ESV or NASB?

[preacher4truth]

Which do any of you prefer above the other and why?

What errors exist within these two texts?

The NASB touts itself as the most literal translation, ESV commends itself on its "legacy" to the KJV and to Tyndale, but seems to me it was thrown together quickly, in a short period of time, had glaring mistakes, was revised, and makes me wonder if another revision of the text is coming, and causes me thus to avoid getting this version at this time.

Perhaps some of you have both of these texts and know some things I am not aware of.

I have been a KJV guy my entire life, only because that is all we knew and used, and I am not a KJVO, thankfully. No offense to KJVO's who aren't caustic about the issue.

:tonofbricks:


Any and all insight on these two texts will help me as I make the switch from the KJV to the NASB.

:thumbs:

***** As a side note for all on here who may use e-sword. There is a site for e-sword users where modules are provided. Many of these modules are good, but beware. There is an NSB (new simplified bible) module there. This module is written by James R. Madsen, a devout JW. A cursory look at John 1 set off a red flag, so I investigated. The site denied that the text of the NSB was JW theology, after my inquiry. I posted a link proving it was written as a JW text by a JW. Banned that quickly. I only say this that all might please be aware of this who are pastors, teachers &c. ******

:jesus:

 

[BobinKy]

I do not use the ESV, and rarely use the NASB.

Several years ago, I used the NASB (Open Bible edition) in a Bible study group. The group was named "Line by Line" and took a literal approach (word for word). We would spend weeks on a single verse--diagramming and doing word studies in original languages. I think the NASB easily lends itself to such an approach. I learned a great deal from this study group.

As you know, the NASB is the product of several revisions, as explained in this article from Wikipedia. My Open Bible is a 1977 revision. Here is a critical webpage where Al Maxey (who is he?) describes some strengths and weaknesses of the NASB.

. . .

Today, I use three translations:

• New International Version 1984
• New Revised Standard Version
• King James Bible

I prefer the KJB over the NIV 1984 and NRSV.

I hope this helps.

...Bob

 

[preacher4truth]

Thanks for your input Bob.

Many people have said the NASB makes a good study Bible. I am still looking for some comparisons to the ESV though.


Also thanks for the link. I have viewed it in the past and not a whole lot of insight there and I have no clue who he is, other than a quick search it turns up he is Church of Christ, is against church music, and Jesus didn't drink wine.

Funny.


Also, I take it the translation committee of the NASB was made up of conservative Church of Christ scholars. There must be some bias somewhere in the text? Acts 2:38?

A preacher friend of mine used to say the Church of Christ people would use this phrase; "Give me an Ax and 2 .38's and I can destroy any Baptist." (Acts 2:38)

Thanks again.

 

[annsni]

Out of the two for my main Bible, I choose the ESV. I like it a lot and find it's slightly less cumbersome than the NASB in the readings. But the NASB is an amazing version and one that everyone should have in their home for study.

 

[preacher4truth]

Thanks Ann.


I have looked into this online, have found more preferring the NASB over the ESV for whatever reason.

I wanted to and am still looking for those who as you, prefer the ESV and why.

I am caught between both the NASB and the ESV and half determined to send the NASB back for the ESV, the R L Allan that my wife, who must loveth me verily, has got me for Christmas.

(BTW, Allan will also be binding the NKJV early 2011, also the HCSB) If I buy all these versions the same color, and hide them, and bring one out at a time, do you think she'll know I bought all of these 200.00 Bibles, since they look the same, and still get away with it?

Also, it becomes rather annoying, but I think that most people who comment on the NASB do so, just so they can use the words wooden and clunky. Someone said wooden somewhere (a professor) and every e-scholar (almost) has taken up this term, almost to absurdity.

I am certain there are more reasons and that others can actually think of real reasons as to why, other than parroting the crowd.

Thanks again Ann.

 

[annsni]

Don't you DARE buy all those Allens!! MAN, you'd have to mortgage the house!! Enjoy your NASB Allen because it really IS a gorgeous Bible. I'd LOVE to have one.

 

[preacher4truth]

:smilewinkgrin:

You're right Ann, I shouldn't do that, which is making it more of a temptation to do it.


:saint:

 

[jbh28]

Thanks Ann.


I have looked into this online, have found more preferring the NASB over the ESV for whatever reason.

That could be because the NASB has been out longer than the ESV.

I wanted to and am still looking for those who as you, prefer the ESV and why.

I used the NASB then switched to the ESV. The ESV is more readable for everyday reading while still being a literal translation. The NASB will be more literal in places and for a word study would probably be better. As far as overall, I prefer the ESV because it's done well, it's literal and it's not hard to read.

 

[BobinKy]

Also, I take it the translation committee of the NASB was made up of conservative Church of Christ scholars.

You may want to check the website for The Lockman Foundation, distributor of the NASB and other Bibles. Dewey Lockman, founder, and Robert Lambeth, President, are both Baptists.

If you go to the Lockman Foundation website, you may want to take a look at The Amplified Bible, a unique Bible distributed by The Lockman Foundation. Here is an interesting link on Frances Siewert, primary translator of The Amplified Bible (first edition).

Of course, www.biblegateway.com is wonderful for comparing most translations.

I hope this helps.

...Bob

 

[glfredrick]

Out of the two for my main Bible, I choose the ESV. I like it a lot and find it's slightly less cumbersome than the NASB in the readings. But the NASB is an amazing version and one that everyone should have in their home for study.

I echo this thought. My feelings precisely.

I have used the NASB for years, but have gravitated to the ESV.

I also use the HCSB, but I have found myself moving back away from that version and to the ESV for everyday work. Our church uses the NIV, and it is effective, but I don't like the fact that it does not concord well.

I use the KJB only for Strong's numbers. Otherwise, it is too cumbersom to re-translate into modern English before I use it for everyday use.

The forerunner to the NASB, the ASV (American Standard Version) is SO literal that my Greek professors considered having a copy in one's posession to be an act of cheating.

Here is a listing I found of many of the common translations and paraphrases with a brief commentary on each:

American Standard Version (ASV)
The American Standard Version, also known as the Standard American Edition, Revised Version, is a revised version of the KJV. It was completed in 1885 and newly edited by the American Revision Committee in 1901.
word-for-word

Douay-Rheims (RHE)
The Douay-Rheims is the translation upon which nearly all English Catholic Bible versions are based. It includes the seven Deutero-Canonical books (also known as the Apocrypha).
word-for-word from Latin Vulgate

English Standard Version (ESV)
The ESV Bible is a relatively new Bible translation that combines word-for-word precision and accuracy with literary excellence, beauty, and readability.
word-for-word

GOD'S WORD Translation (GW)
GOD'S WORD Translation (GW) accurately translates the meaning of the original texts into clear, everyday language. Readable and reliable, GW is living, active, and life-changing.
thought-for-thought

Good News Translation (GNT)
The Good News Translation was first published in 1976 by the American Bible Society in a "common language." The simple, everyday language makes it especially popular for children and those learning English.
thought-for-thought

Holman Christian Standard (HCSB)
The HCS is a highly readable, accurate translation written in modern English. It is published by Holman Bible Publishers, the oldest Bible publisher in America.
word-for-word

King James Version (KJV)
The KJV is the first version of Scripture authorized by the Protestant church and commissioned by England's King James I.
word-for-word

New American Standard (NAS)
The NAS is written in a formal style, but is more readable than the King James Version. It is highly respected as the most literal English translation of the Bible.
word-for-word

New International Version (NIV)
The NIV offers a balance between a word-for-word and thought-for-thought translation and is considered by many as a highly accurate and smooth-reading version of the Bible in modern English.
Combination word-for-word and thought-for-thought

New King James Version (NKJ)
The NKJ is a modern language update of the original King James Version. It retains much of the traditional interpretation and sentence structure of the KJV.
word-for-word

New Living Translation (NLT)
Using modern English, the translators of the NLT focused on producing clarity in the meaning of the text rather than creating a literal, word-for-word equivalence. Their goal was to create a clear, readable translation while remaining faithful to original texts.
thought-for-thought

New Revised Standard (NRS)
The New Revised Standard is a popular translation that follows in the traditions of the King James and Revised Standard Versions. It was written with the goal of preserving the best of the older versions while incorporating modern English.
word-for-word and thought-for-thought

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
The Revised Standard Version is a revision of the King James Version, the Revised Version, and American Standard Version. This text is intended for both private reading and public worship.
word-for-word using modern American language

The Message (MSG)
The Message is a paraphrase from the original languages written by Eugene, H. Peterson. The Message provides a fresh and unique Bible-reading experience.
thought-for-thought; paraphrase

 

[preacher4truth]

Thanks Bob and glfredrick.


I have looked at lockmans site several times.

Here is another link concerning church of christ scholars:

http://www.christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/looking-at-the-bible-versions-nasb-19711995/

 

[jaigner]

I usually use dynamic translations because I don't have access to the original languages, but I would pick the NASB every time, on the strength of the recommendation of many scholars I trust very much.

Otherwise, I spend most of my time with the TNIV, occasionally using the NRSV, NIV, or NLT. The only KJV I own was the first Bible I ever owned, given to me by my parents in first grade. I will always treasure it for that reason and because most of my early memorization was in the KJV.

But compared to most modern translations, it is quite inadequate for regular use and study these days.

 

[TomVols]

I have a great fondness for the NASB. However, it can be overly literal (1 Cor 7:1's "touch" is unnecessarily literal). I'm also not wild about the penchant for the word "brethren".

The ESV is more gender accurate, using "people" instead of "men" where men and women are clearly intended. Big improvement over the NASB. There are places the ESV is more readable. However, the ESV is slavishly similar to the RSV, a real weakness.

I always consult the NASB first (outside Grk/Heb) and the ESV isn't far behind. I find myself defaulting to the NASB, simply because I can trust its literal nature. And I've never found the NASB to be unreadable very many times (Never understood the knock against the NASB's readability after the 1995 revision).

The ESV needs an overhaul, but it's not the evil translation people make it out to be (it's been revised many times). If I had to pick one, I'd pick the NASB study Bible to explain where the NASB is so literal it's not accurate. However, one won't go wrong either way. If I could build my own dual translation Bible, it would be the NASB/ESV (after March, it would be the NASB and new NIV).

 

[preacher4truth]

tomvols,

Thanks for your input, it was good.

As far as an overhaul of the ESV, I agree.

The ESV looks like a hurried version to me.

A translation between the ESV/NASB would be very good. I am not buying an ESV, although I am still tempted to do so, but have not, as I am not certain if they have completed it satisfactorily, and if a revision is forthcoming.

Thanks again.

 

[Rippon]

English Standard Version (ESV)

word-for-word

No it's not.That's a misrepresentation.

Holman Christian Standard (HCSB)
word-for-word

Certainly not. It's very much like the TNIV, and the TNIV should not be characterized as word-for-word either.

King James Version (KJV)
word-for-word

No,but it tries to be most of the time.

New American Standard (NAS)

word-for-word

It's closer to that description than most,but ...

New International Version (NIV)
The NIV offers a balance between a word-for-word and thought-for-thought translation and is considered by many as a highly accurate and smooth-reading version of the Bible in modern English.
Combination word-for-word and thought-for-thought

I'd agree. Except that I would prefer the phrase sense-for-sense instead of thought-for-thought.

New King James Version (NKJ)

word-for-word

It strives for form-consciousness much like the KJV.

New Revised Standard (NRS)
word-for-word and thought-for-thought

This is the same description that should have been applied to its kissing cousin --the ESV.

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
word-for-word using modern American language

Word-for-word? No.In Robert Martin's book --Accuracy Of Translation,he says on page 10:"The Revised Standard Version is a curious production. The revisers apparently were committed dynamic equivalence..." I don't agree with his opinion -- yet it is an interesting take,especially when Grudem,Lyken and co. are saying its stepchild is essentially literal.

 

[Rippon]

The ESV needs an overhaul, but it's not the evil translation people make it out to be (it's been revised many times).

That's a puzzling statement. I agree that it needs a big overhaul. Who says it's an evil translation? And what does the charge you made --that some say it's an evil translation, have to do with the fact that it has been retouched a few times?

 

[jbh28]

No it's not.That's a misrepresentation.




Certainly not. It's very much like the TNIV, and the TNIV should not be characterized as word-for-word either.



No,but it tries to be most of the time.



It's closer to that description than most,but ...




I'd agree. Except that I would prefer the phrase sense-for-sense instead of thought-for-thought.



It strives for form-consciousness much like the KJV.




This is the same description that should have been applied to its kissing cousin --the ESV.



Word-for-word? No.In Robert Martin's book --Accuracy Of Translation,he says on page 10:"The Revised Standard Version is a curious production. The revisers apparently were committed dynamic equivalence..." I don't agree with his opinion -- yet it is an interesting take,especially when Grudem,Lyken and co. are saying its stepchild is essentially literal.

Rippon, most people know that "word for word" is not literally 100% word for word. So it's not a misrepresentation to call the ESV, KJV NASB.... word for word translations.

 

[jbh28]

That's a puzzling statement. I agree that it needs a big overhaul. Who says it's an evil translation? And what does the charge you made --that some say it's an evil translation, have to do with the fact that it has been retouched a few times?

I'm certain kjvo's would say it's an evil translation

 

[Rippon]

Rippon, most people know that "word for word" is not literally 100% word for word. So it's not a misrepresentation to call the ESV, KJV NASB.... word for word translations.

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.

 

[go2church]

I don't I stopped using both in favor of the TNIV. They were just too many readings that came across as awkward. If forced to pick between the two, probably the ESV, but it is really really close.