NKJV/NASB/ESV

Just a reminder of the topic here folks:

"NKJV/NASB/ESV"

Our topic is not "the definition of immorality."

 

666 views

That is weird!

 

I find myself going to the ESV first - then the NASB with Strong's to double-check - and almost always they'll agree with the KJV.

If they differ at all, either with each other (which sometimes happens) or if either one or both differ with the KJV, I'll go to the Greek or Hebrew in the MT (KJV) and CT (NASB) and see if they differ there. If they differ there and the interpretation is still not clear then I have to go the deeper references.

But that's chatter. The point is: I wouldn't want to be without either Text. The MT & CT are both vital, at least to me. I would never want to be without the KJV, NASB & ESV. Those three are critical and imperative.

The HCSB isn't far behind, in terms of usability, because of its current reading of weights, measures, etc.. Especially in the Old Testament it is very readable, and anyone not familiar with the Old Testament would benefit from it, I think. But I would still want to check it against the top 3 versions if there's anything at all questionable.

BTW, C4K, I know what you mean about the Open Bible. It's a great Bible.

:Fish:

 

This is an interesting thread because it lists my favorite three translations.

I like the ESV for just good reading. The NASB gives me a translation that is less dynamic although somewhat woody, but still excellent for study. Finally, I have the NKJV which is not such a great translation, but it is based on the Textus Receptus for the NT, so therefore I get to study two major text streams.

I cannot get everything I want in a translation, but with these three I can get awfully close.

 

The three translations are too much alike for the purposes of comparison . One needs another ( or preferably otherS) that are more in the functional equivalence realm . Then you can study more profitably .

 

Nkjv,esv,nasb Comparison

I read a study which seemd well done and it shows NASB and ESV neck and neck for accuracy.The ESV is a little smoother read though IMO.I''m reading the NKJV now but have'nt formed an opinion. There is now a Scofield3 ESV study Bible for those who want a study bible in ESV but not the reformation Study Bible.

By the way that report also grades the HCSB out rather high as a dynamic equivelant for accuracy but not in the word for word concept.

 

I would like to read the report. Can you point us to it?

 

Sent it to you e-mail.

 

I humbly disagree. The translations are quite different and the NKJV is based on the TR (at least the NT is.):thumbs:

As far as the CT goes, the ESV is much easier to read than the NASB. The English sentences have better structure.

 

The differences between the NASU and the ESV are negligible . A couple years ago I did a comparison between the two . I covered scores of verses and the variation was slight for the most part . Of course the Bible is a big book and there may be other parts of Scripture in which they read quite differently . I do acknowlege that the ESV is a little tighter ( with a couple less words per verse ) . I haven't done a comparison with the NKJ in the mix . I simply suspect that it would not read much differently than the other two basically . But , I will have to check that out for myself .

But the main point is that it is better to compare the readings between different translation styles. For instance , use the NASU with the more idiomatic NLT . That way you will gain an appreciation for things you might have missed in reading either alone .

I do not know the orginal languages . So in addition to the above I check what biblical scholars have said AFTER I do my studying .

 

Although I own versions of all three, I carry the ESV with me now. I used to be a die-hard NASB user, but once I started using the ESV I was hooked.

 

What I like about the ESV is the apparent accuracy of the translation. Like the NASB, it is closer to literal than dynamic, but it is easier to read and not as woody as the NASB. For this reason, I like it a lot.

However, on the other hand, I do like the NKJV because it offers a modern translation of the Byzantine text. So, I usually use both of those for my modern versions.

Ooops, I already said this a page or so back. I told you I'm loosing my mind. Now, here's proof.

 

"Not as woody" ? Do you mean that the ESV is not as wooden as the NASU , not as wordy , or both ?

 

It is said that the NKJV OT is the best out there. I think the translation may be 'better' than the 'old' KJ. The NASBU makes a move more towards DE by the elimination of conjunctives and the like. The NASB is more literal. It (NASBU)also uses gender-inclusive language in about 85 places. The ESV departs more from the original than does the NASBU. I've heard the description 'essentially literal' in regards the ESV so much that I am sick to death of it. I guess if I had my 'druthers' I would pick the NASB. Maybe. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I've occasionally used the NASB to get an updated or clarified usage of a word from the NRSV. The two are very similar, but teaching a class of college students I find that the American usages in the NASB are easier to understand. When I took Greek in college, and I had a very difficult passage to translate, I would put my mind at ease by comparing my translation with the NRSV, which I found to be quite accurate. The ESV, by comparison, seems to be less so, and designed more as a reading text like the NIV than as a study text. I don't really care for it at all. AS for the NKJV, I've never owned a King James Bible of any kind.

 

I would like to see what the upgraded ESV (which is scheduled to be released in the Fall of 2008) is like . I estimate that they would have to do about a 16% change of the text for readibility sake alone .