is The NASV still considred as being 'Most Literal" Modern version?

For some reason, you don't hear much about this version anymore.

 

No update in over 15 years, so nothing news worthy. Its still the most literal as far as I know. Its my default translation still.

 

I believe it is the best translation. The problem with the NASB is that their marketing of the product opened up a clear path for the ESV. I think the ESV chose to do the opposite of the NASB, and thus took over their market share.

 

According to Bible charts it is listed as the most literal translation.

I've been using the NASB for about a year now. I really do like this Bible! However, there are some places I ran into in it that I thought were more of a paraphrase than a literal translation. I meant to keep track of these passages, but unfortunately can't recall where they were.

 

No; actually the 1901 version was considered the most literal English version (outside of lesser-known 'literal' versions, such as Young's).

The ASV is a good version, I liked it better in some respects than the NASBs. Even as old as it is, it suffers little for lack of modern 'advancements'. Most of the more recent MSS discoveries and scholarship have little affect on the the final translations.

 

The NASV is the only somewhat popular version I have never used. The only one I have is a paperback that has extremely small print. I'm not saying it is a bad version; I just have never used it and probably never will.

I fell in love with the NIV when it first came out although now I find myself using the NLT more and more. I may eventually go back to the NIV, especially now that the 2011 NIV is available.

As far as the more literal versions are concerned, I find myself using the NKJV, but mainly because the Spirit Filled Life Bible is in that version.

 

If your Bible is fully noted then it will explain. There are phrases that are translated with dynamic equivalence but the literal is in the notes. So yeah I've seen this too :smilewinkgrin:

 

We are studying through Numbers in our Sunday School class. I don't like the HCSB's use of the words manatee skin in chapter 4; I prefer the NLT's use of the words, fine goatskin better.

I do like the ESV though. I thought I wouldn't like it since it is known as the reformer's bible, but I find it better than I thought. I still prefer the NLT or the 2011 NIV for most applications.

 

I agree... But the ASV is SO literal that it is almost impossible to read. It almost follows the Greek word order. Issues with textual advances are important, but probably not critical in and doctrine.

After that, the NASB 95 is great for study. I preached from one for years until I switched to either the HCSB or ESV.

 

It is the most woodenly-literal version widely available. I love this translation and it is a great tool, but using it exclusively can lead to misinterpretations because many of us would not understand the idioms that are translated word-for-word.

 

[soapbox]Why is it being called the NASV??? That is not its name. Usually, this is the caricature of the KJVo's who do want to acknowledge that this translation is the Bible. But why take away its name? New American Standard Bible. [/soapbox]

 

I have several versions of the scriptures and my most useful, in order from the top are the NASB, the ASV and then the KJV. Having had to speak three languages and presently working on Spanish, I know that there is no such thing as a literal translation.

So it is that since I do not speak Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic nor Koine Greek, I am left in a quandary if I am not grounded, sufficiently in the Faith required by God. The answer to this is so simple, a four year old can grasp and use this Faith Tool.

As a Lay Bible Teacher my Faith in God is so positive that one would need to exterminate me to render my Faith useless or a non-productive tool. It is my position that God can do ¨anything.¨ So, God is ¨a fact¨ that the scribes, translators or work force translating the Bible are also under the direct influence of God as they work.

And because I am led (influenced) by God, I need the inspired work of God to teach from. And with submission and prayer to always be led by the Holy Spirit, it has been that presence and influence of God that has taught me to use the NASB to teach from and to use the other two to render more light on the subjects being taught.

In the teaching emails and web posts I, most often quote from the ASV because folks like and prefer the old style and sound of the texts. But the NASB is the most literal of the transcriptions available!

But a word of caution for the New in the Faith! The Holy Spirit of God is not the only person in the realm of the spirits inspiring the translations of the Bible! The one that appears as an angel of light (Satan) is also doing this. The evidence? The New World Translation! Just consider the physical evidence, there are, I´m informed, better than 100 translations with different Word rendering and style or format but at the end of everything, they all convey the same message! And the New World Translation, the Bible of the JW´s, disagrees with the other transcriptions. It is not a product of the never changing God. (Mal. 3:6)

 

Could you point that out to me? I have never seen that distinction. Not saying you are wrong, just saying that it seems silly to me to call it something other than it is: NASB.

 

I agree. We should identify as an item is self-identified. In this case, NASB always, no matter whether 1977 or 1995. Sometimes the update has an added "u" or "95" added for clarity as in NASBu or NASB95.

Virtually no one who uses the NASB, nor the publisher, uses any other form.