Featured Is the New American Standard Bible as "wooden" as some claim that it is?

No. I do not think so. But is generally more literal than others. Where the translators know they departed from the literal, they often put the literal in the margen. Earily on I came to dislike the NASB as good as it is. (My main dislike is over the use of the Greek NT Critical Text.) Why it is better than the other translations, the translators placed the translators added words, not in the Greek or Hebrew text using italics.

 

There does seem to be a need for a NASByz, where the NASB Translators would use the Byzantine Majority Text.
A Literal current NASB that of course uses the Critical Text.
A Literal additional NASByz that uses the Majority Text.

 

The description "wooden" may refer more to the NASB 1977, than the later NASB 1995.

Here on Baptist Board there have been many thread discussions on the NASB 1977 versus NASB 1995. You can read the long and short of some of those discussions at this Google search results.

No doubt, the publication of the NASB 2020 will stir even more discussions.

*****

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) editions were published by the Lockman Foundation (1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, and 1995).

The NASB tradition goes back to the American Standard Version (ASV) published by Thomas Nelson and Sons (1901).

*****

You can follow the differences between the KJV, ASV, and NASB on Bible Gateway.

 

Try reading long passages of the NASB out loud.
It can be difficult to communicate at times, not knowing where a thought begins or ends.

Same goes for the ESV but it has the cadence of the Tyndale line on its side.

Rob

 

I like it. I also prefer classics to comic books.

 

Thank you for pointing that out!
ESV-RSV-ASV- RV-KJV-BISHOPS-GREAT- TYNDALE. Of course, Geneva, Matthews, Rheims and Coverdale all have contributed as well.

 

It does not read as smoothly as say the Niv or the Nlt, but that is due to it trying to be more precise and literally to the original texts.

 

The NASB does seem bland in some verse compared to the KJV. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, it is just more straight forward. The NASB95 and NASB77 are both fantastic translations that may lack the "poetic" feel of the KJV and even the ESV, but it is really accurate.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Which is why I am afraid the new revision will be losing some of that accuracy in order to be more PC correct and smoother flowing!

 

I don't know why they would do that. The NIV and NLT own that market.

*Are they really deciding that competing for readers against the ESV and NKJV is too hard and that they think they will have better luck agaisnt the NIV and NLT?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

They should make and market it as being the formal translation for those of us not into gender readings!

 

if you really explore this issue, would find that there would be few reasons for most updates/revisions to be done, unless it concerns updating English grammar . There has not been such a big change is say the CT from 26 to now 28th edition to really warrant a so called new translation.

 

Aye, but there was more of a change from Nestle 25th edition to Nestle/Aland 26th.

 

It would be interesting to know what percent of new Biblical updates/revisions are due to scholarship, and what percent are due to the publishing business.