Just wondering what peoples thoughts were on these two revisions - 1977 and 1995. I take it the 1977 edition is more literal. Is that so?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I note that in 1 Peter 1 the NASB 77 uses the literal "gird the loins of your mind" whereas the NASB 95 reads "prepare your minds for action". I was surprised a literal translation would change to a less literal rendering.I prefer the 1977.
I note that in 1 Peter 1 the NASB 77 uses the literal "gird the loins of your mind" whereas the NASB 95 reads "prepare your minds for action". I was surprised a literal translation would change to a less literal rendering.
A literal translation changes to a less literal translation for one simple reason: it perceives a gain in understandability (See Richard's comment). There's a reason no one uses Young's Literal translation in church: it's very wooden and stilted and not really proper English. On the other hand, no one uses the Message for close analysis of the text. Every translation is a trade-off between comprehension and literality: the NASB 95 moves very slightly toward comprehension, probably because they thought more people (and churches) wanted a Bible they could understand than one for super close analysis. That's not a condemnation or criticism; different translation philosophies are better for different purposes, and the NASB was already a bit of a niche Bible. It's up to individual readers to decide whether that is a gain or a loss (for their Bible reading purposes).I note that in 1 Peter 1 the NASB 77 uses the literal "gird the loins of your mind" whereas the NASB 95 reads "prepare your minds for action". I was surprised a literal translation would change to a less literal rendering.
What is the most literal English translation?
Fair enough. I have seen on a scale that the NAS and the ESV are rated pretty high. Both mention it is as literal as possible while still doing some interpretation for readability.That question is really impossible to answer. The definition of and criteria for “literal” changes with each individual. In my studies, I have found that the question is in the end not very helpful to ask or answer.
Fair enough. I have seen on a scale that the NAS and the ESV are rated pretty high. Both mention it is as literal as possible while still doing some interpretation for readability.
You bring up another good topic. What would be a good one for idioms and word concepts?Yes, if by “literal” we mean a translation that strives for as close as possible to a one-to-one rendering of every word, and which has little to no interest in translating things like idioms and word concepts into an English equivalent, then the NASB and ESV are probably more “literal.”
You bring up another good topic. What would be a good one for idioms and word concepts?
Probably throw the Lexham English Bible into that hat as well.Yes, if by “literal” we mean a translation that strives for as close as possible to a one-to-one rendering of every word, and which has little to no interest in translating things like idioms and word concepts into an English equivalent, then the NASB and ESV are probably more “literal.”
Thanks Iain. I was aware of this - I grew up in a KJV only background so spent time studying the merits of different Bible translations. To get to my point, it seems to me there is no advantage having a NASB 95 because the ESV fills this niche of a literal translation that is more 'dynamic' than a wooden translation.Every translation is a trade-off between comprehension and literality
I think that is probably the caseThanks Iain. I was aware of this - I grew up in a KJV only background so spent time studying the merits of different Bible translations. To get to my point, it seems to me there is no advantage having a NASB 95 because the ESV fills this niche of a literal translation that is more 'dynamic' than a wooden translation.
I guess my question could be rephrased - if one wants a more literal modern translation than the ESV, is the NASB 77 the best choice?
I picked up a 73' NASB hardcover from a thrift store a few years back; it still has thee, thy, and thou in the poetry. I do not have a 77, but my understanding is that it is still there and was not removed until the 95 update.I have also heard that thy and thou is still used for the poetic sections.
It is even less literal, in my opinion, when you throw in the new NASB2020 update...
Yes, in print. It will also be available in Accordance Bible Software soon.Is the NASB 2020 actually out now?