NASB or NJK users

NKJV more poetical, NASB more literal.

NKJV more poetical, free-flowing due to it being a revision of the KJV.

NASB didn't come from such a rich poetical version so it is more rigid, but still very much enjoyable.

 

My OPINION:

NASB is better translation from slightly weaker manuscripts. But, it does have a tendency to footnote or maintain verses missing from the standard CT. So, it is a good, literal translation.

NKJV is not bad. I understand there are still some Greek translation problems (mainly in the complex tense areas) especially in some of the epistles. It does use a "set" of the Byzantine texts, but not exactly what the KJV used.

The KJV used many of these texts but would rely on the Vulgate and preceding translations to assist.

I use both. The NKJV primarily to compare Byzantine readings with that of the NASB.

Did I answer your questions? Not really?

NKJV and NASB
I would say the NASB is probably "slightly" more literal to its manuscripts. Clarity is okay. Flow and reading are OKAY. Not good not great. Why? An easier flow in the English language requires a more dynamic translation. So for study, its clarity and flow is a luxury I forgive.

NKJV tries awfully hard to use sentence structure like the KJV (maybe on purpose). It does shine in some places. Not bad for flow and probably pretty literal.

The two seem to be on about the same reading level to me. If one were on a higher level, I would pick the NASB to be slightly higher. But, this is based on the way "I" read, not any standard.

I hope that helps some. Its just opinion, based on comparing the two and information from other people who know this business.

I would consider BOTH to be excellent translations compared to the more dynamic stuff coming out. IMHO

 

This was posted while I was writing. I would also agree with Spoudazo.

 

I like the NASU 95 best. The thees thous and thys have gone.

 

Hi gb, I've heard a lot of people say that. Do you know if it is available on the net for download? Maybe e-sword?

I'll look later when I get more time.

Thx

 

The NASB New Testament is a much more precise translation (especially of the Greek tenses) than its counterpart in the NKJV, and it is a translation of what most New Testament scholars believe to be more accurate manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. For the casual reader who has not studied college level English grammar or any foreign languages, however, I don’t believe that the differences are significant.

 

Why can't all of our debates be carried on with the spirit of this debate so far?

Great work, gentlemen .

 

I think the NKJV and the NASB offer the best modern English renderings of their respective manuscript streams. I personally enjoy the NKJV the best of the two, because I have been using it for at least 20 years, and I have developed much familiarity with it. I think the two translations would make a terrific parallel edition - (in LARGE type). Bruce

 

I was led to Christ largely by the Scriptures as written in the NASV. Shortly thereafter, I began reading the KJV, which for was never a difficult read. Then I began reading the NKJV. then, I began to read the RV, NIV, Phillips, and a few lesser-known versions such as Darby's and YLT.

Then, a few years ago, I got an AV 1611 repro. That REALLY opened my eyes to the many differences between the 1611 and the current editions. The AV seemed to be the most majestic of the KJV editions, what with its preface, marginal notes, illustrations, and other materials besides the text. I recommend that any serious English-reading Bible student obtain a copy of the AV 1611, which will greatly enhance his/her knowledge of the Scriptures, even if the reader uses only a current KJV otherwise.

However, to answer the question of this thread...I agree with virtually all the answers in the previous posts. We must bear in mind that the NKJV is a whole new translation and not just a modern-English KJV.

I tend to use the NASV more for private study and the NKJV more for witnessing. The three English versions I recommend highly to any English reader are the NASV, NKJV, and AV 1611.

 

You really recommend the AV 1611? With all the middle "s"s looking like "f"s and "J"s being "I"s, etc., it's a fun read but not a very practical one. "Almoft thou perfuadeft mee to bee a Chriftian."

Hehehehe,

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

My personal preferance is the NKJV, simply because I grew up using a KJV and it is similar in the way it flows, but I think the NASB is great for study. I lean more towards the Byzantine text type so I naturally favor the NKJV over the NASB, but I will not rule out any conservative translation from Alexandrian Manuscripts.

I find that the literalness of the NASB makes it diffiuclt to read, however for study that is a great assest.

 

I prefer the NASB 1995.It’s what I use 99% of the time.

I'm thinking that many people who say the NASB is difficult to read are referring to the 1977 NASB. The 1995 update is smoother and I personally recommend it over the 1977 version.

I like the NKJV. I think it's a nice middle for those of us who prefer the CT and those who prefer the MT.

I would rate the NASB 1995 first then the NKJV second. You can not go wrong with either translation. A variety of translations are good to have in one’s study since no translation is 100% perfect. There are things in the NKJV that I think are better rendered than the NASB and likewise I have found things in the NASB that are better rendered then the NKJV.

 

Blue Falcon...

If ya read it awhile, ya get useta it & it flows pretty well...kinda like my reading of all those tales of chivalry with all their peradventures, God Forbids, palfreys, boons, forsooths, soothsayers, chargers(not Dodges nor credit card users), blains, unctions, sores, scallions, varlets, heralds, Paynims or Saracens(Turks, Arabs & other Moslems), nunneries(houses of ill fame)gonfalons, flagons, and many other proper but little-used-today words...and the words whose spelling & sometimes the pronunciation has changed, I.E.cyning(pro."kneng", today's "king")cwene(queen)cniht(pro.k-nite, today's "knight")

The AV 1611's English is much more modern than that.

My own summary is that the NASV is more literal, while the NKJV is more flowing in its English. A particular feature I like in both versions, or at least in the editions I own, are the headings within the chapter which give an overview of the following set of verses. That was an especial help to me to quickly locate topics within the Bible when I was a new Christian.

 

Accuracy - probably the NASB.

Clarity - a toss-up.

Flow - no doubt about it, the NKJV!

The one I gravitate toward most often is the NKJV - after all, I cut my teeth on the KJV...

 

I'm in general agreement with what's already been posted.

The NKJV is a very readable version - more so, IMO, than the NIV.

The NASB is a more precise translation, but the tradeoff is readability. This is inevitable. The 1995 revision of the NASB is a little better in the English department.

Incidentally, the ESV is both accurate and readable, and you might also want to look into it if you haven't.

 

I would concur. I've been using the ESV for a few months now and find it very readable. Still use the NASU for in depth study however.

Nathan