NASB vs ESV

[CredoBiblicist]

1) Which is the better translation, the NASB or ESV? Does the NASB being more literal make it more accurate?

2) Is there any good reasons to switch from NASB to ESV?

3) Which is closer to the NKJV/KJV in style, sound and familiarity of well known verses?

4) Do ESV users sacrifice accuracy for readability?

 

[abysmul]

Here is a good write up on it: ESV vs. NASB | Christian Knight

 

[ebedmelech]

They're very close but the NASB gets the nod with me. It's older and has been reviewed more. The NASB came out in 1971 also was updated again in 1995 to remove the "thees and thous" that were in the OT. Something I think they did originally to compete with the KJV early on.

The ESV came out in 2001 and I think it's a good word for word translation also, but it still needs work over time.

 

[childofdust]

I loathe the (updated) NASB for one reason and one reason only: SHALL.

No one uses "shall" in English. It is archaic. It's biblish.

So I'd go with ESV over NASB.

Though, really, there is so little diference between ESV and NASB, what's the point? They're both revisions of a revision of the revised version of a 500-year-old text (KJV), which was revised from other texts like Geneva and Tyndale.

Why not go with a translation that is actually new?

Why not go with a translation that isn't a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision?

Why not go with a translation that doesn't copy what everyone else has said and thought for hundreds of years?

 

[CredoBiblicist]

I loathe the (updated) NASB for one reason and one reason only: SHALL.

No one uses "shall" in English. It is archaic. It's biblish.

So I'd go with ESV over NASB.

Though, really, there is so little diference between ESV and NASB, what's the point? They're both revisions of a revision of the revised version of a 500-year-old text (KJV), which was revised from other texts like Geneva and Tyndale.

Why not go with a translation that is actually new?

Why not go with a translation that isn't a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision?

Why not go with a translation that doesn't copy what everyone else has said and thought for hundreds of years?

There's the NIV or HCSB but both are not really literal.

 

[St. Paul]

1) Which is the better translation, the NASB or ESV? Does the NASB being more literal make it more accurate?

2) Is there any good reasons to switch from NASB to ESV?

3) Which is closer to the NKJV/KJV in style, sound and familiarity of well known verses?

4) Do ESV users sacrifice accuracy for readability?

I have both and prefer the NASB over the ESV. The NASB just flows a lot better in my opinion. I actually find the ESV annoying.

 

[St_Worm2]

Though I regularly refer to many different translations and paraphrases when studying (AV, NKJV, NIV, HCSB, NLT, ESV, RSV, NASB), the NASB has become the translation I look to first and use the most. It has also ended up being the translation I use for most of my memory verses/passages.

The ESV is said to be easier to read, though I have not found that to be true in most cases. If I want "easier", I prefer the NIV (or sometimes the NLT). It is certainly more popular than the NASB.

I don't think I find the ESV "annoying" like St. Paul does, but I understand what he means. I don't like how it reads as much as many of the other translations, but it would be a great choice if that's not true for you. I think people like it because it's more literal and accurate than the NIV, but while less literal and accurate than the NASB or NKJV, is easier to understand, at least when simply reading through it.

--David

 

[KingCrimson250]

Essentially, the ESV fills the role of a "mediator" Bible, bridging the gap between the more academically rigorous NASB and the more accessible NIV. Though, as this thread testifies, there are many who see the NASB as being more readable than the ESV, I would argue that this would not be a sentiment that is echoed by your average congregation.

I personally dislike the ESV simply because the concept of it annoys me. It is literally the RSV re-branded for evangelicals.

 

[ebia]

1) Which is the better translation, the NASB or ESV? Does the NASB being more literal make it more accurate?

2) Is there any good reasons to switch from NASB to ESV?

3) Which is closer to the NKJV/KJV in style, sound and familiarity of well known verses?

4) Do ESV users sacrifice accuracy for readability?

I can't stand the NASB - it's stilted English is unhelpful and it is remotely as scholarly as is frequently claimed. Which isn't a big problem as its extremely uncommon outside N America anyway. And word-for-word precision is not the same thing as translation accuracy. The ESV is okay.

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[ebia]

1. The NASB, imo. I find it easier to read and I like how it renders some verses better than the ESV.

2. Not that I can think of

3. NASB. John 3:16 is an example ("begotten"):

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
- NASB

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." - ESV

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - KJV

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." - NKJV

4. not sure, but the NASB seems more accurate to me

Begotten is traditional, but not terribly accurate:

3:16 tn Although this word is often translated "only begotten," such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1. 13. 1 [1. 222]) who was not Abraham's only son, but was one- of- a- kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means "one- of- a- kind" and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (????? ????, tekna theou), Jesus is God's Son in a unique, one- of- a- kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18). (NET bible notes)

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -

 

[ebia]

the thread starter's third question was "3) Which is closer to the NKJV/KJV in style, sound and familiarity of well known verses?". It didn't even mention accuracy.

I read point 3 as support for point 4. If that wasnt intended then the comment would sort of apply to point 4 still I suppose.

 

[Biblicist]

Even though I prefer the NASB to the NIV that I regularly use, the ESV certainly has its strengths with one being with the growing number of academic texts that are utilising the ESV as their base translation. This is a major reason for not using versions such as the NKJV or Message as they will probably never have any such books linked to them - why bother.

 

[FreedByte]

I read point 3 as support for point 4. If that wasnt intended then the comment would sort of apply to point 4 still I suppose.

my 4 responses were intended to be 4 direct responses to each of the 4 questions

 

[hedrick]

3. NASB. John 3:16 is an example ("begotten"):

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
- NASB
...
4. not sure, but the NASB seems more accurate to me

No. Monogenes is the normal word for an only child. Luke 7:12, 8:42 are other examples. "Only begotten" suggests to most readers that something is going on beyond just "only child."

 

[FreedByte]

No. Monogenes is the normal word for an only child. Luke 7:12, 8:42 are other examples. "Only begotten" suggests to most readers that something is going on beyond just "only child."

Again, the reader's question was "3) Which is closer to the NKJV/KJV in style, sound and familiarity of well known verses?" To which I responded "3. NASB. John 3:16 is an example ("begotten"): ... "

 

[hedrick]

Again, the reader's question was "3) Which is closer to the NKJV/KJV in style, sound and familiarity of well known verses?" To which I responded "3. NASB. John 3:16 is an example ("begotten"): ... "

Right. But to determine whether the translation is better or worse, you need to know what the passage actually says. My point is that the NASB translation is wrong. That seems relevant to your example.

 

[ebedmelech]

Right. But to determine whether the translation is better or worse, you need to know what the passage actually says. My point is that the NASB translation is wrong. That seems relevant to your example.

I don't think the NASB is wrong at all in translating "begotten"...make your case...

 

[FreedByte]

- redacted -