NASB, NKJV or ESV? Which Translation is The Best?

[JesusOhowgreatisYourLove]

Out of these three version I wanted to take a poll and see what bibles you guys prefer.I'm currently trying to decided on which translation to stick to so I can memorize scripture. So which one would you guys prefer out of these three?

 

[J0SHUA]

All three are excellent translations in my opinion. Choose what you like most. If you want me to make the decision for you: ESV.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Out of these three version I wanted to take a poll and see what bibles you guys prefer.I'm currently trying to decided on which translation to stick to so I can memorize scripture. So which one would you guys prefer out of these three?

Hi, I see you are a new member; welcome to Christian Forums.

My name is Mark and I'm a member of staff here, and kinda look after the Formal Debate Forums. Since you are not proposing a formal, one-on-one debate, your thread is off topic to this forum.

I'm moving this thread to General Theology, the proper forum for this type of topic. You will have more exposure there and get more answers.

Blessings and peace,

Mark
Staff Supervisor

 

[Knee V]

I really like the NASB, but I typically use the NKJV.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In my life I've used the NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV (and in that order actually). I like the ESV a lot. It's my standard go-to translation. Though I have also used and enjoy the NRSV.

I like the ESV because I think it marries solid translation with ease of language quite well. It's at least as solid in its translation as the other two, and it's less clunky (I think at least) than the NKJV and NASB.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cyberlizard]

NKJV.


Steve

 

[topcare]

Out of these three version I wanted to take a poll and see what bibles you guys prefer.I'm currently trying to decided on which translation to stick to so I can memorize scripture. So which one would you guys prefer out of these three?

I like the KJV2000, The Good News Bible, and a new one the Lighthouse edition which seems to do what the KJV2000 does which is replace the thees, thous, and so forth

 

[yogosans14]

I love the NIV,NLT, AMPLIFIED, and my favourite the KJV.

 

[paul1149]

They're all good. I prefer the ESV and NASB, and of them, the ESV. The ESV has discovered that lost punctuation mark, the exclamation point, which introduces the element of human emotion, making the text seem far more natural and alive. I also like the generosity of the ESV's intellectual property rights. But they're all good. If you go with the NASB make sure you get the 1995 update, which does away with the Elizabethan verbiage.

I would go over to biblegateway.com and set up a three-column page using the three translations in parallel, and read them for a while to get the comparative feel of each.

 

[graceandpeace]

Out of those three choices, I like the ESV. My preferred version these days though is the NRSV.

 

[hedrick]

In case the OP isn't aware of differences in the way Bibles are translated:

* All three are conservative translations. A couple of people have mentioned NRSV. That's a mainline translation. Generally conservative translations are made by people who believe in Biblical inerrancy. Differences aren't major, but conservative translations tend to have their OT translations match the context in which they are used in the NT. There are also a small number of places in the NT where one's theology affects how you understand the NT authors.

* Among the three translations, the NKJV rejects modern textual criticism. It keeps the same text that was used in the King James, ignoring more recent discoveries of older manuscripts, etc.

* The difference between NASB and ESV is mostly style. Many people consider the NASB to be more literal and harder to understand, though I'm not sure I'd agree. Obviously the groups that did them are different, and so inevitably they'll make different judgements. The ESV is based on the RSV, which, like the NRSV, was a mainline translation. The ESV committee made changes to match conservative preferences, but many of the merits of the ESV really come from the RSV.

 

[GoingByzantine]

NKJV, simply because my favorite study bible uses this translation.

 

[squint]

In case the OP isn't aware of differences in the way Bibles are translated:

* All three are conservative translations. A couple of people have mentioned NRSV. That's a mainline translation. Generally conservative translations are made by people who believe in Biblical inerrancy. Differences aren't major, but conservative translations tend to have their OT translations match the context in which they are used in the NT. There are also a small number of places in the NT where one's theology affects how you understand the NT authors.

* Among the three translations, the NKJV rejects modern textual criticism. It keeps the same text that was used in the King James, ignoring more recent discoveries of older manuscripts, etc.

* The difference between NASB and ESV is mostly style. Many people consider the NASB to be more literal and harder to understand, though I'm not sure I'd agree. Obviously the groups that did them are different, and so inevitably they'll make different judgements. The ESV is based on the RSV, which, like the NRSV, was a mainline translation. The ESV committee made changes to match conservative preferences, but many of the merits of the ESV really come from the RSV.

Indeed!

I suspect eventually every sect will have it's own specially biased version.

"Take heed what ye hear"

 

[NorrinRadd]

I'll tack on to Hedrick a bit.

In case the OP isn't aware of differences in the way Bibles are translated:

* All three are conservative translations. A couple of people have mentioned NRSV. That's a mainline translation. Generally conservative translations are made by people who believe in Biblical inerrancy. Differences aren't major, but conservative translations tend to have their OT translations match the context in which they are used in the NT. There are also a small number of places in the NT where one's theology affects how you understand the NT authors.

All three, as well as the NRSV, are "formal equivalency" translations, as opposed to "functional equivalency" translations (e.g. NLT, GNB) and "mediating" translations (NIV, NET). That means they relatively closely follow the structure of the "donor" languages, sometimes at the expense of ideal form in the "receptor" language (English), and sometimes missing idiomatic expressions in the donor languages.

Among "formal" translations, the NRSV is reportedly the favorite of academicians.

* Among the three translations, the NKJV rejects modern textual criticism. It keeps the same text that was used in the King James, ignoring more recent discoveries of older manuscripts, etc.

This was an intentional choice to maintain the KJV lineage while updating the English.

* The difference between NASB and ESV is mostly style. Many people consider the NASB to be more literal and harder to understand, though I'm not sure I'd agree. Obviously the groups that did them are different, and so inevitably they'll make different judgements. The ESV is based on the RSV, which, like the NRSV, was a mainline translation. The ESV committee made changes to match conservative preferences, but many of the merits of the ESV really come from the RSV.

Some consider the NASB -- even the '95 revision -- to be even more formal than the NJKV, meaning its English construction is somewhat inferior. But they would consider this to be offset by the inferior textual base of the NKJV. The ESV is well regarded, except that some have concerns that the translators were motivated by a desire to be "more conservative" rather than "more accurate."

ETA -- If you want to be able to look up "Strong's numbers," NASB is best, followed by NKJV. I am not aware of Strong's numbers resources for either the NRSV or ESV.

 

[Unix]

All three versions in the OP are bad options. Both the RSV and NRSV are better. Personally I use the RSV - especially for the New Testament, New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (not at all the same as NET) for the 38 books of the Old Testament (excluding Esther which was not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls), and I use the NRSV for parts of Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira):

* All three are conservative translations. A couple of people have mentioned NRSV. That's a mainline translation.
[...]
[...]The ESV is based on the RSV, which, like the NRSV, was a mainline translation. The ESV committee made changes to match conservative preferences, but many of the merits of the ESV really come from the RSV.

The RSV is a little more formal equivalent than the NRSV, especially since the former doesn't have gender-neutral language.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

All three versions in the OP are bad options. Both the RSV and NRSV are better. Personally I use the RSV - especially for the New Testament, New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) (not at all the same as NET) for the 38 books of the Old Testament (excluding Esther which was not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls), and I use the NRSV for parts of Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira):



The RSV is a little more formal equivalent than the NRSV, especially since the former doesn't have gender-neutral language.

I disagree. NKJV is used in our Seminaries because it does indeed provide a very accurate translation providing a very good interpretation of both word-for-word and idea-for-idea. However, our Churches use the ESV (which also provides a reasonable word/idea translation; but is more easily understood. I like it because this translation is available with the Apocrypha. Both these translations alleviate any criticisms regarding sources with notes which take into account "other sources". If you read at a grade 11 or higher level: NKJV (this may be an issue with it in that many just don't get it); less than grade 11 reading; ESV is good. Right now I have four Bibles in front of me; NKJV, ESV, NASB and KJV; all have merit; all are God's word; all have brought persons to faith and salvation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I disagree. NKJV is used in our Seminaries because it does indeed provide a very accurate translation providing a very good interpretation of both word-for-word and idea-for-idea. However, our Churches use the ESV (which also provides a reasonable word/idea translation; but is more easily understood. I like it because this translation is available with the Apocrypha. Both these translations alleviate any criticisms regarding sources with notes which take into account "other sources". If you read at a grade 11 or higher level: NKJV (this may be an issue with it in that many just don't get it); less than grade 11 reading; ESV is good. Right now I have four Bibles in front of me; NKJV, ESV, NASB and KJV; all have merit; all are God's word; all have brought persons to faith and salvation.

Well said. I also have all four translations which I use routinely in Bible study.

 

[Hentenza]

Out of these three version I wanted to take a poll and see what bibles you guys prefer.I'm currently trying to decided on which translation to stick to so I can memorize scripture. So which one would you guys prefer out of these three?

I use all three.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I would go with ESV. I usually use the RSV and the ESV is practically the same thing. Only reason I use the older RSV rather than the new ESV is because there isn't an edition of ESV with the full Orthodox canon (with the so called deuterocanonical books like Wisdom of Solomon (my fav) and Maccabees, etc...) at least that I'm aware of. If they come out with an ESV with the full canon I would buy it for sure though.

 

[TraditionalCatholic]

It is important to understand that 66, the number of books in the Protestant "Bible," is an unholy number.

Go with a Catholic Bible, The Douay Rheims Bible