Featured Nasb

You think. It is generally acknowledged that the ESV is a bit more literal than the HCSB and certainly the NET Bible. The NET Bible translation does not advertize itself as a literal version at all. Unless you are counting on the NET notes which i asked you about before and received no reply. If you are addressing the NET translation alone it is a bit more functionally-equivalent than the NIV according to a number of people in-the-know.

Again,for the hard-of-hearing:The NASBU is generally a bit more literal than the ESV,and certainly more form-oriented than the NIV. I was just giving some exceptions to the general rule of the thumb. There are times when both the ESV and NIV are more literal than the NASBU. It happens. And the NLTse is sometimes more form-driven than all of the above.

 

isn't the 1901 ASV seen as being most literal version, then the 1977 nasb?
Not counting Young's version here!

 

The Darby version is more literal than the ASV.

 

the one of the pre trib view?

 

Yes,Darby,the one who got the Dispensationalism ball rolling.

 

Shuck and Jive

Yes, among Calvinists, they claim the ESV is literal. Hardly a well to drink from. See post 36 for my reply to your moot question.

Lots of assertions. How many times are there when the ESV and NIV are more literal than the NASB? Or is this just a statement based on probablity? You gave no examples of when the ESV and NIV are more literal than the NASB. So what you showed was the NIV was more literal than the ESV. Now those verses may be an exception, but in 23 or the 24 examples the NIV was as literal or more literal than the ESV. As I said, for those hard of hearing, the ESV does not stand up to its hype.

 

Do your own homework. I never claimed to be exhaustive.

I've been saying that for years.

 

Always nice when we find something in common.

OTOH, my homework, and certainly not exhaustive, revealed that neither the NIV nor ESV can be trusted to faithfully render the actual message when it gets down to brass tacks. With both of them, it is hit or miss, and the misses make using them for baseline understanding a waste of time.

 

So when will you publish your Van Version?

 

I made a few calls but all the on line publishers said, no can do because they are waiting to publish the Rip On view. :;

 

You come across as rather arrogant. Do you think both are the Word of God,or not?

 

If you are set on a single column, the two choices are going to be the Side-column Reference by Foundation Press (also made by Allan although I don't know if it's currently available) and the Cambridge Clarion. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to you that you'll have to pay a lot more for calfskin since LCBP is by far the cheapest in that regard. However, sometimes you'll see a Foundation Press calfskin on eBay that flies below the radar. But that's more likely to be the Large Print Ultrathin, which is a 2 column setting.