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

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What do you want from God's Word ?


QUOTE="Frankyy, post: 72824677, member: 406602"]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.[/QUOTE

 

[Episaw]

I like your style lol. The story of the woman at the well holds this truth. "My fathers say this mountain but you all say that city". The original languages as we call it, really isn't even Hebrew but the Samaritan text is. Greek is closer to genuine Hebrew of the Exodus, actually Paleo Hebrew took less evolution to arrive at English than modern Jewish Hebrew. Of course it's all explained throughout the Old scriptures and regardless of the language paths, its still a true testimony.

Thanks. My humour will be the death of me. Hope there is plenty in heaven.

 

[Frankyy]

What do you want from God's Word ?

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.

Lot's of things, friend.

But the focus of my inquiry is to see if anyone had any input as to why the NASB is often touted as the most literal of today's popular English translations but it doesn't quit seem to be judging by how they footnote "Lit." words and phrases whereas other translations (NKJV, KJV, ESV for example) often have it directly in their text. Maybe I'm hermeneutically understanding the term "literal" incorrectly?

A couple answers I've received gives me the impression that "meaning" actually contributes to literalness, but if that were the case why are versions such as the NLT labeled oppositely "dynamic" when such translations seem to map the "meaning" of idioms and euphemisms more understandably into English? (Ex: Literal "knew" as "sexual relations")

Another answer leads me to believe that because of how the NASB grammatically structures sentences closer than other popular translations, it is the closest to the original languages and therefore is more literal.

My goal is not at all to favor one version over another. Just a question out of pure curiosity from someone who is a fan of various English translations.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm still not sure why any of that matters (to you)
nor what it is you are seeking now more than anything else .

Lot's of things, friend.

But the focus of my inquiry is to see if anyone had any input as to why the NASB is often touted as the most literal of today's popular English translations but it doesn't quit seem to be judging by how they footnote "Lit." words and phrases whereas other translations (NKJV, KJV, ESV for example) often have it directly in their text. Maybe I'm hermeneutically understanding the term "literal" incorrectly?

A couple answers I've received gives me the impression that "meaning" actually contributes to literalness, but if that were the case why are versions such as the NLT labeled oppositely "dynamic" when such translations seem to map the "meaning" of idioms and euphemisms more understandably into English? (Ex: Literal "knew" as "sexual relations")

Another answer leads me to believe that because of how the NASB grammatically structures sentences closer than other popular translations, it is the closest to the original languages and therefore is more literal.

My goal is not at all to favor one version over another. Just a question out of pure curiosity from someone who is a fan of various English translations.