Points in Order of Importance
by Daniel Stanfield
Both the NASB and the KJV Bibles are very accurate literal translations, of excellent scholarship, using the best copies of the original languages which were available to them. Both works clearly and accurately represent the Word of God. Literary quality is excellent for both works, and style is identical. In many places the NASB reads exactly or nearly the same as the KJV. When choosing between these two versions, there are various areas of contrast which I have listed in order of significance.
1. Readability - NASB
The New American Standard Bible uses contemporary language and punctuation, the
King James version does not, being written almost 400
years ago, and virtually unchanged for about 120 years. The crux of the matter
of readability is the difficulty of the Elizabethan English of the KJV, which
is laborious to read even for those who are well educated and familiar with the
texts, when compared to reading the same texts in the clearly written NASB in it's familiar modern format and natural vocabulary. Other
readability issues include the use of quotations and poetic stanzas, small caps
for Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, and capitalization of pronouns
referring to deity. The NASB also recognizes Greek translations of Hebrew names
and translates the names consistently, as opposed to the KJV which gives us
multiple names for the same person; for example, the KJV calls Judah, the son
of Israel, "Judas" in Matthew 1:2, because that's how it is in Greek.
The NASB simply calls him Judah in both the Old and New Testaments; this is
simpler to understand and just as accurate.
2. Quality of language translation - NASB
The King James version is excellent, but we have since learned a great deal
about both ancient Greek and Hebrew. Our understanding of Greek has grown
significantly, particularly with the discovery that the Greek Bible was in
common Greek, but our understanding of Hebrew has vastly improved since the
17th century, during which time the ancient Hebrew was very poorly understood.
The NASB clearly benefits from a better understanding of the languages, and
presents not only closer translations, but provides notes for certain aspects
of translation, as discussed above. When the NASB and KJV differ on the
rendering of a text, which is not based on variance in the manuscripts, the
NASB is usually more favorable to the original languages. Also, slight
variations in words chosen and sentance forms used
throughout the NASB reflect our current understanding of Greek, Hebrew, and
Aramaic, which has improved dramatically in 400 years.
3. Quality of manuscripts - NASB
The KJV was based on the manuscripts which were few in number, local in
geography, and late in date. Archeology has, since the KJV, made almost all
important manuscript discoveries - everything from the Dead Sea Scrolls back to
the Rosetta Stone, all occur after the KJV. These new
manuscripts can be found in conclusive families, based on history and
geography, with standardized variations of content and recognizable progression
of modifications. Today's critical texts are very broad based and careful
reconstructions of the original writings, and cannot be reasonably discounted
out-of-hand, nor can the published arguments of those who would demand the
exclusive use of the Textus Receptus
be validated, or even accepted as reasonable. To suppose that the much older,
much more widely distributed manuscripts, in many languages, which have been
discovered over the last 390 years are all corrupted and inferior to the
sources for the KJV is incredible, to say the least.
4. Quality of Notes - NASB
While almost all KJV Bibles are published with some kind of notes, none are
version inclusive. The NASB does include a particular set of notes with the
text which pertain directly to the rendering. The first example of these notes
is the notation of the literal translation in those instances where a word or
phrase is not literal. A second set of notations identify certain passages as
being included or excluded in various manuscripts, or giving readings found in
alternate mss. Other advantages of text notes include the use of the
small-capitals font when the New Testament is quoting the Old Testament, the
marking of the Greek historical presents tense, and the capitalization of
personal pronouns which refer to deity. The fact of the matter is that the
English Bible is a translation, and as such, justifiably calls for adequate
translation notes, notes which are bountiful in the NASB and completely absent
from the KJV.
Comments or Questions for this Article?
All opinions expressed in this document are my own. I can be reached at
Dan@MidnightCoffee.com for questions or comments.
(c) Copyright Daniel Stanfield,