ESV or NASB?

[preacher4truth]

There is a chart on this page concerning Bible versions. I have seen similar elsewhere.


http://www.evangelicalbible.com/shop/


Also, one on here said the ESV is a word for word. He is repeating its own claim, not looking for a rebuttal in the form of "no it's not" via reply. I've never heard the ESV called an evil translation. But, then again, I haven't been in a KJVO church in years. Perhaps Gail can update her book and add it to New Age Versions with all of her other scholarly, well researched material? :smilewinkgrin:

I remember when that book came out, many saying, oh, you should get that book, wow, have you not read it? And the ooos and ahhhhhs over it. Gullible people have made her a wealthy woman. BTW, she just came out with another book. Maybe I'll go buy it. :thumbs: :tongue3:

Thanks for everyones input.

 

[Tater77]

My only problem with the NASB is its tendency to be too literal sometimes. Thats about it. But I too find myself defaulting to the NASB all the time because I can always trust it to be literal and accurate to the original languages.

I use an NASB 95u Word Study Bible as my main Bible. But I do love the ESV for a good reading Bible because it is a great translation. The newer ESV Study Bible has some of the best general notes I've ever seen.

I would suggest the NASB 95 update first. But if a person decided to buy both, you would NOT be disappointed.

 

[SRBooe]

I have in add my two cents and I won't even charge anyone for them.

Betware the small differences in phrases between these versions. All of us read these reworded phrases and we can get totally different meanings from them.

I am not a language scholar, and I don't have the time to parse the original manuscripts word for word with foreign dictionaries. I do have time to search and read from one Bible, but the KJV requires more time than the NKJV or the NASB.

All translations show the bias of the translators in that a rephrased sentence can change the meaning to the reader. (I still don't know how translators can know and pass on the "intent" of a passage without inserting their bias.) We make assumptions on those phrases and then make judgements based on them.

Since I care to really understand, without being hampered by someone else's interpreting "intent" and deciding how to reword a phrase based on his interpretation, I prefer my NASB and pray a lot.

 

[jbh28]

I notice that you didn't cite the HCSB.Do agree that it shouldn't be grouped with the ESV,KJV and NASB?

I still insist that to call a translation word-for-word is a misrepresentation. Even Young's has to improvise on occasion.

I would prefer to call w-f-w's form-driven, as literal as possible and as free as necessary.

I do have a copy of the HCSB, but not as familiar with it. Notice the chart that is above. Really, no translation is "word for word" as that's not how translations work. Hebrew and Greek are too different from English. Many times a word for word would give a wrong meaning in English. The ESV calls itself "essentially word for word." The NASB would be more word for word(or literal), but it's usually a broad use of the term.

I would prefer to call w-f-w's form-driven, as literal as possible and as free as necessary

sure

 

[Rippon]

Notice the chart that is above.

I did.It's in error.

The chart positions the NRSV several slots to the right of the ESV when both are very much alike.

The NCV is positioned slightly to the left of the NLT. The NCV needs to be more correctly placed on the far right --near the CEV.

The NIV (but esp.the TNIV which isn't featured) should be placed just a bit more to the right of the HCSB. Not too much distance separates them in truth.

 

[preacher4truth]

The chart is not perfect, but it gives some people an idea. There are others that are around, and of course it is going to be biased and subjective.

I agree about the NRSV/ESV being similar instead of further apart. I believe that the heavy marketing of the ESV is what gives it it's placement. That in itself seems to be a marketing gesture to me.

Thanks for your input Rippon.

 

[annsni]

I did.It's in error.

The chart positions the NRSV several slots to the right of the ESV when both are very much alike.

The NCV is positioned slightly to the left of the NLT. The NCV needs to be more correctly placed on the far right --near the CEV.

The NIV (but esp.the TNIV which isn't featured) should be placed just a bit more to the right of the HCSB. Not too much distance separates them in truth.

It makes me think of that judge on The Good Wife...

"In your opinion...."

 

[BobinKy]

The chart positions the NRSV several slots to the right of the ESV when both are very much alike.

Rippon...

What do you think the placements should be on the ESV and NRSV?

1. NRSV moved to the left close to the current position of ESV.
   
2. ESV moved to the right close to the current position of NRSV.
   
3. Both NRSV and ESV moved to the middle of their current positions.
   
4. Other.

Thanks.

...Bob

 

[Deacon]

preacher4truth:ESV or NASB?
Which do any of you prefer above the other and why?

I prefer the NAS for my personal study.
Why? Basically because it’s what I’ve used for years; I’m comfortable with it.
But use the ESV and many others to compare.

What errors exist within these two texts?

Errors? Errors have been corrected! I prefer the term, choices.
The NAS chooses literalness over smooth readability.
The ESV is more readable and understandable while still being quite literal but also is firmly in the Tyndale-line of translation familiarity.

I have been a KJV guy my entire life, only because that is all we knew and used…

If you are interested in making a change, recognize that both the NAS and the ESV use a far greater number of original language texts than were available to the translator of the KJV (majority text vs. critical text issues) so there will be some notable differences.

If you treasure the KJV and are committed to change the ESV may be more familiar than the NAS.

Rob

 

[preacher4truth]

Thanks Deacon.

I have chosen the NASB. One reason, it is what my wife uses, another is that I have read some from the ESV, and am not as assured as some are that it is easier reading. Also, who knows if another revision will come to the ESV. I have found some texts of it a little odd and not quite right, not doctrinal, just that they could be construed wrongly. I think this was on a site by a Mark Strauss, where I found some of these issues. I also think the style of the NASB makes me, personally, slow down and listen to each Word.

I don't have a copy of the NASB yet, but one is coming. I've had an Oxford Wide Margin KJV for years, received at ordination, it was costly, but it has lasted but is now coming apart. I am looking forward to the NASB R. L. Allan has just published, which is also costly, comparable to the time purchase/ cost of the Oxford. I feel I should also learn much more from using this text, and hopefully have many many more questions due to it.

Also, a friend of mine recently saved, has switched from NIV to NASB due to some things I have shared with him about versions. He is liking this version, from what he has read, a lot.

Thanks again Deacon.

:thumbs:

 

[webdog]

Between the 2 I prefer the ESV. The ESV was my Bible of the year in 2009 (I have the ESV Study Bible) and while it can be wooden in places, it's less so than the NASB.

I'm on the fence regarding formal equivalence translations as being superior to dynamic or optimal equivalence. With the original languages, the symbolism throughout Scripture and much hyperbole, the intent of the author can get lost in places with formal. It's kind of like the english use of "what's up". Translated into another language using the formal approach the meaning can get lost.

 

[SRBooe]

Between the 2 I prefer the ESV. The ESV was my Bible of the year in 2009 (I have the ESV Study Bible) and while it can be wooden in places, it's less so than the NASB.

I'm on the fence regarding formal equivalence translations as being superior to dynamic or optimal equivalence. With the original languages, the symbolism throughout Scripture and much hyperbole, the intent of the author can get lost in places with formal. It's kind of like the english use of "what's up". Translated into another language using the formal approach the meaning can get lost.

And that is exactly why I have a problem with versions where the person/committee decided the "intent" of the text for me.

 

[thomas15]

Right or wrong, I associate the ESV with people who's theology and/or public persona I don't care for. I also think that there are many fans of the ESV who get most of their technical information on the ESV from crossways. Finally, I think the main claim to fame of the ESV is that it is not the NIV.

Of course the ESV is a good translation, no one has said it isn't. A careful comparision of the ESV to the RSV reveals that the ESV is what it is, a revision of the RSV aimed at evangelical conservatives. If I have learned anything from the back and forth debate on the pros/cons of the ESV it is an appreciation for the NIV. Of course the NIV serves a different purpose than the ESV as it uses a different translation method. But still one can say good things about the NIV and be critical of the ESV at the same time, it is not an academic blunder to do so.

In the long run, I doubt that anyone desiring to perform serious and critical studies of the Bible will come to a different understanding of any text of the Bible if they use either the ESV or the NASB. I have never heard anyone say that they changed their mind about a long held particular point of theology because they studied a passage anew in the ESV after many years of using the NASB.

I find the marketing of the ESV to be a negative and the NASB is a great translation for study purposes so that is the reason why I personally grab a NASB before an ESV. I have ample editions available to me of both translations but the main reason I avoid the ESV is due to negative associations I have with it, not the actual translation itself. Not that I consider myself a paragon of virtue but I suspect that there are many fans of the ESV who feel the same way about the NIV or the NASB, stating a perfrence for the ESV because of negative associations they have with one of those compeating translations.

 

[Rippon]

Just My Opinion

Rippon...

What do you think the placements should be on the ESV and NRSV?

1. NRSV moved to the left close to the current position of ESV.
   
2. ESV moved to the right close to the current position of NRSV.
   
3. Both NRSV and ESV moved to the middle of their current positions.
   
4. Other.

Thanks.

...Bob

Let's not make it complicated. (But perhaps in my explanation I will make it so).

All the way on the left side is the NASB at number 15. The Message is at the opposite end at 115.

The ESV is at 20 and the NRSV is 22.

The HCSB is 25.

I am guessing the ISV would be around postion number 27 or so.(Educated guess as are all these numbers)

The TNIV is 29.

The NET Bible is at #33.

The NLTse is at 40.

The NJB and REB are around 50.

God's Word translation is in the high 50's.

The CEV,NCV,TEV (formerly GNT) are all in the upper 60's.

 

[Rippon]

The ESV is more readable and understandable

The NASB certainly has its share of problems with the English language. And the ESV is quite clear in a number of places. However, I would give the edge to the NASB for clarity over that of the ESV. The ESV is obviously operating under ye olde-speak rules.

but also is firmly in the Tyndale-line of translation familiarity.

The NASB is also in the Tyndale chain.

If you treasure the KJV and are committed to change the ESV may be more familiar than the NAS.

I'd agree. That transition would be a bit easier to make. Yet the NASB,though following the Critical Text most of the time, lines up with some KJV renderings (i.e.the TR)much more than the ESV. The HCSB does the same thing as the NASB.

 

[Rippon]

Right or wrong, I associate the ESV with people who's theology and/or public persona I don't care for. I also think that there are many fans of the ESV who get most of their technical information on the ESV from crossways. Finally, I think the main claim to fame of the ESV is that it is not the NIV.

Isn't THAT the truth!

I especially like that last line of yours Thomas.

Of course the ESV is a good translation, no one has said it isn't. A careful comparision of the ESV to the RSV reveals that the ESV is what it is, a revision of the RSV aimed at evangelical conservatives. If I have learned anything from the back and forth debate on the pros/cons of the ESV it is an appreciation for the NIV. Of course the NIV serves a different purpose than the ESV as it uses a different translation method. But still one can say good things about the NIV and be critical of the ESV at the same time, it is not an academic blunder to do so.

So true.

In the long run, I doubt that anyone desiring to perform serious and critical studies of the Bible will come to a different understanding of any text of the Bible if they use either the ESV or the NASB. I have never heard anyone say that they changed their mind about a long held particular point of theology because they studied a passage anew in the ESV after many years of using the NASB.

I agree with you so much that I'm having an identity crisis.

I find the marketing of the ESV to be a negative and the NASB is a great translation for study purposes so that is the reason why I personally grab a NASB before an ESV. I have ample editions available to me of both translations but the main reason I avoid the ESV is due to negative associations I have with it, not the actual translation itself.

Mega agreement.

 

[BobinKy]

Right or wrong, I associate the ESV with people who's theology and/or public persona I don't care for. I also think that there are many fans of the ESV who get most of their technical information on the ESV from crossways. Finally, I think the main claim to fame of the ESV is that it is not the NIV.

Of course the ESV is a good translation, no one has said it isn't. A careful comparision of the ESV to the RSV reveals that the ESV is what it is, a revision of the RSV aimed at evangelical conservatives. If I have learned anything from the back and forth debate on the pros/cons of the ESV it is an appreciation for the NIV. Of course the NIV serves a different purpose than the ESV as it uses a different translation method. But still one can say good things about the NIV and be critical of the ESV at the same time, it is not an academic blunder to do so.

In the long run, I doubt that anyone desiring to perform serious and critical studies of the Bible will come to a different understanding of any text of the Bible if they use either the ESV or the NASB. I have never heard anyone say that they changed their mind about a long held particular point of theology because they studied a passage anew in the ESV after many years of using the NASB.

I find the marketing of the ESV to be a negative and the NASB is a great translation for study purposes so that is the reason why I personally grab a NASB before an ESV. I have ample editions available to me of both translations but the main reason I avoid the ESV is due to negative associations I have with it, not the actual translation itself. Not that I consider myself a paragon of virtue but I suspect that there are many fans of the ESV who feel the same way about the NIV or the NASB, stating a perfrence for the ESV because of negative associations they have with one of those compeating translations.

I like your post.

...Bob

 

[BobinKy]

Let's not make it complicated. (But perhaps in my explanation I will make it so).

All the way on the left side is the NASB at number 15. The Message is at the opposite end at 115.

The ESV is at 20 and the NRSV is 22.

The HCSB is 25.

I am guessing the ISV would be around postion number 27 or so.(Educated guess as are all these numbers)

The TNIV is 29.

The NET Bible is at #33.

The NLTse is at 40.

The NJB and REB are around 50.

God's Word translation is in the high 50's.

The CEV,NCV,TEV (formerly GNT) are all in the upper 60's.

Thanks for your explanation.

...Bob

 

[webdog]

And that is exactly why I have a problem with versions where the person/committee decided the "intent" of the text for me.

So you have a problem with a number of Spirit indwelt translators knowledgeable in the root languages and customs translate it into english? Unless you are reading the greek or hebrew Bibles, this occurs to an extent even in the formal equivalence translations.

 

[preacher4truth]

It's the same in principle of persons on here having (and on other sites, and in the real world) having "a problem" with other Spirit indwelt believers, if I may assume also.