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

Radagast · Jun 20, 2018

Greg Merrill said:
How can one read what I said and even come close to thinking I am a KJV-onlyist?

If it walks like a duck...

Greg Merrill said:
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.

Apart from a few KJV-onlyists, everyone is in agreement on the "Johannine Comma" of 1 John 5:7. It was added to the Bible. The manuscript evidence is totally clear on that - it appears in not a single Greek manuscript until quite late in the Middle Ages.

Sine Nomine · Jun 20, 2018

Frankyy said:
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.

There seems to be an issue of what is meant by literal translation and “word for word”. “Word for word” simply means that the one best word in English is used for the Hebrew or Greek word—this poses some challenges as illustrated by the very good example you chose. While “knew” would be a single word, it doesn’t fully communicate the concept “had relations with”.

The phrase isn’t quite literal, although it is understood. For a translation to be literal, it needs to convey the exact meaning of the text. This can be very challenging, if not impossible. “Two by the bar, and two by the parbar” comes to mind—we don’t know what this means. In your example, we do know. “Then Adam had sex with his wife Eve” would be the literal translation in English. Favoring the word “knew” is to use the best English word for the Hebrew euphemism for sexual intercourse. There are good reasons to do this (ie we may gain insight when Jesus says “Depart from me, I never knew you”—although a deeper significance must be ascribed to “knew” than simple copulation, which is commonly done by commentators and preachers alike). However, the choice to use “knew” presumes that we know that the author didn’t just mean sex and used the cultural euphemism.

redleghunter · Jun 20, 2018

Athanasius377 said:
The NASB is currently undergoing a revision with emphasis on the OT.

Thanks did not know that.

Dr Bruce Atkinson · Jun 20, 2018

Frankyy said:
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.

Meaning matters. What is important is not the definitions of "literal" or "word for word"-- but obtaining an accurate translation of the meaning of a passage according to both the historical context and what we know now about the language of those times.
We still do not fully know exactly what every Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic) word meant at the time and how it was meant to be used in the scripture passage. We must humbly admit our lack of full knowledge. But we can guess well given what we do know. Interlinear and those amplified versions that allow you to see the translation difficulties and language options will be as close to literal and word for word as you can get. NASB is indeed pretty close to word for word when compared with the other popular translations. But that does not necessarily make it better for understanding.

redleghunter · Jun 20, 2018

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

The LEB uses the Name as well.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 20, 2018

Frankyy said:
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.

Actually the most literal word for word translation is “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.”

All the other ones lack the same faithfulness to the original languages.

Most don’t want to hear that or admit to it, but there it is.

Frankyy · Jun 20, 2018

Sine Nomine said:
For a translation to be literal, it needs to convey the exact meaning of the text.

Dr Bruce Atkinson said:
Meaning matters.

Thanks for your input, you two.

So would conveying the "meaning" of the original texts attribute to a particular translation being deemed "literal"? If so, why are translations such as the New Living Translation and Good News Translation are described as being instead "dynamic" when their goal seems to be (unless I'm mistaken) to do just that -- take the original Hebrew and Greek and translate them to the closest "meaning" it today's language? I invite any to respond or offer their opinion.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 20, 2018

Frankyy said:
Thanks for your input, you two. So would conveying the "meaning" of the original texts attribute to a particular translation being deemed "literal"? If so, why are translations such as the New Living Translation and Good News Translation are described as being instead "dynamic" when their goal seems to be (unless I'm mistaken) to do just that -- take the original Hebrew and Greek and translate them to the closest "meaning" it today's language? I invite any to respond or offer their opinion.

Well let’s take hell for example. In today’s meaning it’s a place of burning and punishment.

In olden times helling potatoes didn’t mean to roast them, but to simply cover them over or put them in a cellar.

Likewise in biblical times Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek) was simply understood as the common grave of mankind, with no thought of punishment or fire. Hence death was likened to sleep, a state where one was not conscious, but a state from which being awoken was possible.

Except the second death, from which no hope of a resurrection is possible.

They are considered dynamic as they translate to today’s meanings, but as shown, today’s meanings aren’t always accurate to what the biblical writers meant to convey.

Call me Nic · Jun 20, 2018

Young's Literal Translation is about as close as you get to a literal translation of the Hebrew and Greek, so much so that it doesn't change word order or tenses. It's pretty much a transliteration, not just a translation.

Check this link out. Differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society Text - Textus Receptus Bibles Contemporary Bible versions like the NASB and ESV and NIV are FANTASTIC translations.... of the wrong manuscripts. The true inspired manuscript is the Textus Receptus (the received text), which was passed down through history.

redleghunter · Jun 20, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Actually the most literal word for word translation is “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.”

What leads you to this conclusion?

Justatruthseeker said:
All the other ones lack the same faithfulness to the original languages.

If you are comfortable with non-orthodox translators perhaps.

Justatruthseeker said:
Most don’t want to hear that or admit to it, but there it is.

Probably because it is a Jehovah's Witness translation?

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/

Critical review:

The New World Translation (NWT) is defined by the Jehovah's Witnesses’ parent organization (the Watchtower Society) as "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah." The NWT is the anonymous work of the “New World Bible Translation Committee.” Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the anonymity is in place so that the credit for the work will go to God. Of course, this has the added benefit of keeping the translators from any accountability for their errors and prevents real scholars from checking their academic credentials.

The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional, systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group's doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs. The “New World Bible Translation Committee” went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness theology.

Much more here as they point out the issues: Is the New World Translation a valid version of the Bible?

So, it's quite difficult to gauge this version as we don't know the committee scholarship who produced it.

Radagast · Jun 20, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Actually the most literal word for word translation is “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.”

I assume that you are a Jehovah's Witness, not a Christian.

Radagast · Jun 20, 2018

Frankyy said:
Thanks for your input, you two. So would conveying the "meaning" of the original texts attribute to a particular translation being deemed "literal"? If so, why are translations such as the New Living Translation and Good News Translation are described as being instead "dynamic" when their goal seems to be (unless I'm mistaken) to do just that -- take the original Hebrew and Greek and translate them to the closest "meaning" it today's language?

There are differences regarding the unit of translation -- do you translate words, or phrases, or sentences?

And there are differences regarding how much interpretation gets done for the benefit of the reader. In 1 Corinthians 13:12, for example, there is the image of a tarnished bronze or silver hand-held mirror, unlike anything we use today.

In Greek, the passage reads: βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι (for now we see) δι’ ἐσόπτρου (via a mirror) ἐν αἰνίγματι (obscurely), τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (but then, face to face) ...

The NKJV, NASB and ESV have: For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (very literal, leaving it for the reader to puzzle out why a reflection would be dim).

The NIV and CSB have: For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror, but then face to face (semi-literal, but replacing the metaphor by a simile, and "obscurely" by "only a reflection," thus emphasising the non-reality of a reflection, which is the aspect that still holds true in modern mirrors).

The NLT has: Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity (not literal: giving more explanation of the mirror image, capturing part of the meaning of αἰνίγματι with "puzzling," but replacing the "face to face" image completely).

The Message has: We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us (a very, very loose translation: replacing the mirror image by a fog image, and expanding the passage, but still capturing the general gist).

That's basically your spectrum. Where you sit on it depends on your translation goals.

Radagast · Jun 20, 2018

Dr Bruce Atkinson said:
We still do not fully know exactly what every Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic) word meant at the time and how it was meant to be used in the scripture passage.

For most Greek words we have a pretty good idea, based on the masses of other Greek literature.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 20, 2018

Radagast said:
There are differences regarding the unit of translation -- do you translate words, or phrases, or sentences?

And there are differences regarding how much interpretation gets done for the benefit of the reader. In 1 Corinthians 13:12, for example, there is the image of a tarnished bronze or silver hand-held mirror, unlike anything we use today.

In Greek, the passage reads: βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι (for now we see) δι’ ἐσόπτρου (via a mirror) ἐν αἰνίγματι (obscurely), τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον (but then, face to face) ...

The NKJV, NASB and ESV have: For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (very literal, leaving it for the reader to puzzle out why a reflection would be dim).

The NIV and CSB have: For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror, but then face to face (semi-literal, but replacing the metaphor by a simile, and "obscurely" by "only a reflection," thus emphasising the non-reality of a reflection, which is the aspect that still holds true in modern mirrors).

The NLT has: Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity (not literal: giving more explanation of the mirror image, capturing part of the meaning of αἰνίγματι with "puzzling," but replacing the "face to face" image completely).

The Message has: We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us (a very, very loose translation: replacing the mirror image by a fog image, and expanding the passage, but still capturing the general gist).

That's basically your spectrum. Where you sit on it depends on your translation goals.

...it couldn't just be that the technical know-how for making mirrors kind of sucked in the 1st century as it compares with the mirror making of today, could it?

The History of Mirror: Through A Glass, Darkly - Bienenstock Furniture Library

History of mirrors - The earliest man made mirrors

Radagast · Jun 20, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
...it couldn't just be that the technical know-how for making mirrors kind of sucked in the 1st century as it compares with the mirror making of today, could it?

That was my exact point. Which is why I included a picture.

And because "mirror" means something different now than it did then, there's a tricky translation issue, which different versions address in different ways.

Please go back and read what I actually wrote.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 20, 2018

Radagast said:
That was my exact point. Which is why I included a picture.

And because "mirror" means something different now than it did then, there's a tricky translation issue, which different versions address in different ways.

Please go back and read what I actually wrote.

Ah yes. I see that now. Your context was unclear to me at first, causing me to remain unreflective of your meaning.

...but, I might add, that with any of the translations, unless one knows some background information in addition to that of the text (in this case, of Paul's message), then we'll not quite "get" the drift of the original writer regardless of the version used.

Radagast · Jun 20, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Ah yes. I see that now. Your context was unclear to me at first, causing me to remain unreflective of your meaning.

Ten points for that reply! :oldthumbsup:

2PhiloVoid said:
...but, I might add, that with any of the translations, unless one knows some background information in addition to that of the text (in this case, of Paul's message), then we'll not quite "get" the drift of the original writer regardless of the version used.

Well, as you can see, the NKJV, NASB, and ESV really require some knowledge of ancient mirrors for full understanding of the passage (why would a reflection be dim?).

The NIV and CSB have been reworded so as to make complete sense even with a modern mirror.

"The Message" doesn't refer to a mirror at all -- which is an approach you might use in translating the Bible for a group of people that don't have mirrors.

Episaw · Jun 21, 2018

Frankyy said:
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 most literal translation is doing what Jesus did.

Radagast · Jun 21, 2018

Episaw said:
The most literal translation is doing what Jesus did.

That sounds pious. But none of us are going to be saving mankind by dying on the cross.

The most literal translation of what the Greek and Hebrew words of the Bible say is to express in English, as accurately as possible, what those words mean.

The most important words are those that tell us who Jesus is, and what Jesus did.

Episaw · Jun 23, 2018

Radagast said:
That sounds pious. But none of us are going to be saving mankind by dying on the cross.

The most literal translation of what the Greek and Hebrew words of the Bible say is to express in English, as accurately as possible, what those words mean.

The most important words are those that tell us who Jesus is, and what Jesus did.

Try it and it may not sound so pious. And it is a known fact that what you do speaks louder than what you say.

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

comes and goes

Scientist and Christian

Thank You Jesus!

Supporter

Thank You Jesus!

Newbie

Lapsed Catholic

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

comes and goes

comes and goes

comes and goes

Other scholars got to me before you did!

comes and goes

Other scholars got to me before you did!

comes and goes

Always learning

comes and goes

Always learning

Similar threads