Subject: Why is NAS better than KJV |
Bible Note: Greentwiga: Your response is good and I appreciate your imput, I do wish you had some information in the Update User Info. I would not totally agree that "Most scholars agre that Youngs literal translation is the most accurate." I think that's a pretty generalized statement. The 1901 ASB is good but the language is still KJV style, which limits the accuracy to the persons ability to fully understand the words of the time period it was translated in. The NASB Updated is by far more literal than the 1901 ASV. The NASB is written on a 10th grade level of reading, and is as close to a word for word translation as one can put into English. The NIV is written on a 6th grade level of reading, and is a thought for thought equalivance translation. The NIV does flow nicely and many reasearch tools are available in this translation. So every version uses equalivance Translation when taking the written words from one language to another language. There isno such thing as a perfect word for word, but the NASB Updated is as close as it comes at least today. As a personal note I use the NASB and the NIV side by side. I do like the thought pattern of the NASB a little better, however the NIV often makes things simpler to understand. One thing is sure comprehension is higher with the NIV for most people. One thing is very sure, with as many English translations as there are today anyone who reads English is without any reason not to read the Bible. What are your thoughts or ideas? justme |