I’m going to go with R Grant Jones’s work. That guy is a beast. It would be cool if the two of you did a two or three part series together comparing translations. Great video!
Thank you, Tim. Very interesting video. With respect to R. Grant Jones' channel, I find his detailed Bible reviews certainly outstanding. It would be nice if you both have a conversation to share for your TH-cam followers. You both are the best.
I really agree with you, Tim. The NKJV has been my main translation used for about 35 years. But before that, it was the NASB for several years, during which time I read the New Testament a lot. In recent years I've returned to the NASB as a secondary source, because of its reputation for accaracy, and because I trust the Greek texts behind it more. But just as you, I've found that it's often let me down, and the NKJV is more literal. And yet, also, as you've said, I appreciate the transparancy of the NKJV, both in the italics used, and in the alternate Greek texts given in footnotes. I sometimes think the NKJV is a preacher's best Bible (with some alterations), and the NASB is one of the best teacher's translations.
Another excellent video. I'm a big fan of the CSB, but the good news is how fortunate we all are to have so many excellent translations. BTW, your AL champ Ray's hat should be arriving soon. Haven't been able to see your Phillies this year in Clearwater due to limited capacity still...
I came to the same realization today when comparing the NKJV & NASB reading of Romans 1-5. Almost every time the NASB supplied a footnote stating what the literal phrase or wording was, that was the rendering of the passage in the NKJV. Thanks for this video. I LOVE my NKJV.
Agreed..Nkjv is the best in my opinion but we all have our opinions. I also love the nlt. It may be more accurate for me in several places..Blessings to all my brethren. Toni's husband
Nkjv and nasb are essentially equal in my opinion, with nasb seeming to play both sides, showing the literal AND the closest american meaning in modern English. I value having both on one page, in one book, but nkjv is perfectly fine. MUCH better than KJV.
So very interesting. Thank you, Tim. I tend to study from the NASB and the ESV. Just recently I got a KJV study Bible and I am really liking it. Though I don't study from the NLT, I do tend to read some of the prophets in the NLT, as there are some parts of the text that are a bit too obscure. However, my first instinct is to wrestle with the text on my own and then, if stuck, I go for help.
I do the same, and the NLT is good for kicked back easy relaxing reading too. Sometimes I want to relax and read the Bible without thinking too much. A lot of times when I’m doing that something will hit me and I’ll reach for the NASB, ESV or KJV (and the Spirit usually tells me which one to grab)
I currently read the KJV however I am about to switch to the NASB, after watching several videos I've come to learn that it IS one of the most accurate versions of the Bible. I love that you acknowledged the transparency of the NASB and the foot notes. I believe it helps keep it readable while also giving you the literally translation.
The NASB is way different from the NIV. Don’t let anyone mislead you. The NIV removes masculine wordage and adds feminine wordage hundreds of times compared to the NIV. That is a fact. You can get the actual numbers by looking up the words in each respective translation or by watching one of the videos on TH-cam that gives you the actual numbers. Also, as you probably know, the NASB is based on the critical text and doesn’t add all of the verses that do not appear in any manuscripts for hundreds of years like the KJV and NKJV do.
Thank you, Tim. You make excellent points. When I think 'literal', nearly every literal translation, e.g. Interlinear, Lexam and similar translations affect my reading in that they sound choppy when trying to read them. That is not a property I exhibit when reading the NASB 95. I find it easy to read smoothly almost all the time.
I recall watching R. Grant Jones' comparison of the NASB and the NKJV. After watching that, I was pretty convinced that the New King James was more literal out of the two. In the end, I still love the NASB, but ended up moving the ESV. Out of the passages you offered as comparison example, the ESV tends to go with the "less literal" option quite a bit, except for the "knew his wife" one in Genesis. But they still seem like accurate, helpful, and true-to-the-text translations. Great video, as always!
My favorite translations are the NASB95, NKJV, ESV, KJV. Usually in that order but sometimes depending on my mood I tend to move them around. I'm pretty sure I'll have an eternal internal battle with my trying to decide which is my absolute favorite 😅😂, great video btw
@john disalvo you won't get a debate from me but to answer your question I'd say the ones translated from the majority texts. Saying that sinless Jesus was born of a virgin and sacrificed for our sins and rose from the grave. The KJV being the most pure since it doesn't change specific things to into a gray area as the MEV does In order to spare people's feelings. Anyone who says "all" doesn't know much on the topic. You have the Ethiopian Bible with 83 books and the Protestant Bible with 66 and a Protestant would say that books Not in their Bible are not inspired. And that same person wouldn't agree with the NWT either. The thing is our adversary is the author of confusion. And he's taken the original autographs and made it a confusing thing to many. Masoretic texts>Septuagint and Vulgate(OT). Byzantine/Majority/Textus receptus texts>Alexandrian/critical text. (NT)
At first I was thinking about not watching this video, but I'm glad I did (not because I'm hardcore NASB, as I have a NKJV and only use NASB on my phone). I'm planning on getting a LSB later this year and begin studying the ancient texts and languages more thoroughly. Thank you for this video!!
Great comments, I agree. I'm not a scholar of Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew, so I can't speak to which is most literal. I use the NKJV as my main translation. It's the one I started with, I like the notes. They cite other texts more than other translations such as the ESV, or in my opinion, even the NASB do. I also like the way it reads, and how it's broken up, as in the psalms and proverbs. Purely subjective, I just seem to do better with the layout of the NKJV. I do like to use the NASB and/or ESV in conjunction with the NKJV when studying, I find it helps my understanding and often brings out things I might have missed otherwise. When I look at those 3, I'm often amazed at how much they agree in meaning, and even in wording, given the fact they use different texts as sources. I don't find any of them so different (or the KJV) that I feel any are misrepresenting the word of God. I haven't read any other translations in enough depth to even give an opinion. Again, this is only my opinion, based on my personal study, and I know many feel differently. How blessed we are for having so many wonderful translations available to us! Thanks for the review, Tim, well said!
Great video! In my studies I have a high regard for the footnotes in a translation and will usually take into account how accurate I will consider a translation. The more footnotes showing alternate definition and/or words; the better. No matter how accurate one translation is; there will still be words that cannot always accurately convey the meaning of some words in the manuscripts. The NKJV is great at providing extensive footnotes.
I love having different translations available readily at my fingertips. Sometimes I will use a specific version depending upon what the preacher is using. I like to be able to follow along seamlessly. I would say that my top five translations I use on a day-to-day basis would be either the KJV, NASB, NKJV, LSB and ESV. And sometimes I use two or more translations a day. It depends on what I am studying. But as of right now, I am less frequently using the AMP, CSB, NLT, The Complete Jewish Study Bible and the NIV. Sometimes I really enjoy pulling them all out for a certain portion of scripture and read each version. I just ordered the CSB Holy Land Illustrated Bible, so the CSB will probably be bumped up in my lineup. :-). I purchased my Bibles so that each one has a specific feature, whether it be a Chronological, Daily Study Bible, Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, and Apologetics Study Bible. I do have a creative journaling Bible that I found helpful in making me more comfortable in writing in my Bibles, if I do chose. I usually only write in certain Bibles though. :-)
Thank you for turning me onto Mr. R. Grant Jones' channel. As someone who has used the KJV since childhood, I've always questioned how the NASB was considered more word-for-word than KJV, especially given the number of "Lit." footnotes in the NASB. I don't think these should count with the same weight as what was included in the main text. I often refer to the NASB & ESV for comparison/balance, and I think both are good translations. There is certainly benefit to having more manuscripts to pull from, but when it comes to being word-for-word in translation philosophy, I find these more interpretive than the KJV. Great video!
I was gifted a amp bible a few years ago. Im on my new journey with Christ and looking to update. NASB is something that looks readable and understandable to me, but i do want to get into NKJB too. I might get both!! I personally enjoy the footnotes mainly since reading the truth is hard as a younger person. It helps me apply it better in my life!
Thanks for your work on this. I always enjoy your views and thought provocations on the subject of Bible translations. I guess that's why I can not read a scripture passage without checking three or four different translations. (My brain is aflame!)
Great idea for a video sir. I have been asking this for years. Yes, in many places the NASB is very literal but in many other places, it chooses a dynamic rendering where the NKJV, KJV, NRSV or others do not. It's odd and somewhat inconsistent.
Thank you so much for this. 🙏 🙇 I've always thought the RV/ASV were technically more correct than the NASB - including the 2020 update, and this video confirmed my suspicions.
You are correct in your assessment of the NASB. With each revision of the Bible, the translators have atttempted to are it more “readable” and have actually made it less literal. The LSB, however, has reverse this trend and fixed many of the issues of the NASB95. In my studies, I find the LSB to be more literal than the NKJV. As compared to the NKJV, the LSB uses far less synonyms and is much better with verb tenses. Also, the word order is more consistent with the original languages. My ear is trained to the KJV/NKJV, When reading the LSB, I often come across passages that seem incorrect, but upon further investigation, the LSB is proven correct most of the time. One more thing, the NKJV does not translate many conjunctions, but the LSB includes them.
@@GanttCarterservant I suggest you do a side-by-side comparison between the NASB and LSB. Any one of Paul's letters will work as an example. Make sure you have an NASB with full notes.
Well, NASB 2020 seems to be more literal than NASB1995 according to the chart in this video. So the last revision made it more literal than the previous one
When I went to Bible College in the 70s, there was a class that evaluated the accuracy of about 20 translations. Every semester the NASB and the Emphasized Bible were deemed the most accurate. KJV was around 5th most times.
Very well put. It's funny, I actually just purchased a NKJV an NASB within a month of each other. I use the NKJV with my Devotional and the NASB for Church. Great video.
A while back I think I watched that R. Grant Jones' vid. He did a good job. The problem with those charts is the people who put it together do minimal work. They're are definitely not spending the time like R. Grant Jones did. They are just copying and pasting. In the vid., one of your first charts had the NET Bible way to the left (literal side) vs. the CSB (right of the middle). That's when I knew the chart was wrong. Overall, all these main translations are less "literal" or word-for-word than we think. Most people would think NASB & ESV are very literal - not the case. I know because I can read the original. Most literal would be interlinears, than maybe the ASV, KJV, NKJV, etc.
I think this is a comparison of apples vs oranges to some extent, primarily because the NASB uses different texts to interpret from than the KJV or NKJV line. So I would think it would be better to say the NASB is perhaps the most literal for newer translations, because although it uses the use of older Greek and Hebrew texts unavailable during the creation of the KJV, and perhaps the same interpretation methods were used, it is not based on the same ancient text as the KJV.
With all the AI we have, it would be fairly trivial for it to compare all the translations, to the original languages and provide an accurate answer. But you also need to account for the translated words that don't have a good or easy to define translation. And some words have multiple meanings, so how do we know which is the best one? And other words require looking up similar words in other manuscripts or similar languages to derive a meaning. Then you have instances where literal, might not really be what we want if the direct translation translates to a word we no longer use in English.
I love the NASB but I go through seasons between NASB, ESV and if I need a inbetween thought for thought and word for word I really like the CSB. All awesome translations, and I use to be ( through ignorance ) a strict KJVO. I got to say since I have switched I have read the scriptures more and my walk with Christ is stronger.
My bigger issue comes with the Textus Receptus that these are translated from. Dive into it and how it came to be before deciding what is the most literal.
excellent video, good questions asked, important concerns brought up :) ... i think it is useful to compare whole chapters in translations to see which is more literal... i suspect many bible versions comparisons are based on a pick and chose approach, where verses are picked, or even parts of text and certain grammatical concerns are chosen... and when the NASB NT was released in 1963 and the Bible in 1971-77, a trend had been developing for decades where translators, theologians and others focused on the verb tenses and certain passages that could be improved in the traditional Bible, the KJV... so, if you back then went to the verses or passages of concern, you would find that the NASB had "corrected" the text in many places.... but after our heads had cooled down a little bit, and we took the time to do some verse-for-verse comparison of whole chapters in the NT, we would find that the case was not that clear cut... - and i have done just that: i did a comparison of the first chapter of John and the first chapter of Ephesians, comparing the KJV with the NASB1977, considering not only verb tenses, prepositions and other typical 20th century translation concerns, but the complete mass and sum of the text, and the result was clear: in percentage of text the KJV was more literal than the NASB1977.... and this was not even taking into consideration the more literal 2nd person personal pronouns of the KJV, but i did include the historic present in John, which the KJV usually translates literally while the NASB1977 does not... in addition, i have gone through most of the Gospel of Luke in another context, very often looking up the NASB95 in the process, and more often than not i found the NASB95 less literal than the KJV.... - the above is simply a comparison result which i have given to make the results more specific, by way of selecting a couple of chapters, after having observed the very same facts or results for many years... i couldn't avoid thinking that the NASB has undeservedly been famous for being one of the most literal versions out there, or at least it is very overrated as a literal version of the Bible.... (though it has many good qualities and has many literal renderings and is a good text to read) -- so from what i have found, i must agree with the chart made by F. Grant Jones....
Just started studying from the Matthew Henry Study Bible. It is wonderful. Also use commentaries by John Gill and Adam Clarke. These are before the twentieth century . Many of the cults and dispensationalism came into being at that time and influenced the later translations and revisions of the Bible as well as commentaries. Always allow the Spirit to guide you God bless and may the Lord find faith when He returns .
The chart by R. Grant Jones generally reflects my own experiences with these translations. I would classify the NASB and NKJV as "literal to the point of awkwardness," while I think of the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and CSB as "literal but not awkwardly so." However, the NKJV sometimes sacrifices accuracy in word order for the sake of tradition and good English style. Much like the ESV, the NKJV retains inverted negatives in cases where it's not reflective of ancient Greek or modern English. For instance, Matthew 7.1 begins with the words "Μὴ κρίνετε" ("Not judge"). The NKJV instead says, "Judge not." The NASB instead says, "Do not judge," thus retaining the word order of the text even if it means dropping the more familiar reading from the KJV/ASV. The WEB does it one better by saying "Don't judge," thereby matching the number of words in addition to the word order.
Agreed. It seems some translation committees included "Yoda" as a translator, "I am drinking a tea that is green." Instead of "I am drinking green tea."
Very interesting... and informative.. Thank you. My main translation is the NKJV , with the ESV as a second favorite. I’ve been trying to decide whether or not to get an NASB and what year.. I am leaning toward the 1995vedition... do you think this would be best...since I use the NKJV / most of the time? I really can’t see most footnotes, so I want the text to be accurate.
I appreciate this video. I totally agree that we shouldn't take those "word for word vs. thought for thought" charts at face value without seeing the data behind them. I'm still a bit skeptical of Jones' chart as well. It's clearly a big step in the right direction, but I would need to look at the data behind Jones' chart much more carefully before I could come to a conclusion on it's reliability. Just based on my experience reading them, I rather doubt that the KJV is more literal than the NASB77. Not doubting Jones' sincerity, but I have to wonder exactly how he counted liberties. It is so hard to come up with a concrete definition of a liberty. For example, let's look at the final clause of II Corinthians 5:15 in the NASB95. It reads "Him who died and rose again on their behalf." How many liberties are taken in this translation? I have no idea. I would count it as two (#2 & #3), but I can see 4 things that could possibly be considered liberties. (1) Technically there is no word for "Him" in the Greek. I would consider it an accurate contextual translation of the article here, but you could argue that it should be translated "the one" with the word "one" in italics. (2) The word for "rose" (ἐγείρω) is passive in the Greek. "Was raised" would be a more literal translation. (3)There is no word for "again" in the Greek. Should this be considered "inserted text without italics" or should "rose again" be considered together as a translation of ἐγείρω? (4) What about the translation of ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν as "on their behalf?" It adds a word that is not strictly necessary given that it could be translated as "for them." Furthermore, the word ὑπὲρ was translated as "for" at the beginning of the verse and in the previous verse. I say all this to make a simple point, it is incredibly difficult to measure the "literalness" of a translation. We all know that the NASB is far more literal than the NLT, but it is very tough to compare the various formal equivalence translations to determine which is the most literal. I have the most confidence in the methodology of Dr. Andi Wu's "Quantitative Evaluation of the Christian Standard Bible," I am simply not ready to crown any translation as the most literal yet.
@@DS-uo5ie I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't see where I mention forgiveness or implied that it was a continuous action. I was simply trying to point out how complex measuring the "literalness" of a translation is.
What makes it "easily" the most accurate, and what are some examples? And is it more word-for-word/literal than all the other translations? And what would be the examples of that?
@@AFrischPerspective As you said, KJV and NKJV would be the most literal of those using only the Textus Receptus. NASB would be the most literal of those translations using the wider range of source texts discovered since the 17th century, including some manuscripts older than those that were translated into the Textus Receptus. Having multiple translations like this is useful in discerning those sections of scripture that are arguable, such as in the last chapter of Mark.
@@LC-jq7vn There are basically two kinds of translation: formal equivalence (close to literal) and dynamic equivalence (has the meaning but in more modern language). Then there are paraphrase versions (like 'The Message') which aren't really translations at all. The NIV is perfectly fine at capturing the meaning of scriptures, but you might want to add a formal equivalence version to compare with, such as NASB or NKJV. There are even some parallel Bibles that have more than one version side by side. I personally have now NASB and ESV study bibles for personal study, RSV and NRSV because of the church I am attending. In the past, I had NIV and NKJV because of the churches I attended back then. And if you really get into the word, you can use an online resource such as Biblehub which has multiple translations and an interlinear version for Greek and Hebrew with word commentaries. Studying the Bible itself is like taking in daily food from the Spirit. But we must always remember that our relationship is with the living Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible's purpose is to point us to him.
@@LC-jq7vn The Niv surprised me in how accurate it is for its simplicity and readability. On bible recommendations: ☆ NKJV (New King James Version) ☆ CSB (Christian Standard Bible) Get both and you'll get the best of everything concerning bible translations,philosiphies and underlying texts. Invest in a Cambridge NKJV Clarion - it's a quality made bible made to last. Great all-round use for everything.
The AMP becomes highly problematic when additional words are added which COULD be a possible word choice in the Greek but the uneducated reader does the interpretation rather than the trained scholar who understands which word better suits the English translation in that particular context. Some AMP passages soften and dilute the text imo. For example 1 Tim 6:10. I feel the prosperity doctrine (lite) guys get almost a free pass using the AMP version, suggesting they may not have excessive greed. The nasb plainly speaks more to affections, where a little bit of love becomes a massive problem!
09:20 In Matthew 6:27 YLT version - If cubit is a measurement of length, does the word mean length in the sentence? "And who of you, being anxious, is able to add to his age [any length]?" In other words, extra time to their life. If that's the case, the NASB seems to translate that idea far better than the NKJV.
I have heard for years that the NASB 'is the most literal version." I started doubting that several years ago when I started comparing the two (NKJV and NASB 95). It seems almost every time the NASB has a translation note that the literal meaning is....." that the NKJV already was using the literal translation. I've also found that the translation notes are not available in many of the versions of NASB available (for example I was looking at the zondervan premier NASB 95 and it has a very much reduced set of translation notes.)
There's another class further on the left that are word-for-word, but also grammar syntactically equivalent, of Bibles like Young's Literal, Green's Literal, and the Concordant Literal translations. I own a copy of the YLT, and I love it!
The WEB is definitely an underappreciated translation. I use it as well. But be careful saying that it's "based on the Majority Text," as it is a "language update" of the ASV 1901.
Hi Tim, would you be able to do a review on the Douay-Rheims translation? I'm aware it's based on the Latin Vulgate. Just thought I'd ask 🤔 Btw, love your work. God bless bro
The Douay is quite an interesting translation. Psalm 23 (I think it's either numbered as 22 or 24 in the Douay) is a trip. You should also check out the Wycliffe Bible with Modern Spelling, also translated from the Vulgate, as well as the Catholic Public Domain Version, which is a modern English Vulgate translation. All of these are available in YouVersion.
I do rather like the literal sounding of the NASB but it's also easy to understand but now I think the CSB is also in the equation just because for one thing Schuyler has printed that version in the Quentel version so that makes it part of the Big 5. The charts help a lot.
I have found that the NASB is very honest in that if it does change the wording of something in the text it'll usually give a footnote and give the original meaning or even the meaning in the King James version as an alternative so I think that's being very honest while at the same time updating the meaning of the text.
Matt: 6:27 is more "accurate" in NASB, in that the word cubit in ancient times was used for a tern of length of something not the height of anything much less the stature of a man. I'm not an expert, but I use the KJV for reading and the NASB with the AMP to study. I can tell you from passive study that 1995 is faaar more literal to the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic than the 2020.
Matthew 24:40 Amplified Bible: At that time two men will be in the field; one will be taken [for judgment] and one will be left. Young's Literal Translation: Then two men shall be in the field, the one is received, and the one is left; English Standard Version: Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Which one is right?
I think I totally agree with you. and more people read the text and don't pay as much attention to footnotes..so I think it should be on the text..but what do I know..no one asked my opinion really..lol
I am not a scholar. I had for years read only the "evangelical" translations. However I have come to enjoy reading the NRSV once I found how the Hebrew word "Almah" was translated throughout the Old Testament.
for comparison check Ps 8:5 (God not angel), 2 Tim 2:15, (diligent not study), Matt 24:12, (lawlessness not iniquity), James 1:12, (approved not tried), and there are many more.
Watching your video ( great topic ) I noticed that G.R. Jones noted on his chart that he only used the New Testament. Are the other charts using only the New Testament in their figures? Or are they using both Testaments to determine what is the most literal translation. Using only 33% of a translation from a narrower translation family(T.R. For the KJV or NKJV) to determine if a translation is more literal doesn’t necessarily prove one way or the other . Newer translations tend to use several textual sources to determine what words to use . Blessings
That first chart you showed (which is a very common one) has always seemed suspicious to me because it has the GNB ranked as less literal than The Message. I've compared many passages from the GNB and they are all more traditional-sounding than the paraphrasy Message. That puts at suspect these charts and justifies the question of whether the NASB really is the most literal.
I think a common mistake is thinking that literal means accurate. Accurate would mean, "Does the translation convey the meaning of the text faithfully," while literal would mean, "Does the translation convey the words into the target language faithfully." I think the NASB maintains a good balance between the two, while other "more literal" translations lean towards literalness. Just my 2 cents. :)
It would be interesting to see how the NASB2020 stacks up to the NASB1995. I find the newer 2020 "interpretation" very different than the more "literal" 1995
The NASB is weird! I've been collecting some objective data on a number of different Bible translation to be able to classify it's concordance (how much does a translation use different words for the same Greek word?) and oddly enough the NASB is not at all where I expected it to fall, almost wondering if there was an issue with my methods, but seeing this is reinforcing my dataset. I'll be releasing a video on this in the very near future.
Great video! Question: Would it be fair to say that the KJV is more literal to the Textus Receptus than the NASB is to the Novum Testamentum Graece, but they are each the most literal translations to the Texts used for the translation?
The thought crossed my mind as well, but the texts aren't really that different, and it's clear that NASB translations like "had relations with his wife" instead of "knew his wife" are not because of differences in the underlying text.
For years I thought that I needed to be reading the NASB because that is what I was told serious Bible students used, or that I needed to use the ESV because I'm reformed. I struggled at times to read and study simply because I wasn't getting the meaning of the text. I'm under the impression now that you need to read the version that helps you bring out the orginal meaning and message of the text best. For me, that is the CSB, but if you get the meaning and message better from the NKJV, KJV, NIV, or the NASB than use that version. I still use other translations, but my main Bible is the CSB. I think, at times there is a certain academic snobbery that goes with Bible translations, and the attachment to them being literal or the most literal.
A wise way to determine if the NASB is the most "literal" translation is to take your Hebrew text in hand (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia or Biblia Hebraica Leningrad, and a quality edition of the Greek Text, UBS or Nestle Aland. Read them then compare English versions to what the biblical texts say. Then we should ask, "Does the NASB say what I read from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts?" If it doesn't, it's not the most "literal." The NASB has many "added" words, and is very interpretive in many passages, so it's not the most "literal." The ASV-1901 is the closest modified-literal English version we have had, and its accuracy is legendary!
@@saderin I have compared many English versions to parts of Hebrew and Greek texts. RSV-1971 and ESV-2016 are good modified literal versions. The ASV-1901 is quite legendary in its "literal accuracy." I have not found any of the readily available modern versions to be as close as the ASV is as a modified literal version. The ASV is not a perfect translation but it is as close to the "literal" standard as I have seen among English versions.
April w4th... I just bought my first NASB 1995 NASB, and like it very much. The NKJV is still my fav translation, but I am enjoying the NASB They seem to be a lot alike.
If anything, the NASB95 and the NKJ are about the same as regards their respective literalism to the original languages. However, I think the NKJ retains more hebraism in the text than does any other modern translation.
The most literal translation I have personally found, as in the closest to the interlinear, would be Young's Literal translation. No it's not perfect but does some insight as to the original flow and word usage. I sometimes refer to it as the Greek when you don't have time to go to the Greek. I would love to find a modern version like that.
I really like and agree with your approach. Interestingly, and may be a bit of a contradiction, I compare most “more” literal translations with KJV, then check Strongs snd Englishmans etc and my go to is to use NEB to get the sense of the verse. I find NET very frustrating because the footnotes take on tangents all the time you find that their text doesn’t provide the best option. Thanks for your analysis.
I wish I’d have found this video sooner! I wanted the most literal translation available for deeper study, so after much research, I bought a NASB. I got home just to realize the footnotes have the literal translations, not the actual text. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good translation, but all of my other five translations include those same footnotes. I was kind of led to believe the text was literal; and the “most” literal. I don’t think that’s the case considering the literalness has to be found in the footnotes. I’ll likely still refer to my new NASB from time to time, but I’ll stick with my NKJV for deeper study.
What exactly are the “loins of your mind”. That doesn’t make much sense today. I want my Bible to be clear, I shouldn’t have to read a commentary (rely on a teacher) to understand it. I enjoy reading the NLT and NIV, but I go to the NASB when I need to know exactly what is being said.
I totally understand what you are saying and am not disagreeing with you in one sense, something like prepare your minds or something like that might be clearer in onse sense. but the phrase you not is translating what's there as far as I know. It's an idiom, it has in view when taking the tunic or long outer garmet they wore, pulling it up to your loins, above the knee, kinda groin area in other words, and tying it, or girding (heard of a girdle? Related word) it about your loins, almost like a diaper, to allow freedom of movement for battle or work or whatever. When the idiom is understood it brings a much richer meaning than simply prepare your minds, or be alert , or something. So from that sense gird up your loins is actually clearer in that it more clearly reflects the ancient idiom and customs of the time
I understand. The best way is to use a handful of Bibles and cross reference. The NIV is great for easy read but it gets a couple of things wrong, even contextually. 1 I can remember is in one of the law books where it basically says if a woman is “raped” in town she should be punished by death. This is a wrong translation. A few passages after that a different word for rape is also used, but that word actually means rape. The word in question means roughly ‘to be grabbed up’ by a man. The NIV saw this and translated it as rape which would make it to where the victim is punished. That’s not what that means. ‘to be grabbed up’ means seduced. The idea is she’s in town looking for a lover and Hebrew is a very picturesque language so the word that means ‘seduced’ literal translation is ‘’to be grabbed up’. That’s a major NIV error. Think Fabio on one of those dime store novels, not a guy jumping out of a bush. If I really just feel like an easy read, I’ll use the NIV, but I recommend the ESV, the NASB, and the good Ol’ King James. Those are the best in my humble opinion. But with the internet, you can compare the Greek and Hebrew yourself. I usually use Bible Hub. Hope this helps.
PS there are some great seminary classes on YT. I really like Randy Smith on the channel GCBI. With a back ground in archeology and history, he does a great job of explains Jewish customs and traditions that come up in the Bible so you can understand why they are there. And he does videos in every single book of the Bible. It’s awesome. So lucky to be able to get this info for free. Anyway, hope all this helps. God Bless.
I see on the R Grant Jone's chart that the ASV & RV are shown as being more literal than the KJV and the NKJV. Can you explain what the ASV and the RV are and how they compare to the KJV and the NKJV? Thanks for all you do!
This video and the comments are interesting, but I’m more concerned with being able to understand scripture. We argue/debate everything. Is it to make our opinion more than your opinion, KJV or NKJV or ESV or NASB. Why can’t I chose the one that works for me? I started with KJV and found it very difficult to read & understand. Moved to NIV and discovered it omitted verses (I didn’t understand why at the time). It was when I stumble upon the NASB that my understanding increased. I also have been comforted knowing others teach from this translation. Therefore, NASB will be my primary Bible, but I always reference the other translations in my studies.
Good to know the LSB is supposedly more literal than the NASB. I recently acquired an LSB, but have never owned an NASB. I don’t think I need one at this point.
There are different metrics of literalness. The NASB is more literal than the KJV/NKJV with respect to verb choices and tenses. But the KJV/NKJV is more literal than the NASB with respect to conveying original figures of speech, Hebraisms, and other stylistic features of the originals.
Which is easier to understand and read regarding today's modern American English? Do both have Footnotes of where other version differ? If so I can choose either!
I’m going to go with R Grant Jones’s work. That guy is a beast. It would be cool if the two of you did a two or three part series together comparing translations. Great video!
It would be good to do one on the MEV?
Thank you, Tim. Very interesting video. With respect to R. Grant Jones' channel, I find his detailed Bible reviews certainly outstanding. It would be nice if you both have a conversation to share for your TH-cam followers. You both are the best.
I really agree with you, Tim. The NKJV has been my main translation used for about 35 years. But before that, it was the NASB for several years, during which time I read the New Testament a lot. In recent years I've returned to the NASB as a secondary source, because of its reputation for accaracy, and because I trust the Greek texts behind it more. But just as you, I've found that it's often let me down, and the NKJV is more literal. And yet, also, as you've said, I appreciate the transparancy of the NKJV, both in the italics used, and in the alternate Greek texts given in footnotes. I sometimes think the NKJV is a preacher's best Bible (with some alterations), and the NASB is one of the best teacher's translations.
Thank you for this interesting and helpful video. I just bought a LSB.
I have used many bibles, and the LSB is definitely my favorite.
Another excellent video. I'm a big fan of the CSB, but the good news is how fortunate we all are to have so many excellent translations.
BTW, your AL champ Ray's hat should be arriving soon. Haven't been able to see your Phillies this year in Clearwater due to limited capacity still...
Cool, I look forward to wearing it!
I came to the same realization today when comparing the NKJV & NASB reading of Romans 1-5. Almost every time the NASB supplied a footnote stating what the literal phrase or wording was, that was the rendering of the passage in the NKJV. Thanks for this video. I LOVE my NKJV.
Agreed..Nkjv is the best in my opinion but we all have our opinions. I also love the nlt. It may be more accurate for me in several places..Blessings to all my brethren. Toni's husband
Nkjv and nasb are essentially equal in my opinion, with nasb seeming to play both sides, showing the literal AND the closest american meaning in modern English. I value having both on one page, in one book, but nkjv is perfectly fine. MUCH better than KJV.
So very interesting. Thank you, Tim.
I tend to study from the NASB and the ESV. Just recently I got a KJV study Bible and I am really liking it. Though I don't study from the NLT, I do tend to read some of the prophets in the NLT, as there are some parts of the text that are a bit too obscure. However, my first instinct is to wrestle with the text on my own and then, if stuck, I go for help.
I do the same, and the NLT is good for kicked back easy relaxing reading too. Sometimes I want to relax and read the Bible without thinking too much. A lot of times when I’m doing that something will hit me and I’ll reach for the NASB, ESV or KJV (and the Spirit usually tells me which one to grab)
I currently read the KJV however I am about to switch to the NASB, after watching several videos I've come to learn that it IS one of the most accurate versions of the Bible. I love that you acknowledged the transparency of the NASB and the foot notes. I believe it helps keep it readable while also giving you the literally translation.
NASB is not much different to NIV, RSV etc, would recommend sticking with KJV
@@danielc7600 No I would recommend one that does not use 400 plus years old English.
@@10HERBERT th-cam.com/video/L5HY22JBzDU/w-d-xo.html
The NASB is way different from the NIV. Don’t let anyone mislead you. The NIV removes masculine wordage and adds feminine wordage hundreds of times compared to the NIV. That is a fact. You can get the actual numbers by looking up the words in each respective translation or by watching one of the videos on TH-cam that gives you the actual numbers. Also, as you probably know, the NASB is based on the critical text and doesn’t add all of the verses that do not appear in any manuscripts for hundreds of years like the KJV and NKJV do.
I use the NASB. I put aside the KJV long ago and am glad for it.
This is such a great video, Tim! Thanks so much!
Thank you, Tim. You make excellent points. When I think 'literal', nearly every literal translation, e.g. Interlinear, Lexam and similar translations affect my reading in that they sound choppy when trying to read them. That is not a property I exhibit when reading the NASB 95. I find it easy to read smoothly almost all the time.
Your observation of “transparent” in translation is spot-on. Very well put, Sir. Your analysis of the NASB is masterful. Thank-You, and God Bless You!
I recall watching R. Grant Jones' comparison of the NASB and the NKJV. After watching that, I was pretty convinced that the New King James was more literal out of the two. In the end, I still love the NASB, but ended up moving the ESV. Out of the passages you offered as comparison example, the ESV tends to go with the "less literal" option quite a bit, except for the "knew his wife" one in Genesis. But they still seem like accurate, helpful, and true-to-the-text translations. Great video, as always!
My favorite translations are the NASB95, NKJV, ESV, KJV. Usually in that order but sometimes depending on my mood I tend to move them around. I'm pretty sure I'll have an eternal internal battle with my trying to decide which is my absolute favorite 😅😂, great video btw
That’s the exact 4 i read from as well. Nkjv is my favorite but definitely those 4
So which ONE is the word of God??? All of them? None of them??? How many word of God’s are there anyway? 53? 97? 500???
@@johndisalvo6283 ALL of them. Pretty simple. Unless you are a KJV only person.
@@flintymcduff5417 ALL of them are DIFFERENT! How can they ALL be God’s word??
Hint: things that are different are not the same.
@john disalvo you won't get a debate from me but to answer your question I'd say the ones translated from the majority texts. Saying that sinless Jesus was born of a virgin and sacrificed for our sins and rose from the grave. The KJV being the most pure since it doesn't change specific things to into a gray area as the MEV does In order to spare people's feelings. Anyone who says "all" doesn't know much on the topic. You have the Ethiopian Bible with 83 books and the Protestant Bible with 66 and a Protestant would say that books Not in their Bible are not inspired. And that same person wouldn't agree with the NWT either. The thing is our adversary is the author of confusion. And he's taken the original autographs and made it a confusing thing to many. Masoretic texts>Septuagint and Vulgate(OT). Byzantine/Majority/Textus receptus texts>Alexandrian/critical text. (NT)
Absolutely love the Frisch perspectives. This was a great topic and very interesting. Thank you brother!!!
At first I was thinking about not watching this video, but I'm glad I did (not because I'm hardcore NASB, as I have a NKJV and only use NASB on my phone). I'm planning on getting a LSB later this year and begin studying the ancient texts and languages more thoroughly. Thank you for this video!!
Great comments, I agree. I'm not a scholar of Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew, so I can't speak to which is most literal. I use the NKJV as my main translation. It's the one I started with, I like the notes. They cite other texts more than other translations such as the ESV, or in my opinion, even the NASB do. I also like the way it reads, and how it's broken up, as in the psalms and proverbs. Purely subjective, I just seem to do better with the layout of the NKJV. I do like to use the NASB and/or ESV in conjunction with the NKJV when studying, I find it helps my understanding and often brings out things I might have missed otherwise. When I look at those 3, I'm often amazed at how much they agree in meaning, and even in wording, given the fact they use different texts as sources. I don't find any of them so different (or the KJV) that I feel any are misrepresenting the word of God. I haven't read any other translations in enough depth to even give an opinion. Again, this is only my opinion, based on my personal study, and I know many feel differently. How blessed we are for having so many wonderful translations available to us! Thanks for the review, Tim, well said!
Tim,
Just saw this today. Couldn’t agree with you more. Very clear and logical presentation. Thanks!
Hello Tim I found it very very interesting, thank you very much.
You're welcome!
Great video! In my studies I have a high regard for the footnotes in a translation and will usually take into account how accurate I will consider a translation. The more footnotes showing alternate definition and/or words; the better. No matter how accurate one translation is; there will still be words that cannot always accurately convey the meaning of some words in the manuscripts. The NKJV is great at providing extensive footnotes.
I love having different translations available readily at my fingertips. Sometimes I will use a specific version depending upon what the preacher is using. I like to be able to follow along seamlessly. I would say that my top five translations I use on a day-to-day basis would be either the KJV, NASB, NKJV, LSB and ESV. And sometimes I use two or more translations a day. It depends on what I am studying. But as of right now, I am less frequently using the AMP, CSB, NLT, The Complete Jewish Study Bible and the NIV. Sometimes I really enjoy pulling them all out for a certain portion of scripture and read each version.
I just ordered the CSB Holy Land Illustrated Bible, so the CSB will probably be bumped up in my lineup. :-).
I purchased my Bibles so that each one has a specific feature, whether it be a Chronological, Daily Study Bible, Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, and Apologetics Study Bible. I do have a creative journaling Bible that I found helpful in making me more comfortable in writing in my Bibles, if I do chose. I usually only write in certain Bibles though. :-)
Thank you for turning me onto Mr. R. Grant Jones' channel. As someone who has used the KJV since childhood, I've always questioned how the NASB was considered more word-for-word than KJV, especially given the number of "Lit." footnotes in the NASB. I don't think these should count with the same weight as what was included in the main text.
I often refer to the NASB & ESV for comparison/balance, and I think both are good translations. There is certainly benefit to having more manuscripts to pull from, but when it comes to being word-for-word in translation philosophy, I find these more interpretive than the KJV. Great video!
I was gifted a amp bible a few years ago. Im on my new journey with Christ and looking to update. NASB is something that looks readable and understandable to me, but i do want to get into NKJB too. I might get both!! I personally enjoy the footnotes mainly since reading the truth is hard as a younger person. It helps me apply it better in my life!
Thanks for your work on this. I always enjoy your views and thought provocations on the subject of Bible translations. I guess that's why I can not read a scripture passage without checking three or four different translations. (My brain is aflame!)
Ah! Sometimes my wife walks in and, finding me with two Bibles and an interlinear open on the sofa, says "Can't you just read Scripture sometimes?" ;)
@Douglas J Keep at it!
Ditto!
Great idea for a video sir. I have been asking this for years.
Yes, in many places the NASB is very literal but in many other places, it chooses a dynamic rendering where the NKJV, KJV, NRSV or others do not. It's odd and somewhat inconsistent.
Very interesting. This is the first time anyone has brought this out to my attention.
Thank you so much for this. 🙏 🙇
I've always thought the RV/ASV were technically more correct than the NASB - including the 2020 update, and this video confirmed my suspicions.
I just bought a NASB95 & an ASV for reference. But my favorite version is the RSV & I'm glad to see it is way over on the left.
You are correct in your assessment of the NASB. With each revision of the Bible, the translators have atttempted to are it more “readable” and have actually made it less literal. The LSB, however, has reverse this trend and fixed many of the issues of the NASB95. In my studies, I find the LSB to be more literal than the NKJV. As compared to the NKJV, the LSB uses far less synonyms and is much better with verb tenses. Also, the word order is more consistent with the original languages. My ear is trained to the KJV/NKJV, When reading the LSB, I often come across passages that seem incorrect, but upon further investigation, the LSB is proven correct most of the time. One more thing, the NKJV does not translate many conjunctions, but the LSB includes them.
Spot on!!
Can you provide some examples? Thanks
@@GanttCarterservant I suggest you do a side-by-side comparison between the NASB and LSB. Any one of Paul's letters will work as an example. Make sure you have an NASB with full notes.
@@poplarmeadow 🤔
Well, NASB 2020 seems to be more literal than NASB1995 according to the chart in this video. So the last revision made it more literal than the previous one
When I went to Bible College in the 70s, there was a class that evaluated the accuracy of about 20 translations. Every semester the NASB and the Emphasized Bible were deemed the most accurate. KJV was around 5th most times.
Thanks for posting this video. It's excellent.
Very well put. It's funny, I actually just purchased a NKJV an NASB within a month of each other. I use the NKJV with my Devotional and the NASB for Church. Great video.
LOVE LOVE LOVE this channel. Please do a review of the TLV, MEV, LSV bible versions, all of which are fairly recent. Thank you brother!
The TLV has a lot of problems with it.
It could have been a LOT better!!!!!!!!!!
I just ran into this video . EXCELLENT explanation! Thanks!
You're welcome!
A while back I think I watched that R. Grant Jones' vid. He did a good job. The problem with those charts is the people who put it together do minimal work. They're are definitely not spending the time like R. Grant Jones did. They are just copying and pasting.
In the vid., one of your first charts had the NET Bible way to the left (literal side) vs. the CSB (right of the middle). That's when I knew the chart was wrong.
Overall, all these main translations are less "literal" or word-for-word than we think. Most people would think NASB & ESV are very literal - not the case. I know because I can read the original. Most literal would be interlinears, than maybe the ASV, KJV, NKJV, etc.
I like your style brother. Ty for sharing this.
You're welcome!
I think this is a comparison of apples vs oranges to some extent, primarily because the NASB uses different texts to interpret from than the KJV or NKJV line. So I would think it would be better to say the NASB is perhaps the most literal for newer translations, because although it uses the use of older Greek and Hebrew texts unavailable during the creation of the KJV, and perhaps the same interpretation methods were used, it is not based on the same ancient text as the KJV.
With all the AI we have, it would be fairly trivial for it to compare all the translations, to the original languages and provide an accurate answer. But you also need to account for the translated words that don't have a good or easy to define translation. And some words have multiple meanings, so how do we know which is the best one?
And other words require looking up similar words in other manuscripts or similar languages to derive a meaning.
Then you have instances where literal, might not really be what we want if the direct translation translates to a word we no longer use in English.
Excellent work.
I love the NASB but I go through seasons between NASB, ESV and if I need a inbetween thought for thought and word for word I really like the CSB.
All awesome translations, and I use to be ( through ignorance ) a strict KJVO.
I got to say since I have switched I have read the scriptures more and my walk with Christ is stronger.
My bigger issue comes with the Textus Receptus that these are translated from. Dive into it and how it came to be before deciding what is the most literal.
Very good observation. Thank you
Good explanation, nice video👍🏼
Thanks for that. I had seen all the charts and just didn't think they were right. You confirmed my intuitions that the NKJV is more literal.
excellent video, good questions asked, important concerns brought up :) ... i think it is useful to compare whole chapters in translations to see which is more literal... i suspect many bible versions comparisons are based on a pick and chose approach, where verses are picked, or even parts of text and certain grammatical concerns are chosen... and when the NASB NT was released in 1963 and the Bible in 1971-77, a trend had been developing for decades where translators, theologians and others focused on the verb tenses and certain passages that could be improved in the traditional Bible, the KJV... so, if you back then went to the verses or passages of concern, you would find that the NASB had "corrected" the text in many places.... but after our heads had cooled down a little bit, and we took the time to do some verse-for-verse comparison of whole chapters in the NT, we would find that the case was not that clear cut... - and i have done just that: i did a comparison of the first chapter of John and the first chapter of Ephesians, comparing the KJV with the NASB1977, considering not only verb tenses, prepositions and other typical 20th century translation concerns, but the complete mass and sum of the text, and the result was clear: in percentage of text the KJV was more literal than the NASB1977.... and this was not even taking into consideration the more literal 2nd person personal pronouns of the KJV, but i did include the historic present in John, which the KJV usually translates literally while the NASB1977 does not... in addition, i have gone through most of the Gospel of Luke in another context, very often looking up the NASB95 in the process, and more often than not i found the NASB95 less literal than the KJV.... - the above is simply a comparison result which i have given to make the results more specific, by way of selecting a couple of chapters, after having observed the very same facts or results for many years... i couldn't avoid thinking that the NASB has undeservedly been famous for being one of the most literal versions out there, or at least it is very overrated as a literal version of the Bible.... (though it has many good qualities and has many literal renderings and is a good text to read) -- so from what i have found, i must agree with the chart made by F. Grant Jones....
Just started studying from the Matthew Henry Study Bible. It is wonderful. Also use commentaries by John Gill and Adam Clarke. These are before the twentieth century . Many of the cults and dispensationalism came into being at that time and influenced the later translations and revisions of the Bible as well as commentaries. Always allow the Spirit to guide you
God bless and may the Lord find faith when He returns .
77 NASB for me in the Thompson chain reference , what an awesome Bible it is
Brother dude, thanks for this. Love the critical thinking. I look forward to seeing what people have to say.
Well done, word for word!!!
The chart by R. Grant Jones generally reflects my own experiences with these translations. I would classify the NASB and NKJV as "literal to the point of awkwardness," while I think of the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and CSB as "literal but not awkwardly so."
However, the NKJV sometimes sacrifices accuracy in word order for the sake of tradition and good English style. Much like the ESV, the NKJV retains inverted negatives in cases where it's not reflective of ancient Greek or modern English. For instance, Matthew 7.1 begins with the words "Μὴ κρίνετε" ("Not judge"). The NKJV instead says, "Judge not." The NASB instead says, "Do not judge," thus retaining the word order of the text even if it means dropping the more familiar reading from the KJV/ASV. The WEB does it one better by saying "Don't judge," thereby matching the number of words in addition to the word order.
Agreed. It seems some translation committees included "Yoda" as a translator, "I am drinking a tea that is green." Instead of "I am drinking green tea."
Very interesting... and informative.. Thank you. My main translation is the NKJV , with the ESV as a second favorite. I’ve been trying to decide whether or not to get an NASB and what year.. I am leaning toward the 1995vedition... do you think this would be best...since I use the NKJV / most of the time?
I really can’t see most footnotes, so I want the text to be accurate.
I appreciate this video. I totally agree that we shouldn't take those "word for word vs. thought for thought" charts at face value without seeing the data behind them. I'm still a bit skeptical of Jones' chart as well. It's clearly a big step in the right direction, but I would need to look at the data behind Jones' chart much more carefully before I could come to a conclusion on it's reliability. Just based on my experience reading them, I rather doubt that the KJV is more literal than the NASB77. Not doubting Jones' sincerity, but I have to wonder exactly how he counted liberties. It is so hard to come up with a concrete definition of a liberty.
For example, let's look at the final clause of II Corinthians 5:15 in the NASB95. It reads "Him who died and rose again on their behalf." How many liberties are taken in this translation? I have no idea. I would count it as two (#2 & #3), but I can see 4 things that could possibly be considered liberties. (1) Technically there is no word for "Him" in the Greek. I would consider it an accurate contextual translation of the article here, but you could argue that it should be translated "the one" with the word "one" in italics. (2) The word for "rose" (ἐγείρω) is passive in the Greek. "Was raised" would be a more literal translation. (3)There is no word for "again" in the Greek. Should this be considered "inserted text without italics" or should "rose again" be considered together as a translation of ἐγείρω? (4) What about the translation of ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν as "on their behalf?" It adds a word that is not strictly necessary given that it could be translated as "for them." Furthermore, the word ὑπὲρ was translated as "for" at the beginning of the verse and in the previous verse.
I say all this to make a simple point, it is incredibly difficult to measure the "literalness" of a translation. We all know that the NASB is far more literal than the NLT, but it is very tough to compare the various formal equivalence translations to determine which is the most literal. I have the most confidence in the methodology of Dr. Andi Wu's "Quantitative Evaluation of the Christian Standard Bible," I am simply not ready to crown any translation as the most literal yet.
Nerdy! 1 John 1:9 The forgiveness of Christ is past! It is not a continuous action!
@@DS-uo5ie I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't see where I mention forgiveness or implied that it was a continuous action. I was simply trying to point out how complex measuring the "literalness" of a translation is.
Probably you can have a look at the Young’s Literal Translation and the Geneva?
From my own personal study, and comparisons with the Greek, the NASB is easily the most accurate translation.
What makes it "easily" the most accurate, and what are some examples? And is it more word-for-word/literal than all the other translations? And what would be the examples of that?
@@AFrischPerspective As you said, KJV and NKJV would be the most literal of those using only the Textus Receptus. NASB would be the most literal of those translations using the wider range of source texts discovered since the 17th century, including some manuscripts older than those that were translated into the Textus Receptus. Having multiple translations like this is useful in discerning those sections of scripture that are arguable, such as in the last chapter of Mark.
@@LC-jq7vn There are basically two kinds of translation: formal equivalence (close to literal) and dynamic equivalence (has the meaning but in more modern language). Then there are paraphrase versions (like 'The Message') which aren't really translations at all.
The NIV is perfectly fine at capturing the meaning of scriptures, but you might want to add a formal equivalence version to compare with, such as NASB or NKJV. There are even some parallel Bibles that have more than one version side by side.
I personally have now NASB and ESV study bibles for personal study, RSV and NRSV because of the church I am attending. In the past, I had NIV and NKJV because of the churches I attended back then.
And if you really get into the word, you can use an online resource such as Biblehub which has multiple translations and an interlinear version for Greek and Hebrew with word commentaries.
Studying the Bible itself is like taking in daily food from the Spirit. But we must always remember that our relationship is with the living Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible's purpose is to point us to him.
@@LC-jq7vn Yes. God bless you and help you in your calling.
@@LC-jq7vn The Niv surprised me in how accurate it is for its simplicity and readability.
On bible recommendations:
☆ NKJV (New King James Version)
☆ CSB (Christian Standard Bible)
Get both and you'll get the best of everything concerning bible translations,philosiphies and underlying texts.
Invest in a Cambridge NKJV Clarion - it's a quality made bible made to last. Great all-round use for everything.
I toggle between the NASB and Amplified. I am leaning to the Amplified the last several years.
The AMP becomes highly problematic when additional words are added which COULD be a possible word choice in the Greek but the uneducated reader does the interpretation rather than the trained scholar who understands which word better suits the English translation in that particular context. Some AMP passages soften and dilute the text imo. For example 1 Tim 6:10. I feel the prosperity doctrine (lite) guys get almost a free pass using the AMP version, suggesting they may not have excessive greed. The nasb plainly speaks more to affections, where a little bit of love becomes a massive problem!
Interesting discussion. My only point would be to say that in many colleges the NASB is called “the Standard” and it is used in Greek classes.
Seems the ESV is the academic go-to these days for citations, etc.
09:20 In Matthew 6:27 YLT version - If cubit is a measurement of length, does the word mean length in the sentence? "And who of you, being anxious, is able to add to his age [any length]?" In other words, extra time to their life. If that's the case, the NASB seems to translate that idea far better than the NKJV.
I have heard for years that the NASB 'is the most literal version." I started doubting that several years ago when I started comparing the two (NKJV and NASB 95). It seems almost every time the NASB has a translation note that the literal meaning is....." that the NKJV already was using the literal translation. I've also found that the translation notes are not available in many of the versions of NASB available (for example I was looking at the zondervan premier NASB 95 and it has a very much reduced set of translation notes.)
There's another class further on the left that are word-for-word, but also grammar syntactically equivalent, of Bibles like Young's Literal, Green's Literal, and the Concordant Literal translations. I own a copy of the YLT, and I love it!
The best Bible translation in English in my opinion is the World English Bible (WEB), based on the majority text and translated extremely well.
The WEB is definitely an underappreciated translation. I use it as well. But be careful saying that it's "based on the Majority Text," as it is a "language update" of the ASV 1901.
Hi Tim, would you be able to do a review on the Douay-Rheims translation? I'm aware it's based on the Latin Vulgate. Just thought I'd ask 🤔
Btw, love your work. God bless bro
The Douay is quite an interesting translation. Psalm 23 (I think it's either numbered as 22 or 24 in the Douay) is a trip. You should also check out the Wycliffe Bible with Modern Spelling, also translated from the Vulgate, as well as the Catholic Public Domain Version, which is a modern English Vulgate translation. All of these are available in YouVersion.
I am just looking to buy myself a travel bible and you helped me a lot
When is the LSB going to be included in these charts.
Yes .Read an Interlinear if you want clunky, stodgy,literal.
I do rather like the literal sounding of the NASB but it's also easy to understand but now I think the CSB is also in the equation just because for one thing Schuyler has printed that version in the Quentel version so that makes it part of the Big 5. The charts help a lot.
I have found that the NASB is very honest in that if it does change the wording of something in the text it'll usually give a footnote and give the original meaning or even the meaning in the King James version as an alternative so I think that's being very honest while at the same time updating the meaning of the text.
Matt: 6:27 is more "accurate" in NASB, in that the word cubit in ancient times was used for a tern of length of something not the height of anything much less the stature of a man. I'm not an expert, but I use the KJV for reading and the NASB with the AMP to study. I can tell you from passive study that 1995 is faaar more literal to the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic than the 2020.
Matthew 24:40
Amplified Bible: At that time two men will be in the field; one will be taken [for judgment] and one will be left.
Young's Literal Translation: Then two men shall be in the field, the one is received, and the one is left;
English Standard Version: Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left.
Which one is right?
I think I totally agree with you. and more people read the text and don't pay as much attention to footnotes..so I think it should be on the text..but what do I know..no one asked my opinion really..lol
You can always share your opinions here, especially if you agree with me. 😆
@@AFrischPerspective 🤣🤣😄
I am not a scholar. I had for years read only the "evangelical" translations. However I have come to enjoy reading the NRSV once I found how the Hebrew word "Almah" was translated throughout the Old Testament.
for comparison check Ps 8:5 (God not angel), 2 Tim 2:15, (diligent not study), Matt 24:12, (lawlessness not iniquity), James 1:12, (approved not tried), and there are many more.
Watching your video ( great topic ) I noticed that G.R. Jones noted on his chart that he only used the New Testament.
Are the other charts using only the New Testament in their figures? Or are they using both Testaments to determine what is the most literal translation. Using only 33% of a translation from a narrower translation family(T.R. For the KJV or NKJV) to determine if a translation is more literal doesn’t necessarily prove one way or the other . Newer translations tend to use several textual sources to determine what words to use .
Blessings
That first chart you showed (which is a very common one) has always seemed suspicious to me because it has the GNB ranked as less literal than The Message. I've compared many passages from the GNB and they are all more traditional-sounding than the paraphrasy Message. That puts at suspect these charts and justifies the question of whether the NASB really is the most literal.
I thought that too
I think a common mistake is thinking that literal means accurate. Accurate would mean, "Does the translation convey the meaning of the text faithfully," while literal would mean, "Does the translation convey the words into the target language faithfully." I think the NASB maintains a good balance between the two, while other "more literal" translations lean towards literalness. Just my 2 cents. :)
It would be interesting to see how the NASB2020 stacks up to the NASB1995. I find the newer 2020 "interpretation" very different than the more "literal" 1995
it was in the R. Grant Jones' Chart. I think "NAS20" see later part of video.
The NASB is weird! I've been collecting some objective data on a number of different Bible translation to be able to classify it's concordance (how much does a translation use different words for the same Greek word?) and oddly enough the NASB is not at all where I expected it to fall, almost wondering if there was an issue with my methods, but seeing this is reinforcing my dataset. I'll be releasing a video on this in the very near future.
Great video! Question: Would it be fair to say that the KJV is more literal to the Textus Receptus than the NASB is to the Novum Testamentum Graece, but they are each the most literal translations to the Texts used for the translation?
The thought crossed my mind as well, but the texts aren't really that different, and it's clear that NASB translations like "had relations with his wife" instead of "knew his wife" are not because of differences in the underlying text.
The MEV is the most underrated version. It’s like the ESV of the TR. I personally enjoy reading from it.
This was very interesting.
For years I thought that I needed to be reading the NASB because that is what I was told serious Bible students used, or that I needed to use the ESV because I'm reformed. I struggled at times to read and study simply because I wasn't getting the meaning of the text.
I'm under the impression now that you need to read the version that helps you bring out the orginal meaning and message of the text best. For me, that is the CSB, but if you get the meaning and message better from the NKJV, KJV, NIV, or the NASB than use that version. I still use other translations, but my main Bible is the CSB.
I think, at times there is a certain academic snobbery that goes with Bible translations, and the attachment to them being literal or the most literal.
Where does the NASB 2020 now fit into all this?
A wise way to determine if the NASB is the most "literal" translation is to take your Hebrew text in hand (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia or Biblia Hebraica Leningrad, and a quality edition of the Greek Text, UBS or Nestle Aland. Read them then compare English versions to what the biblical texts say. Then we should ask, "Does the NASB say what I read from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts?" If it doesn't, it's not the most "literal." The NASB has many "added" words, and is very interpretive in many passages, so it's not the most "literal." The ASV-1901 is the closest modified-literal English version we have had, and its accuracy is legendary!
I have a ASV from Prolific Industries that is really nice. It has all the translators notes from the original.
@@saderin I have compared many English versions to parts of Hebrew and Greek texts. RSV-1971 and ESV-2016 are good modified literal versions. The ASV-1901 is quite legendary in its "literal accuracy." I have not found any of the readily available modern versions to be as close as the ASV is as a modified literal version. The ASV is not a perfect translation but it is as close to the "literal" standard as I have seen among English versions.
April w4th... I just bought my first NASB 1995 NASB, and like it very much. The NKJV is still my fav translation, but I am enjoying the NASB They seem to be a lot alike.
If anything, the NASB95 and the NKJ are about the same as regards their respective literalism to the original languages. However, I think the NKJ retains more hebraism in the text than does any other modern translation.
The most literal translation I have personally found, as in the closest to the interlinear, would be Young's Literal translation. No it's not perfect but does some insight as to the original flow and word usage. I sometimes refer to it as the Greek when you don't have time to go to the Greek. I would love to find a modern version like that.
I really like and agree with your approach. Interestingly, and may be a bit of a contradiction, I compare most “more” literal translations with KJV, then check Strongs snd Englishmans etc and my go to is to use NEB to get the sense of the verse. I find NET very frustrating because the footnotes take on tangents all the time you find that their text doesn’t provide the best option. Thanks for your analysis.
Thank you, Pastor 🌹🌹🌹
LSV (or YLT) and Jay Green's Interlinear are extremely literal to the point where NASB sounds like a paraphrase.
I wish I’d have found this video sooner! I wanted the most literal translation available for deeper study, so after much research, I bought a NASB. I got home just to realize the footnotes have the literal translations, not the actual text. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a good translation, but all of my other five translations include those same footnotes. I was kind of led to believe the text was literal; and the “most” literal. I don’t think that’s the case considering the literalness has to be found in the footnotes. I’ll likely still refer to my new NASB from time to time, but I’ll stick with my NKJV for deeper study.
What exactly are the “loins of your mind”. That doesn’t make much sense today. I want my Bible to be clear, I shouldn’t have to read a commentary (rely on a teacher) to understand it. I enjoy reading the NLT and NIV, but I go to the NASB when I need to know exactly what is being said.
I totally understand what you are saying and am not disagreeing with you in one sense, something like prepare your minds or something like that might be clearer in onse sense. but the phrase you not is translating what's there as far as I know. It's an idiom, it has in view when taking the tunic or long outer garmet they wore, pulling it up to your loins, above the knee, kinda groin area in other words, and tying it, or girding (heard of a girdle? Related word) it about your loins, almost like a diaper, to allow freedom of movement for battle or work or whatever. When the idiom is understood it brings a much richer meaning than simply prepare your minds, or be alert , or something. So from that sense gird up your loins is actually clearer in that it more clearly reflects the ancient idiom and customs of the time
I understand. The best way is to use a handful of Bibles and cross reference. The NIV is great for easy read but it gets a couple of things wrong, even contextually. 1 I can remember is in one of the law books where it basically says if a woman is “raped” in town she should be punished by death. This is a wrong translation. A few passages after that a different word for rape is also used, but that word actually means rape. The word in question means roughly ‘to be grabbed up’ by a man. The NIV saw this and translated it as rape which would make it to where the victim is punished. That’s not what that means. ‘to be grabbed up’ means seduced. The idea is she’s in town looking for a lover and Hebrew is a very picturesque language so the word that means ‘seduced’ literal translation is ‘’to be grabbed up’. That’s a major NIV error. Think Fabio on one of those dime store novels, not a guy jumping out of a bush.
If I really just feel like an easy read, I’ll use the NIV, but I recommend the ESV, the NASB, and the good Ol’ King James. Those are the best in my humble opinion. But with the internet, you can compare the Greek and Hebrew yourself. I usually use Bible Hub. Hope this helps.
PS there are some great seminary classes on YT. I really like Randy Smith on the channel GCBI. With a back ground in archeology and history, he does a great job of explains Jewish customs and traditions that come up in the Bible so you can understand why they are there. And he does videos in every single book of the Bible. It’s awesome. So lucky to be able to get this info for free. Anyway, hope all this helps. God Bless.
I disagree with the chart. Taking 200 verses at random means nothing when you have right at 8,000 verses total.
Very informative video. Thank you. I was wondering why I like the NKJV so much lol.
Interesting. Good points.
Does the lsb sit with the Nasb on these charts ?
Whatever translation you use…
Did you get the message?
I see on the R Grant Jone's chart that the ASV & RV are shown as being more literal than the KJV and the NKJV. Can you explain what the ASV and the RV are and how they compare to the KJV and the NKJV? Thanks for all you do!
what about YLT (Young's Literal Translation)?
This video and the comments are interesting, but I’m more concerned with being able to understand scripture. We argue/debate everything. Is it to make our opinion more than your opinion, KJV or NKJV or ESV or NASB. Why can’t I chose the one that works for me? I started with KJV and found it very difficult to read & understand. Moved to NIV and discovered it omitted verses (I didn’t understand why at the time). It was when I stumble upon the NASB that my understanding increased. I also have been comforted knowing others teach from this translation. Therefore, NASB will be my primary Bible, but I always reference the other translations in my studies.
Good to know the LSB is supposedly more literal than the NASB. I recently acquired an LSB, but have never owned an NASB. I don’t think I need one at this point.
There are different metrics of literalness. The NASB is more literal than the KJV/NKJV with respect to verb choices and tenses. But the KJV/NKJV is more literal than the NASB with respect to conveying original figures of speech, Hebraisms, and other stylistic features of the originals.
Which is easier to understand and read regarding today's modern American English? Do both have Footnotes of where other version differ? If so I can choose either!
NASB IS A GOOD TRANSLATION !
Honest question: where would you put the Darby Bible on that spectrum?