NASB vs NIV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by agedman, Jun 8, 2013.

  1. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187
    I was looking over some online "stuff" on translations and came upon this:


    According to Jack Lewis, one of its translators, "The NIV has attempted to steer a middle course between the excessive literalness of the NASB on the one hand and the excessive paraphrases of Phillips, the NEB, and Taylor on the other. Loyalty to the text has been defined in terms of a compromise between the Dynamic Equivalence principle and literalness, rather than in terms of Lightfoot's translation rule which stated, "the same English words to represent the same Greek words" and "as far as possible in the same order."

    In other words, the NIV is a relatively free translation, attempting to take a Greek/Hebrew phrase and render it in English similar to the way we would say it today. Keep in mind that a translation cannot be both literal/extremely accurate to the original text and excessively smooth and easy to read in modern English. The NIV is attempting, as best as it can, to be somewhere in the middle. As such, their final result is true to their intent.​

    Taken from: http://www.biblelessons.com/translations.html

    The "lesson" states:


    The NASB was published in 1971 (and revised further in 1995); it was translated by a group of 58 men who held "the conviction that the words of Scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inspired of God." It was their desire to follow in the tradition of the ASV of 1901 by translating from the best available texts as accurately and literally as possible.
    ... this translation is known for its exacting literalness, a trait that will be appreciated by serious Bible students. Some, however, have suggested that this makes it somewhat more difficult to read than other translations. Nevertheless, most adult readers would agree that it is still clearly understandable, and most would approve of the dignified, contemporary language. ​

    Taken from: http://www.biblelessons.com/translations.html


    Why then do the BB Bible Scholars (or even pretend ones) seem to favor the KJV or the NIV rather than take the most accurate as a foundational text?

    Why argue over two versions that may be problematic, archaic, or whatever your particular argument view opposing the other, and not grab on with certainty what is considered the absolutely most accurate uncompromising version in English?
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You are laboring under some false conclusions.

    First,as I have said many many times on the BB:Literal does not equal accurate necessarily. Being less literal doesn't mean that a given rendering is not as faithful as a more literal one.

    Almost all modern versions drop the literal form when it comes to many idioms and figures of speech for example.

    And most real Bible scholars,(not found on the BB) when not doing their own translation from the original languages quote from the NIV and NRSV. You won't find Bible scholars quoting from the KJV as their standard text. That is unless you want to go back more than 100 years or so.

    It sounds like you are a shill for the NASB! The above quote might even make the ESV promoters blush.

    It is not any of those things. No version is. There is a lot of give and take in translations --even the more literal ones,because as I have shown, the NASB/ESV is not so literal at times.
     
  3. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187

    Really, not so literal at times? Yet, this afternoon's perusing shows that nearly every article I have read online places the NASB and/or the ASB as the most literal of all translations.

    Granted, I haven't read all there is, but neither do I intend, too.

    I question your statement that "literal does not mean accurate."

    Would you please show some scriptures that would indicate that to be the case. Perhaps illustrating what you mean when I can't take God's word literally because it isn't accurate.

    In all my years, I have heard preachers state "this literally means" so what you are stating is a bit of problem to me.
     
  4. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    That is why I said at times.


    Feel free to question it. But would you agree that an accurate translation is reproduction of the meaning of a passage even if it doesn't follow the form as such?

    That last question of yours is not stating my point of view. I will give you some examples where the NASBU is not so literal;yet gives the meaning of the text quite well.

    Micah 2:7
    NASBU: Is the Spirit of the Lord impatient?

    In Heb. : Has the patience of the Lord run short?

    Matt. 1:6
    NASBU:the father of Solomon by Bathsheba who had been the wife of Uriah.

    The words "Bathsheba who had been" are extra words not found in the original.

    Acts 2:17
    NASBU:I will pour forth of my Spirit on all mankind.

    In the Greek instead of "on all mankind" it is literally "on all flesh."

    Acts 9:36

    NASBU: Tabitha (which translated in Greek is called Dorcas).

    The words "in Greek" is not in the original.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Where are you agedman?
     

Share This Page

Loading...