NASB vs ESV

[CredoBiblicist]

Some things I don't like about the ESV:

It seems to me the ESV doesn't offset words added for clarity in italics to hide how literal it really is, where as the KJV, NKJV and NASB all offset those added words. The ESV is supposed to be in the stream of the KJV and rejects capitalizing deity pronouns for that reason but doesn't offset the added words as the KJV and all the others in that stream do. I've yet to see an explanation as to why they omitted doing this.

 

[Striver]

It seems to me the ESV doesn't offset words added for clarity in italics to hide how literal it really is, where as the KJV, NKJV and NASB all offset those added words. The ESV is supposed to be in the stream of the KJV and rejects capitalizing deity pronouns for that reason but doesn't offset the added words as the KJV and all the others in that stream do. I've yet to see an explanation as to why they omitted doing this.

I almost think this is a preference thing.

I've seen some say that they prefer italics (or some indication of language added for clarification), but at the same time I think it's also reflecting more modern scholarship where there is implicit acknowledgement that there really is no such thing as a single word for single word translation process.

However, as an ESV user, I will comment that my own studies (standing upon the shoulders of the giants in their Greek, Hebrew, etc. knowledge) the ESV is not as literal as some of the minds promoting it would have you think.

 

[St. Paul]

I personally don't care for either! I find they both sound "wooden" to me!

 

[FreedByte]

I personally don't care for either! I find they both sound "wooden" to me!

Then why is the NASB one of your three preferred Bible versions on your "about me"?

 

[Striver]

ESV moves up to #3 in both of the September CBA bestseller lists (by dollar amount and by number sold). It's jumped up before, but that's two months in a row right now where it finally cracked the top 4. It's only behind the NIV (#1) and KJV (#2).

 

[Sword of the Lord]

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?

Hmmm, my wife and I regularly use the word shall.

What new translation would you suggest? I recently read where you use the NRSV. That would belong to the same RSV/ESV/KJV family.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Nothing against either of them, I do really like the NKJV though.

One observation I have regarding the NASB as I read the OT vs the NT; it seems that each reads different from the other, almost like they are two different translations. I wonder if this was intentional to create a contrast between the two? The OT actually reads a bit more "scholarly" it seems.

 

[shawnavery]

I read more from the ESV but do use both just to get a deeper understanding.

John 3:16

 

[PeterAV]

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?

*******
The claim of the literalness of the NASB is outdated and proven false.
It can't even get the first verse of the Bible correct.

Switching from the NASB[hot kettle] to the ESV?[frying pan] is not a solid choice. Switch to the pure words of God [the King James Bible] and stop playing the game of PICK AND CHOOSE against the very words of God.
*******
Face it, these modern slop rags for the last 100 years stem from occultists, and the Catholic Church. They are pimped out to look like protestant bibles But the texts they come from includes the Apocrypha as PART of the canon of scripture. Right from the get go, they are being deceitful towards you.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

 

[ebia]

*******
The claim of the literalness of the NASB is outdated and proven false.
It can't even get the first verse of the Bible correct.

Switching from the NASB[hot kettle] to the ESV?[frying pan] is not a solid choice. Switch to the pure words of God [the King James Bible] and stop playing the game of PICK AND CHOOSE against the very words of God.
*******
Face it, these modern slop rags for the last 100 years stem from occultists, and the Catholic Church. They are pimped out to look like protestant bibles But the texts they come from includes the Apocrypha as PART of the canon of scripture. Right from the get go, they are being deceitful towards you.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

LOL

 

[shawnavery]

LOL

That about sums it up for me.

John 3:16

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

*******
The claim of the literalness of the NASB is outdated and proven false.
It can't even get the first verse of the Bible correct.

Switching from the NASB[hot kettle] to the ESV?[frying pan] is not a solid choice. Switch to the pure words of God [the King James Bible] and stop playing the game of PICK AND CHOOSE against the very words of God.
*******
Face it, these modern slop rags for the last 100 years stem from occultists, and the Catholic Church. They are pimped out to look like protestant bibles But the texts they come from includes the Apocrypha as PART of the canon of scripture. Right from the get go, they are being deceitful towards you.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

LOL

No, the Apocrypha is kept separate, between the testaments. It also gives a great picture of the mindset of the intra-testamentental period of God's chosen people; their faithfulness, their failings, and their hopes. \

These books give context to the "canonical" books; don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

[FreedByte]

No, the Apocrypha is kept separate, between the testaments.

Not only that, but the 1611 KJV and other early revisions of the KJV all contained the Apocrypha

 

[hannibalthecrow]

I believe both have their place. I believe it all boils down to preferences. We are all different but trying to get to the same place. There is a choice here and were all making the same choice. It is just if we all take different paths but arrive at the same place, what does it matter? We're all saying we love God and love his word. It is just whatever makes his word easier to understand for each of us. Seems like a lot of us are splitting hairs here. I believe the best translation is the one that makes us want to pick it up and keep reading, learning and living his word.

 

[justme6272]

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

One really good reason would be because what everyone else has said and thought for hundreds of years is accurate.