Is the NASB really the most "literal" of the modern versions?

[Frankyy]

We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.

My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.

 

[Ken Rank]

We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.

My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.

No, Young's Literal would be, also the Exegesis Companion Bible, The Literal Version, and more.

 

[JAM2b]

I don't know if it really is THE most literal, but I believe it is very literal compared to others. None of us were there back then and we don't speak the language they did at that time. All languages change over centuries, heck, even over decades.

That being said, NASB is my most favorite translation. There are several that I feel uncomfortable with, but there is only one that I refuse to read, and it's The Message. The Message is not a Bible, it's a paraphrase. I don't like how it is replaced as a Bible by some. If people need an easy to read translation, they need to NIV and be given a heads up about the missing/added verses (depending on which translation you believe).

 

[redleghunter]

We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.

My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.

Don't know if the footnotes deal with all the literal rendering of the words. However, as I mentioned on another thread the Lexham English Bible by Logos is probably the top pick now for literal word for word.

That's for modern versions.

 

[redleghunter]

No, Young's Literal would be, also the Exegesis Companion Bible, The Literal Version, and more.

I agree more literal but not a modern version.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.

My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.

"The translators do not attempt to interpret Scripture through translation. Instead, the NASB translation team adhered to the principles of literal translation. This is the most exacting and demanding method of translation, requiring a word-for-word translation that is both accurate and readable. This method follows the word and sentence patterns of the original authors in order to enable the reader to study Scripture in its most literal format and to experience the individual personalities of those who penned the original manuscripts." - Lockman Foundation

Minor differences in sentence structure, more literal sentence structures.

 

[Frankyy]

I appreciate everyone's responses so far. Thanks!

I should have emphasized that out of the more *popular* modern translations (KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, AMP) it's often touted that NASB is the most literal, however I definitely do agree that there are other English translations that are moreso such as Young's Literal, though they may not be as widely used by common folks like myself.

 

[bcbsr]

We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.

My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.

The thing with the NASB is that it uses a wider, more sophisticated Vocabulary. I find it more difficult to memorize as the phrasing is awkward.

 

[Athanasius377]

We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.

My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.

The short answer is yes. The NASB is currently undergoing a revision with emphasis on the OT. It is a faithful translation yet not without its issues. I use the NASB mostly but I find the ESV to be better in some areas. I like the fact that in the NT it gets the Greek grammar (with tenses to draw attention for example) correctly but there are some areas where the ESV is better. Every translation is a compromise (and interpretation) with the original languages and I think the ESV, NASB are very close in accuracy. I don't think the NASB is more "wooden", just trying to maintain the word order and cases. Either way you can be assured that it is a faithful translation of the original text.

 

[Athanasius377]

I appreciate everyone's responses so far. Thanks!

I should have emphasized that out of the more *popular* modern translations (KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, AMP) it's often touted that NASB is the most literal, however I definitely do agree that there are other English translations that are moreso such as Young's Literal, though they may not be as widely used by common folks like myself.

Actually, from what I have read of the New American Bible (NABre) is a good translation. With a Catholic slant but pretty solid. If you are Catholic you might try the RSV catholic edition. The ESV will track very close to the latter.

 

[Athanasius377]

Don't know if the footnotes deal with all the literal rendering of the words. However, as I mentioned on another thread the Lexham English Bible by Logos is probably the top pick now for literal word for word.

To the original poster, The Lexham is solid. @redleghunter is correct. I use it a lot now that I think about it. Its free in the Esword program. Not to mention the Logos software.

 

[Radagast]

We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions.

It's a matter of opinion whether the ESV or NASB is "more literal," whatever that means.

The variation between those charts should tell you something.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Not to get into the technicalities, and not even to try to convince anybody of anything, but just to offer my own two cents for my own sake:
I have little respect for the NASB. I have heard it's praises for decades. I am not impressed. I have seen how it follows Alexandrian manuscripts, and it leaves me cold.
It is among "modern manuscripts" and they have their problems. The KJV has it's original form and there are also versions of the KJV as well. They all have their drawbacks.
Not all ancient manuscripts are trustworthy just because they were written in Greek. Since most of us do not understand Hebrew and Greek, we must rely on what we have today. I wouldn't want to have to rely on just one of any of the English Bibles. Some are good in some verses and bad in others. Others are bad in these same verses and good where the others are bad. We should take a look at many of them, know what they say in questionable places, and Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21.
Check out a Bible by looking at Ps 12:6,7; Pr 18:24; Mk 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; Col 1:14; 1Ti 3:16; and 1 John 5:7. There are about 200 more verses that could be checked, but these are my favorites. See what the text says in comparison to other Bible, see whether the verse has even been included, or words/meanings changed, and whether it has any footnotes on these verses. Don't always believe the footnotes. Some are good, and some are just plain wrong. "Better manuscripts" is usually an opinion not necessarily a truth. Romans 14:12.

 

[Athanasius377]

We've all seen the bible translation comparison charts, and often times the New American Standard Version (NASB) is far if not the furthest toward the "Word for Word" or literal side of the bible translation spectrum among the modern versions. What I've often found is while reading the NASB, in it's footnotes they have "Lit" renderings of certain words and passages. I then compare with a different translation such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV/RSV, and often times those actually render such words within the text itself. One example is Genesis 4:1 in reference to Adam and Eve where the NASB renders it as: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve," footnotes "had relations with" as "Lit. knew". Translations such as the NKJV and ESV have it right in the text as "knew". Other examples can be found in this article.

My question is: When it is popularly suggested that the NASB is the "most" literal, are they taking into account and is it because of it's footnotes (what if we were comparing text-only/readers' edition/pew bibles)? Are these differences minor in comparison to the other ways NASB more literally renders other passages? Am I simply just understanding the terms "literally" and "word for word" incorrectly? How do you rate it's literalness among other modern translations? I look forward to all of your input.

Keep in mind there are euphemisms and colloquialisms that do not make sense in English. To know someone means something different in English than it did in context in Hebrew. For example when the OT states that a people are "stiff necked" we might say "like an old mule" yet both mean to the reader that the object is simply "stubborn". There is always a trade off between literal word for word and literal meaning. It does not help to keep something locked in a colloquialism if the intended reader interprets the text as something wholly unrelated to the intended meaning. Each translation has its strengths and weakness as you will find. For example the KJV tends to be literal when the translators were not sure of a theological term and chose to leave it in an anglicized or latinized form. Other places the translators were not sure or even got the emphasis wrong. This is where modern scholarship helps. Unless you are a KJV onlyist you will find that each translation has its strengths and weaknesses. The goal is to make sure that you (the reader) understands what God has communicated in his Word. Ideally you would learn to read the original languages for the best understanding of the text. Until then you are relying on others to do the transaction work for you. That's the nature of translations.

 

[Radagast]

Ideally you would learn to read the original languages for the best understanding of the text.

And, if you can't do that, comparing a few good translations (e.g. ESV, NIV, CSB) is the best way to go.

 

[Radagast]

1 John 5:7

You are of course referring to the famous passage that was added to the Bible in the Middle Ages ("For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"). True words, but they were definitely not in the original Scriptures (had they been, the 4th century debate on the Trinity would have referred to them).

You seem to be a KJV-onlyist.

 

[ripple the car]

Actually, from what I have read of the New American Bible (NABre) is a good translation. With a Catholic slant but pretty solid. If you are Catholic you might try the RSV catholic edition. The ESV will track very close to the latter.

I like the NAB pretty well, too.

 

[Athanasius377]

And, if you can't do that, comparing a few good translations (e.g. ESV, NIV, CSB) is the best way to go.

To the original poster, do this! @Radagast is spot on.

 

[Greg Merrill]

You are of course referring to the famous passage that was added to the Bible in the Middle Ages ("For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"). True words, but they were definitely not in the original Scriptures (had they been, the 4th century debate on the Trinity would have referred to them).

You seem to be a KJV-onlyist.

How can one read what I said and even come close to thinking I am a KJV-onlyist? I am not, and never have been, and never will be. If you are so wrong on that, why should anyone trust your comments on 1 John 5:7. You have obviously heard only part of the information on there on that verse.

 

[Inkfingers]

Given that the NASB does not say YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah/Yahovah I count the ASV as more direct or literal interpretation.