ESV vs NKJV

[alexander284]

Which of two translations do you prefer (overall) and why?

 

[Tea]

I think the ESV is the better translation overall, but the NKJV has more useful information in the footnotes.

If I absolutely had to pick one, I’d say the ESV, especially after some of the changes made in this year’s revision.

 

[alexander284]

I agree with your assessment

 

[Van]

Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? NKJV

Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? ESV

Here we can compare the NKJV and ESV translations of James 2:5.

First, the NKJV puts "to be" in italics, letting the reader know the translators added the phrase. The ESV simply adds to the text, as if the phrase was inspirited.

Next we get "of the world" and "in the world." Both are poor translations. The phrase is the indirect object of the verb "has chosen" and either presents the purpose of the action or the location of the action. Here the location of the action is provided. They were poor in the midst or among fallen humanity, thus fallen humanity viewed them as poor. But they were not poor from God's point of view because they are "rich" in faith.

All this to point out no single translation is better than the collective study of several versions. All hit the mark on some verses, and miss on others. Here I think the composite, "the poor according to fallen humanity, yet rich in faith..." captures the actual meaning of that section of the verse.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I prefer the NKJV, partly because I like the additions to the text being put in italics, and partly because I believe that the Majority Text is more likely to be correct than the Critical Text.
Here are some of my thoughts on the textual question: Critical Text or Traditional Text?

 

[Van]

To sum up, I believe that the Bible is the very word of God, and as such I believe that the most exalted, God-honouring reading of a text is likely to be the correct one. I do not believe that God would have hidden His word in a tiny number of Greek manuscripts, and to have locked away the correct readings from His people for hundreds of years. Nor do I believe that textual critics who are not evangelical Christians should be given any authority to say what the text of the Bible is. I am prepared to listen to people like Don Carson or James White, even though I don’t agree with them, but I am not prepared to accept the views of a Kurt Aland or a Bruce Metzger or anyone for whom the Bible is not the word of God in its entirety.

1) Our current Bible is a copy (or a translation of often copied copies) of the original autographs of the very words of God.
2) But our current Bible is trustworthy and reliable and sufficient to lead the lost to Christ.

3) Studying the Bible using confirmation bias, what seems most "God honoring" is unsound.

4) God did not hide His word, He carried it to the ends of the earth.

5) Our understanding of scripture must be based on truth, even if that truth differs from our mistaken past understanding.

 

[37818]

Which of two translations do you prefer (overall) and why?

The NKJV typically in the New Testament provides Majority variant text and Nestle Anland / United Bible Society variant text against the KJV TR. Where the ESV does not.

 

[alexander284]

I've been spending a great deal of time, lately, in both translations (reading and comparing various passages) and I have to admit: I'm actually beginning to form a preference for the NKJV. And I find the scripture memorization seems to be much easier, when committing to the NKJV. (Just my latest thoughts on the matter.)

 

[Conan]

The NKJV typically in the New Testament provides Majority variant text and Nestle Anland / United Bible Society variant text against the KJV TR. Where the ESV does not.

Excellent point. If the Original Text is not in the "Text", it will be in the footnotes. So the complete Original Text will be in the NKJV whether in the Text or Notes.

 

[37818]

Excellent point. If the Original Text is not in the "Text", it will be in the footnotes. So the complete Original Text will be in the NKJV whether in the Text or Notes.

More likely would provide correct variants than not.

 

[alexander284]

I'm finding the frequent updates to the text of the ESV rather frustrating.

 

[Coastal Librarian]

This year is the first time I have really dived into the ESV. I have read through the entire Bible and am currently finishing a re-read of the NT only.

My primary reads for decades have been the NASB (1995 and 1977 translations) and the NKJV. After spending most of 2025 in the ESV, I have to say it is not a bad translation but I still prefer both the NASB and the NKJV over it. One feature in the NASB and NKJV which is lacking in the ESV is that they capitalize pronouns referring to God. In my opinion translations that fail to do this can be a bit harder to comprehend.

 

[Tea]

One feature in the NASB and NKJV which is lacking in the ESV is that they capitalize pronouns referring to God. In my opinion translations that fail to do this can be a bit harder to comprehend.

The LSB, which is just a minor revision of the NASB ‘95 put together by John MacArthur’s team, goes one step further and translates the Tetragrammaton (small upper-case LORD) as Yahweh.

 

[alexander284]

Yes, I appreciate the capitalization of pronouns referring to God. On the other hand, I know there are some people who find that "interpretive"