NASB more accurate than KJV?

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

 

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 So, if you prefer these texts then you would probably be better off with a newer version of the KJV such as the New King James Version which uses the Textus Receptus which is closer to the Majority Text than the Alexandrian texts.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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

I can find much more problems with any other version than KJV, but they are not worthy of my time!

 

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?

 

Check these on NASV:

Isaiah 53:10

Daniel 9:26

 

I agree with you because the NASB is not accurate than the KJV.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Correct!

So am I.

 

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.