# Has Anyone Used Both The NASB And ESV Enough To Fairly And Competently Compare The Two?



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

I’ve made a thread or two about this in the past, but I’d like to hear from you again. 

Is anyone well-versed enough in both the NASB and ESV to offer a good comparison of the two from a purely translational standpoint?

There always claims of woodeness, etc., but what about the word choices? Is one consistently better than the other? That’s what I’m interested in. 

Thank you!


----------



## Jake (Jan 28, 2020)

The ESV tends a little more towards being thought-for-thought compared to the NASB. The ESV also makes more liberal use of modern scholarship in the Old Testament (uses dead sea scrolls, various other manuscripts and translations, etc.) while the NASB sticks more closely to the Masoretic Text. The NASB does use the Critical Text in the New Testament, but it tends to be a little more conservative in retaining readings than the ESV and some other newer translations. The NASB is also much less gender neutral than the ESV. In fact, the NASB is less gender neutral in many places than the KJV.

It tends to have a lot longer sentences and awkward phrases to more closely reflect the original, but I don't find it any worse overall than the ESV which tends to retain archaic expressions. I also don't think the ESV is particularly excellent literarily, but the NASB is probably just a little worse for reading aloud, which is part of why I imagine it isn't popular as a pulpit Bible.

A feature I like for studying, which can be a little controversial, is that the NASB marks works that it adds for clarity in italics (like the KJV/NKJV) which the ESV does not.

I use the NASB as one of my main translations for in-depth study, alongside the NKJV.

By the way, I am referring to the NASB 1995, not earlier editions, in my post. I think most of what I said is true of earlier versions as well, but I haven't spent enough time to say for sure.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 28, 2020)

Jake's analysis is helpful. A couple of places where I prefer the ESV.
2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God" I believe clarifies the original with precise clarity on a vital doctrinal truth. The word "Inspired" in the NASB is not as clear. Also I love how the ESV translates the Hebrew word "Hesed" as 'Steadfast love'. One of the best translations of that important word in my opinion. But these issues are relatively minor. I greatly prize both the ESV and NASB.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

Jake said:


> The ESV tends a little more towards being thought-for-thought compared to the NASB. The ESV also makes more liberal use of modern scholarship in the Old Testament (uses dead sea scrolls, various other manuscripts and translations, etc.) while the NASB sticks more closely to the Masoretic Text. The NASB does use the Critical Text in the New Testament, but it tends to be a little more conservative in retaining readings than the ESV and some other newer translations. The NASB is also much less gender neutral than the ESV. In fact, the NASB is less gender neutral in many places than the KJV.
> 
> It tends to have a lot longer sentences and awkward phrases to more closely reflect the original, but I don't find it any worse overall than the ESV which tends to retain archaic expressions. I also don't think the ESV is particularly excellent literarily, but the NASB is probably just a little worse for reading aloud, which is part of why I imagine it isn't popular as a pulpit Bible.
> 
> ...





Stephen L Smith said:


> Jake's analysis is helpful. A couple of places where I prefer the ESV.
> 2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God" I believe clarifies the original with precise clarity on a vital doctrinal truth. The word "Inspired" in the NASB is not as clear. Also I love how the ESV translates the Hebrew word "Hesed" as 'Steadfast love'. One of the best translations of that important word in my opinion. But these issues are relatively minor. I greatly prize both the ESV and NASB.


 Great, thank you. 
What about Psalm 19:3?

There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard (NASB).

There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard (ESV).


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 28, 2020)

Better in what sense?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard (NASB).
> 
> There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard (ESV).


Not sure what you mean. Difference is minor to me.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Not sure what you mean. Difference is minor to me.


Really? I’ve always taken the two to be opposite in meaning.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

Hamalas said:


> Better in what sense?


Accuracy of translation.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Really? I’ve always taken the two to be opposite in meaning.


Not sure why. Can you expand?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

Let's make this more specific. Please. Is this going to be another manuscript thing? Let us know that Burgon has not been refuted yet, as far as I know. The people who defended him are dead. The Confession and Owen have made statements that are relevant. Why do we keep going around and around about this. Does anyone want to really read these guys? Let me know.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 28, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Let's make this more specific. Please. Is this going to be another manuscript thing?


I don't think so. I interpret the thread as a discussion between too literal translations - the ESV and the NASB. In other words a translation discussion, not a textual criticism discussion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Let's make this more specific. Please. Is this going to be another manuscript thing? Let us know that Burgon has not been refuted yet, as far as I know. The people who defended him are dead. The Confession and Owen have made statements that are relevant. Why do we keep going around and around about this. Does anyone want to really read these guys? Let me know.


I’m just looking for info on how each of these translations does in rendering the originals into English.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Not sure why. Can you expand?


Perhaps I’ve been wrong this whole time, but I’ve always thought that the ESV was saying that they _are_ heard, due to the double negative. There are none who are not heard.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

This thread was about something misrepresened in my estimation and a reality. It is about a world we live in. It has many faucets that will lead to things we want and don't want. One of those is that we don't want to fail John Wycliffe. Jon Huss, Hugh Latimer, or those who desire to read the Bible in our own language and understand them in a correct way. Is that true?​


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I’m just looking for info on how each of these translations does in rendering the originals into English.


Let me lead you to the Angican John Burgon.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 29, 2020)

Yes, I understand. Sorry. There are differences between Dynamic Equivalence Translations but I think something more important should be addressed also. Robert Martin addresses your concerns in a book he did about the NIV many years ago. https://www.amazon.com/Accuracy-Translation-Criterion-Evaluating-International/dp/0851517358


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yes, I understand. Sorry. There are differences between Dynamic Equivalence Translations but I think something more important should be addressed also. Robert Martin addresses your concerns in a book he did about the NIV many years ago. https://www.amazon.com/Accuracy-Translation-Criterion-Evaluating-International/dp/0851517358


Thanks. But what about when both NASB and ESV claim to be essentially literal translations? 

I reject the NIV out of hand, but have a harder time differentiating between the better translations.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 29, 2020)

I believe you can find his Sunday School teachings on the topic from Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in New Jersey.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Thanks. But what about when both NASB and ESV claim to be essentially literal translations?


There is no such thing.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is no such thing.


Okay. 

Could you share your thoughts about how the two stack up against each other?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 29, 2020)

I would take the NASB or Revised Version 1881 for Literal but give heed to the ESV in some situations. This is a very long and intense study. You have to take the time. The NIV is very good for the book of Philippians as I understand things. There is a need to understand a lot that I am still learning 40 years into this discussion. I still like the Majority texts and those arguments laid out by Burgon that I don't believe have been answered concerning the Manuscripts. I am not alone in this feet. I just don't pursue it. I do believe in the Verbal Plenary Inspiration of Scripture.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 29, 2020)

When I got saved in 1980, I started reading the NASB which, over time, I decided was pretty wooden in its English syntax (reading it aloud can be a chore). When the NIV came along, I started reading it. That translation is very smooth (and easy to read aloud) but it's very paraphrastic in its wording, much of the time. Then, when the ESV came out in 2001, I switched to it and have been a happy camper ever since. The ESV is accurate, yet flows easily.

So, I went to the NIV to escape the NASB, then I went to the ESV to escape the NIV.

I'm happy with it. At 67, I don't think I'll be changing translations again.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Perhaps I’ve been wrong this whole time, but I’ve always thought that the ESV was saying that they _are_ heard, due to the double negative. There are none who are not heard.



I would agree with your reading. That's certainly how it reads: that there are no words or speech which are not heard.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 29, 2020)

Jake said:


> A feature I like for studying, which can be a little controversial, is that the NASB marks works that it adds for clarity in italics (like the KJV/NKJV) which the ESV does not.



How could this be remotely controversial? It's very useful.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Thanks. But what about when both NASB and ESV claim to be essentially literal translations?
> 
> I reject the NIV out of hand, but have a harder time differentiating between the better translations.


The term is formal equivalence. After that, it is as matter of how well a translation handles the transition to modern English syntax and usage. 

I traveled with a small ESV on the road to care for my parents and have read extensively both translations out loud to my boys. The ESV was not very graceful and I quit it completely after reading Isaiah because the lyrical qualities of those passages were just gone.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jan 29, 2020)

I frequently refer to both versions. I was "raised" on the NASV (pre-95). I "read" out of the ESV. I "study" from both, but more so the NASV. When I perceive a difference in the text of any substance, I consult the most original sources I can, which is usually a commentary or two.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> The term is formal equivalence. After that, it is as matter of how well a translation handles the transition to modern English syntax and usage.
> 
> I traveled with a small ESV on the road to care for my parents and have read extensively both translations out loud to my boys. The ESV was not very graceful and I quit it completely after reading Isaiah because the lyrical qualities of those passages were just gone.


That’s interesting, because I often hear the ESV being praised for its quality of English; and the NASB being put down for poor English.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> That’s interesting, because I often hear the ESV being praised for its quality of English; and the NASB being put down for poor English.


The criticisms of the NASB I've seen have been the aforementioned 'woodenness.' It impresses me, whether or not it should, that John MacArthur, and Greg Beale use the NASB to study and preach from. As for 'rejecting the NIV out of hand,' it is notable that D.A. Carson referred to it as the 'best English translation' in the 1970s.

I've been doing the M'Cheyne 1 Year Bible Reading Plan for 6 years now. Each year I chose a different English translation as my primary daily/nightly reader. KJV, 1599 Geneva, 2011 NIV, NASB, NKJV, in that order from year one through 5. This year I'm loving the NRSV for the elegance of the translation.

I'm a layman, and probably not the sharpest tack in the box, but in 5 years, into the sixth, of comparing translations, I don't see a dime's worth of difference, besides the well known controversies that have been beaten to death on this board and elsewhere.

Leland Rykan has written two books promoting the ESV. In the one I read,
The ESV and the English Bible Legacy,he says the ESV is 'in the tradition of Tyndale.' Being in a line of revisions of the KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV. I haven't read it cover to cover, as I've done with those mentioned above, but I dabble in it and it seems in line with all of the above save for the 2016 revision in Genesis 3:16.

My two cents.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

ESV does a better job on Deut. 32 and Psalm 82. Aside from that, I like the NASB better.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

JimmyH said:


> The criticisms of the NASB I've seen have been the aforementioned 'woodenness.' It impresses me, whether or not it should, that John MacArthur, and Greg Beale use the NASB to study and preach from. As for 'rejecting the NIV out of hand,' it is notable that D.A. Carson referred to it as the 'best English translation' in the 1970s.
> 
> I've been doing the M'Cheyne 1 Year Bible Reading Plan for 6 years now. Each year I chose a different English translation as my primary daily/nightly reader. KJV, 1599 Geneva, 2011 NIV, NASB, NKJV, in that order from year one through 5. This year I'm loving the NRSV for the elegance of the translation.
> 
> ...





BayouHuguenot said:


> ESV does a better job on Deut. 32 and Psalm 82. Aside from that, I like the NASB better.



Thanks for the responses, gentlemen. 

————

Here’s another question for everybody:

What characteristics of a translation are most important to you? How do you rank them?

Thugs such as accuracy, readability, having a translation that matches what your local church uses, the different types of formats available (reference, text only, single column, wide margin, etc.), the future outlook of the translation (is it dying away, or will it be used for the foreseeable future?), is it the same as your spouse likes, etc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> What characteristics of a translation are most important to you? How do you rank them?



Mostly literal. I understand the dynamics of language and how you can't literally translate an idiom. But still, "Standard" versions (those with an "S") in them are superior to thought-for-thought versions.

I more and more just default to the Greek and Hebrew, though I go to translations to see how they handled hard passages.


Rutherglen1794 said:


> the future outlook of the translation (is it dying away, or will it be used for the foreseeable future?)



There will *always* be new translations because the English language is always changing. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Mostly literal. I understand the dynamics of language and how you can't literally translate an idiom. But still, "Standard" versions (those with an "S") in them are superior to thought-for-thought versions.
> 
> I more and more just default to the Greek and Hebrew, though I go to translations to see how they handled hard passages.
> 
> ...


I’m leaning more and more toward literal. Especially since I don’t know the original languages. 

Would it concern you if the NASB stopped being published? When I think about building my family life upon a particular translation, it concerns me if it disappears by the time my kids grow up. 

Not saying that will happen, but it’s a thought. 

There won’t be that problem with Crossway though. I could even go to my local Catholic Church and get a copy soon.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Would it concern you if the NASB stopped being published? When I think about building my family life upon a particular translation, it concerns me if it disappears by the time my kids grow up.



Not really. Anyway, the guys behind the NASB have hte opposite problem. They keep releasing new editions.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not really. Anyway, the guys behind the NASB have hte opposite problem. They keep releasing new editions.


And by all appearances, the upcoming NASB update is not an improvement.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> And by all appearances, the upcoming NASB update is not an improvement.



The 1977 edition was great. In fact, the wide margin, large print, yet thin page format was the best of all bibles.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Thanks for the responses, gentlemen.
> 
> ————
> 
> ...


These are fresh questions because I just bought a carry Bible for my 16-year-old son and am considering getting another for a friend who appears to be coming to faith from a RC background. In my own usage I've carried different editions to meet just about all the conditions you've mentioned. I've settled on always using my beat-up wide margin NASB with 20+years of notes scrawed in. If I were to have it rebound, I'd consider seeing if they could remove all the extra pages of maps, introductions etc.

Our church uses NIV 1984, but it's clearly going away. A dynamic equivalent translation can read in a lively manner but it is also vulnerable to modern biases such as trying to make the text gender neutral. I can't count the times I've heard our pastor say "xyz word would be the better translation here" and that is the exact word my NASB uses.

For my son, I took about a year to decide my preference for the NASB trumps my concern that it is being used less and less. It's what he hears when I'm reading. I really disliked the ESV and have too many qualms over dynamic equivalence. I read the KJV to my boys every now and again because they should know that literary tradition.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The 1977 edition was great. In fact, the wide margin, large print, yet thin page format was the best of all bibles.


Where can a guy find one of these? Would you mind scouring the nearest 5 states for me? Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> These are fresh questions because I just bought a carry Bible for my 16-year-old son and am considering getting another for a friend who appears to be coming to faith from a RC background. In my own usage I've carried different editions to meet just about all the conditions you've mentioned. I've settled on always using my beat-up wide margin NASB with 20+years of notes scrawed in. If I were to have it rebound, I'd consider seeing if they could remove all the extra pages of maps, introductions etc.
> 
> Our church uses NIV 1984, but it's clearly going away. A dynamic equivalent translation can read in a lively manner but it is also vulnerable to modern biases such as trying to make the text gender neutral. I can't count the times I've heard our pastor say "xyz word would be the better translation here" and that is the exact word my NASB uses.
> 
> For my son, I took about a year to decide my preference for the NASB trumps my concern that it is being used less and less. It's what he hears when I'm reading. I really disliked the ESV and have too many qualms over dynamic equivalence. I read the KJV to my boys every now and again because they should know that literary tradition.


It’s an important decision to be sure!

We are blessed to have so many decent English translations, but that also comes with some difficulties as well. 

One of my main concerns is the importance of sticking with a translation so that it gets hidden in the heart, and a part of everyday vocabulary. I haven’t done this yet.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> It’s an important decision to be sure!
> 
> We are blessed to have so many decent English translations, but that also comes with some difficulties as well.
> 
> One of my main concerns is the importance of sticking with a translation so that it gets hidden in the heart, and a part of everyday vocabulary. I haven’t done this yet.


Just pick one. Even though I study and teach with multiple translations when it comes to memory work I go with KJV.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

ZackF said:


> Just pick one.



When I come to a firm conviction about which is the correct one for me to pick, then I shall.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Where can a guy find one of these? Would you mind scouring the nearest 5 states for me? Thank you.



Good luck finding a genuine leather bible, period. Trutone has replaced everything.


----------



## iainduguid (Jan 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Good luck finding a genuine leather bible, period. Trutone has replaced everything.


Try Ebay. You should be able to find a 1977 NASB in new or like new, in the binding of your preference, probably for less than you would get the most recent version in a store. When you think of how many copies end up in Grandma's estate, it makes sense.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## KMK (Jan 29, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> Our church uses NIV 1984, but it's clearly going away.



In general? Or at your church specifically?


----------



## KSon (Jan 29, 2020)

For the money, you can’t beat this (despite the red letter).


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

KSon said:


> For the money, you can’t beat this (despite the red letter).


That’s all good, except I am Canadian. That $23 is going to be over $40 to get it to me. Hmm. I am intrigued though. 

Do you have one yourself? Is it worth $40?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Jan 29, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Try Ebay. You should be able to find a 1977 NASB in new or like new, in the binding of your preference, probably for less than you would get the most recent version in a store. When you think of how many copies end up in Grandma's estate, it makes sense.


My pastor found one for himself about a year ago due to his original falling to pieces. As I recall he waited a bit to find one with the pagination and everything the same.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I am Canadian.


Canadian's are a peculiar type of American. Is that correct?


----------



## KSon (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> That’s all good, except I am Canadian. That $23 is going to be over $40 to get it to me. Hmm. I am intrigued though.
> 
> Do you have one yourself? Is it worth $40?


I do. It is actually a well-made Bible, though it is bonded, not genuine, leather and red letter. It is sewn and larger print. I'd spend $40 on it, especially since there aren't a lot of readily available 77's.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 29, 2020)

KMK said:


> In general? Or at your church specifically?


So sorry for being unclear. We still have NIV 1984 in our pews and readings, but how long will replacement copies be available?


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 30, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> So sorry for being unclear. We still have NIV 1984 in our pews and readings, but how long will replacement copies be available?


Unless I'm badly mistaken, Zondervan (copyright holder) will not reprint the 1984 translation. It is 2011 or nothing. Not a bad exchange as far as I'm concerned, having both and comparing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 30, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Canadian's are a peculiar type of American. Is that correct?



They're British. So I suppose the answer to your question is, yes.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 30, 2020)

KSon said:


> I do. It is actually a well-made Bible, though it is bonded, not genuine, leather and red letter. It is sewn and larger print. I'd spend $40 on it, especially since there aren't a lot of readily available 77's.


You should work for AMG Publishers.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 30, 2020)

I primarily use the ESV but I have deliberately incorporated the Authorised Version into my personal devotions. Thus I use the ESV Reformation Study Bible and the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible.

By the way Reformation Heritage books presently have some nice specials on the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 30, 2020)

KSon said:


> I do. It is actually a well-made Bible, though it is bonded, not genuine, leather and red letter. It is sewn and larger print. I'd spend $40 on it, especially since there aren't a lot of readily available 77's.


Do the references at the end of each verse get annoying? Do the large section headings negatively impact the experience?

I really like the Lockman side-column reference layout, which is a single column verse-by-verse format. I’m not sure if double column is for me.


----------



## KSon (Jan 31, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Do the references at the end of each verse get annoying? Do the large section headings negatively impact the experience?
> 
> I really like the Lockman side-column reference layout, which is a single column verse-by-verse format. I’m not sure if double column is for me.



No and no. Seems as though you are at a decision point: either calling your shots as to the bells and whistles of a specific edition or take what’s available on a translation that is no longer mass-marketed. I don’t think you can have both. Blessings in your search.


----------

