NKJV/NASB/ESV

I like all three. All have strengths and some weakness.

I like the NASB 1995. It reads smoother than the 1977 version and the 1995 makes some corrections and updates. Thee's and Thou's are gone which is a big plus for me since we no longer use those words.

Here are two verses I like better in the NASB than the NKJV.

Jude 1:25 (NASB)
25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Jude 1:25 (NKJV)
25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen.


Revelation 22:14 (NASB)
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

Revelation 22:14 (NKJV)
14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

The NKJV is fine and I don't have any issues with it. The NASB and ESV are closer because of the underlying text used while the NKJV uses a different text. The differences between these three bibles is very little and nothing that effects doctrines and the gospel. Every truth in the Word is found in these three translations.

I rank them as NASB(1995) 1st and NKJV 2nd and ESV 3rd.

I've read some of the ESV but I don't use it much. My wife uses it more than I do and she likes it. Shes uses the NASB(1995) and ESV where I mainly use the NASB(1995), NKJV, and Geneva Bible.

 

The NASB is what I normally use, but then again I normally favor the CT over the TR.

However, I do like all 3 translations for various reasons.

 

Personally, I prefer the NKJV. It retains much of the beauty and majesty of the original KJV while updating many words that have dropped out of use.

The NASB is a good translation and I use it frequently. The 1995 revision does seem a bit easier to read than the 1977 version.

I have not used the ESV very much, and for that reason I do not feel comfortable in judging it as a Bible version. However many who have used the ESV more extensively really like it.

Suggestion - go to one of the websites like StudyLight.org (link) where you can examine all three versions free online. Compare them for yourself and see which version you feel most comfortable with. Once you have made that decision, it should be easier for you to decide what print version you want to purchase.

i find it very easy to fall back on using online Bibles when doing much of my reading, studying and referencing. The ease of going from verse to verse or passage to passage is unsurpassed. Also it keeps me from wearing out my printed Bibles, some of which are approximately 30 years old.

 

I have heard that everyone likes the ESV, but so far, I have yet to see where it is superior to the NASB. When I say NASB, I am always refering to the 95 NASB.

I hear the ESV is supposed to be easier to read, which it seems to be, but I have never had a problem in the NASB. I think both are solid translations from what I feel is the better text.

I understand several disagree

 

I haven't seen much difference between the two, DD. I don't think that the ESV is easier to read. No more difficult, but no easier either.

I carry the ESV because I found it when I was looking for a pocket version - so it stays in my purse all the time. For personal study, my version of choice is NASB.

 

I too like the ESV but I do have a question for TCassidy, what is so "flawed" with the underlying text of the ESV and the NASB? Can you please be more specific and does it effect any major or minor doctrine??

 

I prefer the NASB because it is slightly more literal (and therefore wooden) than the ESV, though the ESV is a fine translation.

The NKJV is a good translation of its text sources, but I find other texts more reliable.

 

I'm a poor substitute for the Doc. but here goes...

There are two basic texts used to translate the Greek New Testament;

</font>

• The Byzantine Majority text The earliest documents from this family are from the 6th century however as Christianity develops they out number the other families of texts exponentially.
  Byzantine readings are scattered throughout some of the older Alexandrian papyrus.
  The ‘Textus Receptus’ from which the KJV was translated, is an older member of the Majority text family and uses texts of the same manuscript family.</font>

</font>

• The Critical Text, developed from some of the oldest documents available (generally Alexandrian and Western) is the text from which the NASB, NIV, ESV and other so-called “Modern Texts” are developed.
  It is also called an eclectic text because the method of textual criticism evaluates the variants found in ALL available documents and attempts to determine which one might be the original reading.
  Papryus documents from this family are dated as early as c. 150.</font>

Those that agree with the Byzantine Majority position note that the earliest texts are flawed because of the erratic errors sometimes found in them.
The Modern Critical text advocates point out that there are no early Byzantine texts of the same age with which to compare them.

When it comes down to comparing the two texts there are so few major differences that it causes more disputes than it’s worth.

IMHO I like the NASB, which sometimes has a footnote in the text noting the another reading.

*********************************************

Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism [LINK]
by David Alan Black (Editor)
2002 Baker Book House, 157 pages

This book gives a good, general introduction to textual criticism and the theory behind the different texts from both points of view.

Around Christmas time you could get it for as little as $4.50 at Amazon, but it is up to $14 now.

While the NAS is a bit stiffer that other texts, I like it because I've used it for decades and am most comfortable with it.

And I believe it encourages one to look deeper into the original language.

Rob

[ May 18, 2006, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]

 

Funny, I always thought of the KJV as an excellent translation of a flawed underlying text.

 

I've been using the NASB since 1979. I am a critical text and literal translation type of guy.

 

None of them because I only use the KJV for clearest doctrines over modern versions.

 

Then why comment here, Askjo? What is the point?

Your version was not listed, so why not just post in other threads?

Lets not try and derail EVERY THREAD for once?

 

BTW, I may be corrected later, but it is my understanding that there are only 40 or so readings of any significance at all that differ among the 2 text lines. I am unaware of a single reading which affects any matter of doctrine. Almost all of them have to do with repetitions.

Exceptions are passages like 1 John 5:7-8, Acts 8:37, 2 Tim 3:16, Revelation 22:19, and one of the Lord's prayer accounts.

There may be others, but most of what is "tacken out" or "added in" deal with repetitious wordings.

 

Which you prefer? My answer is NONE. Is that clear?

 

None of them because I only use the KJV for clearest doctrines over modern versions. </font>[/QUOTE]And...

Then that is all you would have had to say to answer the OP and still stay on topic. Since the KJV was not being discussed it was not necessary to bring it into the discussion.

 

I've been pleased with ESV, but few people 'round here have it, so in corporate settings, haven't used it.

Because of my target audience's age, and the lack of bilical literacy in their culture, I don't use as literalistic a translation (such as NASB) and go more for dynamic equivalence (such as NIV).

I try to be discerning, though. Sometimes, I'll bring in a particular version because of how they interpret a particular passage.