NASB more accurate than KJV?

Another check points:

1 Corinthian 1:21 from NASV

For since in the wisdom of God the R41 world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God R42 was well-pleased through the foolishness R43 of the message F15 preached to save R44 those who believe.

NASV says the message preached (Words of God) is foolish!
Paul was telling " method used in preaching the gospel looks foolish to the people of the world."

 

I would say sometimes dynamic equivalence can be more accurate because of the difference in languages.

 

I think it is reckless to talk about the "omitted" verses without discussing the manuscript evidence behind those verses.

I cant see how this discussion is even close to relevant without a thorough discussion of the texts behind these translations.

Apples and oranges boys

 

Why don't you compare the NASB to the Greek? Wouldn't that be a lot more accurate than comparing it to ANOTHER translation?

 

My point is, I could say: Well, the NASB says this and the KJV says this, so I think the NASB is right--or vice versa. This means you are comparing which one you like the best and not which one is true to the originals.

 

Paul was referring to the content, not the method of the "preaching"(Gk. kerygmatos, genitive of kerygma).

Paul is not intending to call God's words foolish. He is referring to the perception of those in the world.

 

You hit the nail on the head.

I could care less how the NASB compares to the KJV. Newsflash the KJV is not the original Greek and Hebrew.

I want to know how the NASB, KJV, etc compare to the Greek and Hebrew.

From my study hands down the NASB is the best literal translation of the Greek. However I think it is best to utilize the NASB and the NIV together to make sure you get a good mix of the word for word compared with the thought for thought to get the best idea of what the original author intended.

 

That is a good point. Sometimes I find the NASB a little hard to follow, especially if I am reading when I am tired. I use either the ESV or NIV during those times. Although the Holman is highly acclaimed, I have some difficulty with its wording.

 

As for the verses that I mentioned above, I personally checked them all with Greek texts.
You can check for yourselves.

For example I can add one more, Luke 2:49
In that verse, there is no difference among the manuscripts, but the translations are different.

NASV translated Father's House. NIV too.
KJV Father's Businesses.
HCSB : Father's interests.

There is mentioning neither on House,nor on business, nor on interests.
There exists only article.
The Key is tois (τοισ), which is plural.

Therefore Father's house is wrong. If one wants to mean House then it should be Houses. Normally, occupation, father, son can be abreviated with genitive article, but in general plural cannot mean house or father because normally each one has one house and one father.
Therefore any version with singular House is wrong!
KJV HCSB may be right, or simply "my Father's works"

 

You are wrong, The exact wording is this:

τησ μωριασ του κηρυγματοσ

There is no mentioning about the contents above. Read carefully, refer to the Lexicon.
kerugmatos means: preaching, proclaiming.
Morias : foolishness, stupidity
Simply word-to-word translation is Foolishness of Preaching. No mentioning that the message is foolish!

 

BAGD p. 543 3d ed.
-1) an official announcement, proclamation

2) a public declaration, something proclaimed about, proclamation --the verse is listed here

IMO, what we have here is a genitive functioning appositionally.

 

Maybe I am wrong but this whole thread seems to be a vilolation of rule number 8.

It sounds like the KJV vs. anything else especially the NASB.

 

1 Cor 1:21

by the foolishness of preaching: Namely, by the foolishness of the method=preaching. Not the contents mentioned here.

Paul didn't take any academic way, or theology, but the method called preaching(method=preaching), which looked foolish to the people of the world.

I think I cannot explain better now.

 

The NASB did not follow the TR Greek text, but it followed the W/H Greek text. See the difference between these Greek texts. I learn that these Greek texts disagree each other 8,000 times.

 

Good point, Askjo.

Perhaps we should be discussing the differences in those texts, and the reason WHY they are different, and any evidence either side may have.

Perhaps we could find some time to discuss those issues? Is there anyone willing to honestly participate in such an exchange?

 

That's the fundamental issue!
Sometimes I noticed 3 spots differ in one sentence. As there are about 7800 verses in NT, it means every verse has one difference as an average.

However, apart from those textual differences, even the faithfulness in translation should be reviewed as well. I pointed out for such comparision, those 2 verses (Lk2:49, 1Cor1:21).

In OT, all the versions have the same bases for Isaiah 53:10 and there is no difference between Ben Chayyim and BHS.

NIV : though LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days.

NASV : if he would render Himself as a guilt offering, he will see (his) offspring, He will prolong (his) days.

HCSB :
When You make Him a restitution offering,
He will see [His] seed, He will prolong His days,


Problem is that the first subject cannot be "he" because "־תָּשִׂים" Ta-si-im is just for 2nd singular, which means thou or you single.

So, my interpretation is this:

When you offer His soul as a tresspass offering (or Sin Offering), He will see (his) seed, and He will prolong (his=the seed's) days:

If you offer His soul as an offering, He will see His offspring (as John 12:24) and He (LORD) will prolong your days because you will have the eternal life.

I think the first mistake of the subject confuse the message, and wonder why NIV, NASV made such a mistake in so basic Hebrew grammar.

HCSB did well in this, but made deviation in His of the last place, which may be acceptable as it depends on the interpretation.

As far as it is a matter of interpretation, I cannot say anything, but grammatically, the subject - second person singular- cannot be mistaken.

Such mistakes are not rare, but quite many.

 

The consensus among conservatives is that the NASB is the most literal, accurate translation in the English language. Obviously, the NASB uses different (and the conservative consensus opinion is that they are the better) manuscripts.

One good point often overlooked about FE vs DE: if a translation is not understandable, it is not accurate.

 

Or it could be third feminine singular, which is how these translations are taking it. In that case they see the subject as "nefesh", and the literal translation would be "if his life (or he) makes a guilt offering."

It really isn't as simple as you seem to think. Translating this is difficult, because the meaning in the Hebrew is uncertain. These translations have translated differently than the KJV, but they have legitimate reasons for choosing to understand this verse this way. You may not agree with their choice, but this is one of those places where it'd be hard to say they are wrong, because the meaning of the Hebrew is ambiguous.

 

Interesting thread.

My first string of translations is the KJV, ESV, and NASB. I consider them all excellent, accurate translations. The HCSB and Amplified are second string, and third string is the NKJV, RSV, NET Bible, a few others and sometimes the NIV (from time to time there are certain scriptures where I think the NIV actually says it best).

But regarding the first string, I would hate to have to rely on any one of them alone. Of the numerous Bible versions available today the majority of them range from garbage to mediocre, IMHO, and nobody despises them more than I do. But the good thing is God has blessed us with several good translations from several different MSS, and to me that is a valuable thing and is no accident. My parallel Bible consists of KJV, ESV, NASB, & HCSB. That's a powerful tool and for that I am very grateful.

FWIW, if I had to pick a favorite it would be the KJV. I still 'think' in the KJV. And I love its romantic language but I have a built-in attraction to all things English. To me, watching the House of Commons in action on TV is stand-up comedy. And the phrasing of certain passages is like no other, for example when Jesus told the Jews "it is my Father that honoreth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you ..". I just love that.

As far as accuracy, all 3 are good and have their strong points. To date, I guess my personal experience would give an edge to the ESV.