# NASB vs KJV



## Joseph Scibbe

I have been told for a long time that the NASB was the most literal word for word translation there was. Recently I was told that the KJV was the most literal. Could someone please clear up this issue for me?


----------



## Prufrock

Hoping this does not turn into a translations debate -- both are quite literal in their translation; presumably, if one prefers the KJV, one will say _it_ is more literal; if one prefers the NASB, they will say _it_ is more literal. But, it's hard to be more literal than literal, if you catch my drift. Two translations can both be a literal rendering (also, a _correct_ rendering!) of the same text, and yet word their translations differently. You will find many threads here in which are debated the underlying variations of the text being translated; but both attempt to do so (generally) quite literally, whether one agrees with their textual presuppositions, or even (at times) with their results.

*Edit*
Although I should temper the above claim with the fact that I have not read _all_ of the NASB; perhaps it does give more dynamic or "looser" translations in some places. Note also that there is a difference between the "original" NASB and the updated version of 1995. Nor am I in anyway promoting dynamic translations! There are certainly right and wrong translations, and literal and non-literal translations: but, there is not necessarily a Platonic form of an English rendering of each sentence of Greek or Hebrew. There are certainly reasons, however, to prefer certain translations over others, even among mostly literal translations.


----------



## kevin.carroll

Literal is in the eye of the beholder. There are different philosophies in translations. On the one end you have more of a word-for-word correspondence to the original. This is what people usually mean by being "literal." Ecamples of this style would be KJV, NASB, and ESV.

In the middle somewhere is dynamic equivalence, which seeks to translate the original thought-for-thought. The NIV would be a good example.

At the other end of the continuum are paraphrases, which are not translations, but re-wordings, the authors expressing the Scriptures in their own way.

Translation is a sticky wicket. To be a good translation, one must accurately give the meaning of the original, rendering it well into the target language. Sometimes word for word is best, sometimes dynamic equivalence, sometimes paraphrase (gasp!).

Example:

Take the Spanish proverb "Barco va, barco viene."

Word for word = "The ship comes; the ship goes." Literal, but not helpful to the English reader.

Dynamic equivalence = "Easy come, easy go." Ah. We understand that, don't we?

Some people feel very strongly about translational philosophy but it is important to remember that no translation is truly literal. Every translation is, to some extent, an interpretation. It is best, especially if one lacks skill in the original languages, to consult many different translations.

My preferences?

For memorization: KJV
For preaching: ESV
For translation help: NASB (NASB often follows the very word order of the original, which is great when you are in seminary, but makes you sound like a robot if you are reading it aloud.)


----------



## DMcFadden

As Kevin said, "literal" is in the eye of the beholder.

The KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, and NAS all claim to be essentially, mainly, basically, or completely literal translations.

The rub comes in how you conceive of the idea. In another thread, we have heard from a PB newbie that he loves the ESV because of the way in which it attends particularly to verbal tenses, translating a perfect in Greek as a perfect in English, etc. The NAS excels in replicating some of the forms of the original in ways that delights the Greek student who "forgot" to do his homework and which correspondingly frustrates the person trying to read it from the pulpit.

So which one is more literal? Does the attention to some of the devices and artifacts of the Greeek (NAS) make it more literal than one that gives special attention to consistency in handling the crucial Greek tenses?

The other issue that your friend may be referencing has to do with the textual tradition behind the translation. The KJV follows the Byzantine manuscript tradition (which has now grown to about 95% of the extant manuscripts we know about today). The NAS (like the ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, and just about every 20th century English translation) is based on an eclectic text composed of primarily Alexandrian manuscripts (originally coming from the Egyptian deserts and "found" in the mid 1800s) with occasional changes to prefer a Byzantine reading.

IFF you believe that the Alexandrian readings are the "oldest and most reliable" manuscripts, you will probably want a Bible translated from them. This ranges from the literal NAS and ESV to the dynamic equivalent NIV to the paraphrastic TEV or even the Living Bible.

IFF you accept the arguments (trotted out endlessly in PB, just check the search function), that the Byzantine tradition is more likely to be more authentic (either because it is in the majority or because of some particular view of divine preservation, you will prefer the KJV or KJV.

The NKJV is not simply a KJV without the thees and thous. In places they have "fixed" some of the evident errors in the KJV translation. At other points, they felt free to correct the 6 Byzantine manuscripts available to Erasmus in 1516 in light of some of the thousands of additonal Byzantine manuscripts that have been uncovered/discovered since the 16th century. Oh, and in the NKJV, it gives you the reading (usually based on the same texts as the KJV, Luther Bible, Geneva Bible, etc.) AND tells you in a marginal note what the modern Alexandrian/ecclectic text says at that point (marked by a "NU" for Nestle/Aland - United Bible Societies, the two critical Greek texts used today, or by a "M" to indicate where the broader Byzantine tradition of manuscripts differs from the text behind the King James).

So, if you want a "LITERAL" style of translation, you have the choice of the following: KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, and NAS.

If you want a "LITERAL" style of translation based on the types of manuscripts behind the Geneva Bible, Luther Bible, and KJV, you have the choice of the KJV or the NKJV.

If you want a "LITERAL" style of translation based on the types of manuscripts more like the ones discovered in Egypt and dated to the 300s, then you should use the NAS, ESV, or HCSB.

Among the LITERAL translations, some are more "wooden" English in an effort to mimic the Greek (e.g., NAS). Others are more colloquial in their English devices, but still literal (e.g., HCSB). For example, an NAS style would be: "He was teaching them, and he was saying to them, 'Let us go to the mountain.'" The HCSB might translate that: "He taught them and said to them, "Let's go to the mountain." Both renderings faithfully represent the Greek (which has a decided preference for participles, the "-ing" words in English). Since people typically uses contractions in dialogue, the employment of the contraction "Let's" for "Let us" is LITERAL and actually does a better job of fitting the probably original setting.


----------



## Marrow Man

I really like the literalness of the NASB. Part of that is sentimental; when I became a Christian in 1988, I began reading the NIV, but the NASB was soon recommended to me by a PCA pastor who preached from that translation. I obtained one and still have that copy (a nice ultrathin that fits perfectly in my hand). Today I use a giant print NASB95 to preach from (the eyes ain't what they used to be). However, as stated above, it can be a little wooden-sounding at times. I often use the NKJV now when I read from the psalms in worship.


----------



## reformedminister

They are both literal translations, but the KJV is Old English. However, both translations are translated from different manuscripts. The translation one uses should also depend on which manuscripts they believe to be superior. They both can't be right. One is superior than the other, but which one?


----------



## Reformed Thomist

reformedminister said:


> They are both literal translations, but the KJV is Old English.



Early Modern English.


----------



## rbcbob

I recently suggested to someone in a post regarding their question about the ESV. They were encouraged by a lesson that I taught which included principles of translation. In that lesson I highly recommended a book by Leland Ryken called "The Word of God in English". If you would like to listen to the lesson you can do so at
SermonAudio.com - A Critique of the ESV & Leland Ryken's Book

Bob


----------



## Iconoclast

I use a KJV but I like to use Youngs Literal Translation.
It tries to put the word order where the greek manuscripts put it.It might not read as smoothly but sometimes it seems to make clear some major ideas.
I cannot find it in a leather edition however.
Has anyone else made use of the YLT?


----------



## bookslover

Well, the KJV is a literal translation within the parameters of Early Modern (17th century) English, which, for early 21st-century readers, is no longer, in many passages, very literal at all.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Iconoclast said:


> I use a KJV but I like to use Youngs Literal Translation.
> It tries to put the word order where the greek manuscripts put it.It might not read as smoothly but sometimes it seems to make clear some major ideas.
> I cannot find it in a leather edition however.
> Has anyone else made use of the YLT?



In preparation for my sermons, I always review the text in the YLT (online) to see if anything jumps out.


----------

