-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do the "Big 3" NIV/NASV/ESV use same Greek text In Translation?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
They are all based on the so-called Critical Text, but I think that in practice there are differences among them.
I would just add that the NASB is hardly known in Britain, and the ESV is not tremendously popular. As an itinerant preacher in conservative evangelical churches, I am only ever asked to preach from the KJV, NKJV or NIV. [I have been asked once to preach from the GNB, but declined to do so]
Steve
is it true that the 1977 edition of Nasv used NA 23, or did it use NA 26?
ANY real change from 1977 to 1995 versions regarding word changes, or mainly eliminating the "thee and thous?"
The NASB uses the TR surprisingly more often than is trypically thought.
Both the 1977 and 1995 update?
What would be some examples of them following tr and not ct?
probably so. I only have a digital version of the 1977 NASB(esword)
There were some I believe, but the thee's and thous would be the biggest changes.
NASB (1977)
NAS95 Update
I believe the main difference between the two lies in the identification of textual variants.
Each individual version uses a base text but each translation team develops their own original language text by the decisions they make when they encounter various textual difficulties.
Modern translations usually footnote where these departure from the base test occurs.
Older versions made similar decisions to depart from their base text but the translators of old were less reliable in noting where these decisions were made.
Regarding the character of the NASB; Personally I've been impressed by how much the text relies upon the Westcott and Hort Greek text even over the more modern Nestle-Aland.
Rob
NAS95 Update
I believe the main difference between the two lies in the identification of textual variants.
Each individual version uses a base text but each translation team develops their own original language text by the decisions they make when they encounter various textual difficulties.
Modern translations usually footnote where these departure from the base test occurs.
Older versions made similar decisions to depart from their base text but the translators of old were less reliable in noting where these decisions were made.
Regarding the character of the NASB; Personally I've been impressed by how much the text relies upon the Westcott and Hort Greek text even over the more modern Nestle-Aland.
Rob
Last edited by a moderator:
Greektim
Well-Known Member
The NIV used the CT but deviated around 250+ times. I think most of these times are when the NA/UBS peeps put things in brackets. You can get the NIV's GNT w/ Zondervan's Reader's GNT.
The NASB 95 is far more eclectic than the other two. Mainly because there are no "missing verses" save 1 John 5:7. Everything remains but in brackets but many questionable phrases are reduced to the margin.
The big change from 77 to 95 is where the literalness makes for "backwards" English is smoothed out in places. Such as if the phrase would sound awkward in literal translation, its smoothed out with a slightly more dynamic translation of the phrase, but the literal remains in the margin.
yet? :laugh:
The big change from 77 to 95 is where the literalness makes for "backwards" English is smoothed out in places. Such as if the phrase would sound awkward in literal translation, its smoothed out with a slightly more dynamic translation of the phrase, but the literal remains in the margin.
yet? :laugh:The NASB 95 is far more eclectic than the other two. Mainly because there are no "missing verses" save 1 John 5:7. Everything remains but in brackets but many questionable phrases are reduced to the margin.
The big change from 77 to 95 is where the literalness makes for "backwards" English is smoothed out in places. Such as if the phrase would sound awkward in literal translation, its smoothed out with a slightly more dynamic translation of the phrase, but the literal remains in the margin.
Do they went for a more literal/accurate NIV?
The 2011 has more accuracy because its more literal.
The NASB 95 is far more eclectic than the other two. Mainly because there are no "missing verses" save 1 John 5:7. Everything remains but in brackets but many questionable phrases are reduced to the margin.
The big change from 77 to 95 is where the literalness makes for "backwards" English is smoothed out in places. Such as if the phrase would sound awkward in literal translation, its smoothed out with a slightly more dynamic translation of the phrase, but the literal remains in the margin.
VERY....... I started with an NIV, because for a laymen I found it easiest. Fast Forward maybe 20 years & I at last am inspired. My brother is a IFB Pastor with a KJVO mindset so I attempt to read it & cant stand the read "Thee & Thou" isnt flowing. I run over to the Walmart & buy a NKJ & have been operating with it ever since. I will stay that way till the Lord tells me otherwise. you guys try to make a science of it! LOL
I fully understand. I grew up with the KJV but never got anywhere with it. Not to down the translation, but it never spoke to me. My wife bought an NASB about 5 years ago, been hooked ever since. It was the language I spoke, not a dead dialect restricted to official sounding documents and poetry.
I tried yesterday to use a KJV and got frustrated. Just couldn't do it........ I'm someone who grew up with SAT and TCAP scores in the top 2% of the nation in all areas of language and I have trouble. One could almost say I have the "gift of tongues", languages are easy for me.
But the KJV still confuses me in places.........:tear:
I agree , the Word of God should flow easily and understandably.