Reposting a
comment that I made on another board:
There are THREE principle things to keep in mind when reviewing bible versions:
1. Which textual source does the version's New Testament come from?
There are three choices: Critical Text (CT); Textus Receptus (TR); or Majority Text (MT). The Old Testament Hebrew is 99.9% the same in all Bible versions, so the question of text source only applies to the New Testament.
2. What is the translation philosophy?
A literal approach? Or paraphrasing (also called "dynamic");
3. How readable is the translation?
Is the English style easily understood? Does the version use proper English and current vocabulary? Or is it jumbled up in knots and hard to make out the key points?
If you have already decided to limit yourself to either NASV or the NKJV, then you've chosen what are probably the two best representative versions of the two great "bible versions" factions, the CT and the TR.
Both versions offer:
* Full support for all the major Christian doctrines (atonement, deity of Christ, original sin, etc.)
* Full support for all the minor Christian doctrines as well;
* A conservative philosphy in matters of textual criticism and the handling of God's word;
* Highly literal translations rendered into modern English - it would be hard to decide which one was more literal than the other -
What the NASV offers:
* An excellent translation of the Critical Text, considered by most bible scholars to be the most accurate Greek source;
* Generally speaking, it has extremely literal renderings of the Greek and Hebrew - some people have said that it is occasionally so literal that it doesn't sound like natural English; sounds a little "wooden" or "clunky";
* Great footnotes
* Extremely literal - Michael Marlowe has this to say about the NASV:
Although the Updated Edition is slightly less literal than the original, The NASB continues to be most literal version commonly used in churches today, and the publisher continues to advertise it as such. The following statement found on the publisher's website, (3) expresses the view (shared by many conservatives) that a proper respect for the Word of God should include a respect for and an interest in the smallest verbal details of the text, and a careful awareness of the difference between a translation and an interpretation of the Bible.
What the NKJV offers:
* An excellent translation of the Textus Receptus, the same Greek New Testament source as the original King James Version used;
* English phrase styling that is remiscient of the original King James Version;
* Since the Textus Receptus is close to the Majority Text, many people who prefer the Majority Text use the NKJV as the closest possible substitute for the Majority Text;
* Great footnotes, including specific footnotes showing you where the three textual sources differ;
* Extremely literal - Michael Marlowe says this about the NKJV
In conclusion we will say that the New King James Version is comparable to the NASB in literal accuracy, and sometimes exceeds it. It is equally valuable for detailed study of the Bible. Its English style is superior to the NASB. Its main fault is the use of the Textus Receptus instead of a critically edited text, based upon ancient manuscripts; but the marginal notes will compensate for this, if the student makes a habit of consulting the margin. So we can recommend this version for students who do not ignore the margin.
What the NASV isn't going to have:
* The Critical Text leaves out some words and verses. In other places, it changes familiar words. So if you're used to the King James Version, then you may find that the NASV has changed or left out certain words or phrases. The larger passages of text have been kept, but are usually marked with some kind of disclaimer that says "Some manuscripts say......" This is to assist people who expect to find these familiar verses.
My opinion:
If you're going to ask me my opinion, I would tell you to go with the NKJV. I have fallen in love with this version since college. Reasons:
* My personal preference is for the Majority Text / Textus Receptus.
* I've also exhaustively compared it with Greek and Hebrew; it stands up well to close inspection.
* It's very readable.
* But even though it's modern English, it still sounds like what I believe a Bible should sound like - entirely a personal view, of course
But you really can't go wrong with either one. If you decide to go with the NASV, I'd just suggest that you also have a look at the English Revised Version before making your final choice. It's also based on the CT but not nearly as literal. As a result, it's not as "wooden" as the NASV, while still sounding majestic when you read it.
Good luck.
