB or NJK users

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Rich_UK, Mar 6, 2005.

  1. Rich_UK

    Rich_UK
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6181.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    In your opinion, which is the better translation in terms of accuracy, clarity, flowing reading etc...and why?
     
  2. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    NKJV more poetical, NASB more literal.

    NKJV more poetical, free-flowing due to it being a revision of the KJV.

    NASB didn't come from such a rich poetical version so it is more rigid, but still very much enjoyable. [​IMG]
     
  3. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    My OPINION:

    NASB is better translation from slightly weaker manuscripts. But, it does have a tendency to footnote or maintain verses missing from the standard CT. So, it is a good, literal translation.

    NKJV is not bad. I understand there are still some Greek translation problems (mainly in the complex tense areas) especially in some of the epistles. It does use a "set" of the Byzantine texts, but not exactly what the KJV used.

    The KJV used many of these texts but would rely on the Vulgate and preceding translations to assist.

    I use both. The NKJV primarily to compare Byzantine readings with that of the NASB.

    Did I answer your questions? Not really?

    NKJV and NASB
    I would say the NASB is probably "slightly" more literal to its manuscripts. Clarity is okay. Flow and reading are OKAY. Not good not great. Why? An easier flow in the English language requires a more dynamic translation. So for study, its clarity and flow is a luxury I forgive.

    NKJV tries awfully hard to use sentence structure like the KJV (maybe on purpose). It does shine in some places. Not bad for flow and probably pretty literal.

    The two seem to be on about the same reading level to me. If one were on a higher level, I would pick the NASB to be slightly higher. But, this is based on the way "I" read, not any standard.

    I hope that helps some. Its just opinion, based on comparing the two and information from other people who know this business.

    I would consider BOTH to be excellent translations compared to the more dynamic stuff coming out. IMHO
     
  4. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    This was posted while I was writing. I would also agree with Spoudazo.
     
  5. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I like the NASU 95 best. The thees thous and thys have gone.
     
  6. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi gb, I've heard a lot of people say that. Do you know if it is available on the net for download? Maybe e-sword?

    I'll look later when I get more time.

    Thx
     
  7. Rich_UK

    Rich_UK
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6181.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you guys for your opinions and reasoning. Much appreciated. [​IMG]
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    For those of us weaned on the KJV1769, the NKJV is very similar in style and flow, sans archaisms and some other weaknesses of the original.

    Sadly it is still based 100% on the Greek texts underlying the KJV which were, in my opinion, less accurate and less complete than the Greek underlying many other modern versions.

    The ASV1901 and its revision, the NASB, are both excellent and more literal to the Greek and use the better Greek blend of texts. (We fussed over that issue many times).

    But bottom line? I still prefer the NKJV and its language better than the NASB.
     
  9. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The NASB New Testament is a much more precise translation (especially of the Greek tenses) than its counterpart in the NKJV, and it is a translation of what most New Testament scholars believe to be more accurate manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. For the casual reader who has not studied college level English grammar or any foreign languages, however, I don’t believe that the differences are significant.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Why can't all of our debates be carried on with the spirit of this debate so far?

    Great work, gentlemen [​IMG] .
     
  11. BruceB

    BruceB
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the NKJV and the NASB offer the best modern English renderings of their respective manuscript streams. I personally enjoy the NKJV the best of the two, because I have been using it for at least 20 years, and I have developed much familiarity with it. I think the two translations would make a terrific parallel edition - (in LARGE type). Bruce
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I was led to Christ largely by the Scriptures as written in the NASV. Shortly thereafter, I began reading the KJV, which for was never a difficult read. Then I began reading the NKJV. then, I began to read the RV, NIV, Phillips, and a few lesser-known versions such as Darby's and YLT.

    Then, a few years ago, I got an AV 1611 repro. That REALLY opened my eyes to the many differences between the 1611 and the current editions. The AV seemed to be the most majestic of the KJV editions, what with its preface, marginal notes, illustrations, and other materials besides the text. I recommend that any serious English-reading Bible student obtain a copy of the AV 1611, which will greatly enhance his/her knowledge of the Scriptures, even if the reader uses only a current KJV otherwise.

    However, to answer the question of this thread...I agree with virtually all the answers in the previous posts. We must bear in mind that the NKJV is a whole new translation and not just a modern-English KJV.

    I tend to use the NASV more for private study and the NKJV more for witnessing. The three English versions I recommend highly to any English reader are the NASV, NKJV, and AV 1611.
     
  13. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    You really recommend the AV 1611? With all the middle "s"s looking like "f"s and "J"s being "I"s, etc., it's a fun read but not a very practical one. "Almoft thou perfuadeft mee to bee a Chriftian."

    Hehehehe,

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  14. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    My personal preferance is the NKJV, simply because I grew up using a KJV and it is similar in the way it flows, but I think the NASB is great for study. I lean more towards the Byzantine text type so I naturally favor the NKJV over the NASB, but I will not rule out any conservative translation from Alexandrian Manuscripts.

    I find that the literalness of the NASB makes it diffiuclt to read, however for study that is a great assest.
     
  15. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I prefer the NASB 1995.It’s what I use 99% of the time.

    I'm thinking that many people who say the NASB is difficult to read are referring to the 1977 NASB. The 1995 update is smoother and I personally recommend it over the 1977 version.

    I like the NKJV. I think it's a nice middle for those of us who prefer the CT and those who prefer the MT.

    I would rate the NASB 1995 first then the NKJV second. You can not go wrong with either translation. A variety of translations are good to have in one’s study since no translation is 100% perfect. There are things in the NKJV that I think are better rendered than the NASB and likewise I have found things in the NASB that are better rendered then the NKJV.
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Blue Falcon...

    If ya read it awhile, ya get useta it & it flows pretty well...kinda like my reading of all those tales of chivalry with all their peradventures, God Forbids, palfreys, boons, forsooths, soothsayers, chargers(not Dodges nor credit card users), blains, unctions, sores, scallions, varlets, heralds, Paynims or Saracens(Turks, Arabs & other Moslems), nunneries(houses of ill fame)gonfalons, flagons, and many other proper but little-used-today words...and the words whose spelling & sometimes the pronunciation has changed, I.E.cyning(pro."kneng", today's "king")cwene(queen)cniht(pro.k-nite, today's "knight")

    The AV 1611's English is much more modern than that.

    My own summary is that the NASV is more literal, while the NKJV is more flowing in its English. A particular feature I like in both versions, or at least in the editions I own, are the headings within the chapter which give an overview of the following set of verses. That was an especial help to me to quickly locate topics within the Bible when I was a new Christian.
     
  17. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Accuracy - probably the NASB.

    Clarity - a toss-up.

    Flow - no doubt about it, the NKJV!

    The one I gravitate toward most often is the NKJV - after all, I cut my teeth on the KJV...
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,134
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    In my opinion they both represent some the best translating of their respective underlying textforms.

    The NASB is an excellent translation of a badly flawed underlying textform. It is very literal even to the point of occasionally being wooden.

    The NKJV is an excellent translation of the superior Byzantine textform (as, in this case, represented by the TR) with only a few minor problems with the tenses of Greek participles.

    Of the two, I would recommend the NKJV even with its minor flaws simply because it is based on a superior textform.
     
  19. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm in general agreement with what's already been posted.

    The NKJV is a very readable version - more so, IMO, than the NIV.

    The NASB is a more precise translation, but the tradeoff is readability. This is inevitable. The 1995 revision of the NASB is a little better in the English department.

    Incidentally, the ESV is both accurate and readable, and you might also want to look into it if you haven't.
     
  20. new

    new
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would concur. I've been using the ESV for a few months now and find it very readable. Still use the NASU for in depth study however.

    Nathan
     

Share This Page

Loading...