# ? About NASB vs ESV.



## etexas

OK, as most of you know I am a King Jimmy Dude, BUT, yes I do use and read other Bibles. Now is it it just me here, but when I want a CT reference in English I am more often returning to the NASB (and yes Fred Greco, I know it has some Yoda English  ), BUT overall, between the two, using a Hebrew/Greek reference, I find most of the time, the NASB is more accurate. Any thoughts?


----------



## Richard King

language of Yoda it has?


----------



## etexas

Richard King said:


> language of Yoda it has?


Hmmmmmm.......see let us.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I like the NASB for accuracy - the ESV for language.


----------



## etexas

panta dokimazete said:


> I like the NASB for accuracy - the ESV for language.


I agree, the ESV has pleasing English, but, let us be honest, few read the NASB as a quick devotional, it is good for word studies, esp. as I noted if one is using Greek/Hebrew reference works along with it.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I agree, NASB for accuracy . . . given the critical text. 

In spite of what others say, I have never found the NASB unduly awkward, cumbersome, or been bothered by any particular Yoda language. If some wording or syntax is forced a bit to better reflect the Greek, I'm all for it.


----------



## etexas

Gomarus said:


> I agree, NASB for accuracy . . . given the critical text.
> 
> In spite of what others say, I have never found the NASB unduly awkward, cumbersome, or been bothered by any particular Yoda language. If some wording or syntax is forced a bit to better reflect the Greek, I'm all for it.


I agree with this as well, I have never really found the NASB that difficult to read. Most critics of it feel readability and accuracy are one and the same (see Better Bibles Blog , they feel the NLT is "accurate" because it is an easy read).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Gomarus said:


> I agree, NASB for accuracy . . . given the critical text.
> 
> In spite of what others say, I have never found the NASB unduly awkward, cumbersome, or been bothered by any particular Yoda language. If some wording or syntax is forced a bit to better reflect the Greek, I'm all for it.


----------



## etexas

To take it a step more, I think the Lockman folk did a nice job with the 95 update, there were some errors in the old footnotes which are corrected, and it reads more smoothly ( in my humble opinion), another plus is with the NASB Update it is available in paragraph form.


----------



## JBaldwin

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, NASB for accuracy . . . given the critical text.
> 
> In spite of what others say, I have never found the NASB unduly awkward, cumbersome, or been bothered by any particular Yoda language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have, but I think it's because I grew up with the KJV. I was so happy when the ESV came along, because the language flows better. Having said that I have a small NASB with my ESV so I can make a quick comparison.
Click to expand...


----------



## etexas

JBaldwin said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, NASB for accuracy . . . given the critical text.
> 
> In spite of what others say, I have never found the NASB unduly awkward, cumbersome, or been bothered by any particular Yoda language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have, but I think it's because I grew up with the KJV. I was so happy when the ESV came along, because the language flows better. Having said that I have a small NASB with my ESV so I can make a quick comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed, most of us would say the ESV has nice English, and it is an accurate CT based translation, the question is more about how "faithful" the respective translations are to the Hebrew and Greek texts, in this regard I would still say the NASB is "better" in this sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## DMcFadden

The problem relates to what makes a "good" translation. If the goal is to mimic the underlying grammatical structures of the source, then the NASB is the best Bible. When you read the Greek, you can catch the preference for participles and identify (more often than in other translations) what exegetical decisions the translators are making. In the OT, you can feel the parataxis of the vaw stringing together sentence with sentence. I have always found the NASB to be the BEST snapshot of the underlying text. 

If, however, the purpose of a translation is to communicate accurately and idiomatically into the receptor language, then other translations are "better." Translation is as much art as science. If you hear the word "Watergate" in English, it would make no sense to translate it into Spanish, German, or whatever as "water" + "gate." In fact, the wooden attempt at exactitude would mislead rather than illuminate. That is why the ESV, HCSB, etc. are counted as "good" translations. They strive to be as formally equivalent as possible without sacrificing meaning.

Dynamic equivalent translations, in my opinion, err on the side of paraphrasis to convey what the translators believe to be important. But, for those of us in the conservative wing of the church, we believe that this is God's holy book and that "getting the general sense of it" is not enough. We want to capture the literary allusions, references to the OT, and take with greatest seriousness and care with what the divine author intends for us to receive.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

I use the NASB for devotional and studying, and the ESV for preaching. But I wish the ESV versese were laid out like my NASB. The ESV verses run in the same paragraph, whereas the NASB verses are separate lines, making it easier to pickup where individual verses are at.


----------



## larryjf

There are a few things that i don't like in the NASB as far as accuracy goes that i think the ESV does better at...

Translating the OT "ach" (brother) as countryman - Lev 25:35 and others.

Translating the NT "porneia" (sexual immorality) as "immorality" without any reference to it being sexual in nature - 1 Cor 5:1 and others.


----------



## etexas

DMcFadden said:


> The problem relates to what makes a "good" translation. If the goal is to mimic the underlying grammatical structures of the source, then the NASB is the best Bible. When you read the Greek, you can catch the preference for participles and identify (more often than in other translations) what exegetical decisions the translators are making. In the OT, you can feel the parataxis of the vaw stringing together sentence with sentence. I have always found the NASB to be the BEST snapshot of the underlying text.
> 
> If, however, the purpose of a translation is to communicate accurately and idiomatically into the receptor language, then other translations are "better." Translation is as much art as science. If you hear the word "Watergate" in English, it would make no sense to translate it into Spanish, German, or whatever as "water" + "gate." In fact, the wooden attempt at exactitude would mislead rather than illuminate. That is why the ESV, HCSB, etc. are counted as "good" translations. They strive to be as formally equivalent as possible without sacrificing meaning.
> 
> Dynamic equivalent translations, in my opinion, err on the side of paraphrasis to convey what the translators believe to be important. But, for those of us in the conservative wing of the church, we believe that this is God's holy book and that "getting the general sense of it" is not enough. We want to capture the literary allusions, references to the OT, and take with greatest seriousness and care with what the divine author intends for us to receive.


Good points Brother, so by your definition I will clarify: I am referring to "good" in terms of fidelity to the underlying Hebrew and Greek. I was not that clear, thank you.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

> I use the NASB for devotional and studying, and the ESV for preaching. But I wish the ESV versese were laid out like my NASB. The ESV verses run in the same paragraph, whereas the NASB verses are separate lines, making it easier to pickup where individual verses are at.



I too have gotten used to the verse by verse layout of the old NASB. I prefer it now over the paragraph format.

I do not yet have an ESV to read. But I'm not really tempted to get one yet. I have the NKJV and the NASB as my primary english texts. I am a student of NT Greek but never made it very far with biblical Hebrew.


----------



## etexas

Gomarus said:


> I too have gotten used to the verse by verse layout of the old NASB. I prefer it now over the paragraph format.
> 
> I do not yet have an ESV to read. But I'm not really tempted to get one yet. I have the NKJV and the NASB as my primary english texts. I am a student of NT Greek but never made it very far with biblical Hebrew.


It's OK! Your Greek is better than mine! I audited at a local seminary and was allowed to use parsing codes!


----------



## Pilgrim

etexas,

I doubt anyone will argue with you with the NASB's accuracy, unless it's that occasionally it's so accurate that it's not readily understandable. Other times I've noticed that they will render a word into idiomatic English when the literal translation is probably just about as understandable. But you can probably find similar examples in every translation. For a CT translation the NASB is the one I generally turn to as well. 

I think that the NASB and NKJV are the two best modern translations for study purposes. Since I am using the KJV more now, I don't refer to the ESV that often. I don't even have a copy of it anymore since I got rid of mine during my recent move. But the Crossway does seem to keep coming out with interesting editions of the ESV.

If you like the NASB, don't worry about it even though the ESV is the hot new translation right now. 

Nice to see you posting here again.


----------



## etexas

Pilgrim said:


> etexas,
> 
> I doubt anyone will argue with you with the NASB's accuracy, unless it's that occasionally it's so accurate that it's not readily understandable. Other times I've noticed that they will render a word into idiomatic English when the literal translation is probably just about as understandable. But you can probably find similar examples in every translation. For a CT translation the NASB is the one I generally turn to as well.
> 
> I think that the NASB and NKJV are the two best modern translations for study purposes. Since I am using the KJV more now, I don't refer to the ESV that often. I don't even have a copy of it anymore since I got rid of mine during my recent move. But the Crossway does seem to keep coming out with interesting editions of the ESV.
> 
> If you like the NASB, don't worry about it even though the ESV is the hot new translation right now.
> 
> Nice to see you posting here again.


Thank you Brother. As a King James man I would not say I am worried about the issue, as you noted, the ESV is the "hot" translation now, I was simply curious about how my PB Brethren felt about the what seems to be a marketplace struggle between these two literal CT based translations.


----------



## Pilgrim

etexas said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> etexas,
> 
> I doubt anyone will argue with you with the NASB's accuracy, unless it's that occasionally it's so accurate that it's not readily understandable. Other times I've noticed that they will render a word into idiomatic English when the literal translation is probably just about as understandable. But you can probably find similar examples in every translation. For a CT translation the NASB is the one I generally turn to as well.
> 
> I think that the NASB and NKJV are the two best modern translations for study purposes. Since I am using the KJV more now, I don't refer to the ESV that often. I don't even have a copy of it anymore since I got rid of mine during my recent move. But the Crossway does seem to keep coming out with interesting editions of the ESV.
> 
> If you like the NASB, don't worry about it even though the ESV is the hot new translation right now.
> 
> Nice to see you posting here again.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Brother. As a King James man I would not say I am worried about the issue, as you noted, the ESV is the "hot" translation now, I was simply curious about how my PB Brethren felt about the what seems to be a marketplace struggle between these two literal CT based translations.
Click to expand...


I can tell you this when it comes to marketplace, from what I've seen. Other than Lifeway (Southern Baptist Bookstore) you will be hard pressed to find a good selection of NASB's in retail stores today. Lifeway probably continues to carry a variety of NASB's because a lot of preachers shop there. Of course, unlike many other stores, Lifeway also does not sell the TNIV, which leaves more shelf space for the NASB and other versions. The NASB continues to hang around the bottom half of the CBA's top 10 bestselling translations and its primary constituency is probably pastors, seminary students and those who have used it in the past who are replacing their copy. Of course you also have those who will collect every version possible. At one time, when people who used CT translations were becoming serious about studying the Bible would put their NIV aside and get an NASB, but today it seems that the choice for many is the ESV instead. This is due to the ESV's marketing campaign (including online) and the fact that many do find it easier to read than the NASB and more literal than the NIV.

When it comes to marketplace, if a new translation has a good marketing push behind it, it will sell. When the full NASB came out in the 1970's I think it overtook the AV for a time, but was itself overtaken by the NIV. The Living Bible sold a lot of copies in the 1970's as well, as have the NLT and the Message more recently. The AV of course continues to sell in large numbers, even though it typically isn't consistently #1 anymore. The NKJV has always sold well too although I don't think it's ever consistently been #1 in sales.


----------



## Pilgrim

Here are the most recent rankings by the Christian Bookseller's Association. 

Top 10 in dollar sales: 

1 New International Version various publishers
2 King James Version various publishers
3 New King James Version various publishers
4 New Living Translation Tyndale
5 Holman Christian Standard Bible B&H Publishing Group
6 Today’s New International Version Zondervan
7 New American Standard Bible update various publishers
8 English Standard Version Crossway
9 The Message Eugene Peterson, NavPress
10 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish) various publishers

Top 10 in Unit Sales: 

1 New International Version various publishers
2 King James Version various publishers
3 New King James Version various publishers
4 English Standard Version Crossway
5 New Living Translation Tyndale
6 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish) various publishers
7 Holman Christian Standard Bible B&H Publishing Group
8 The Message Eugene Peterson, NavPress
9 New American Standard Bible update various publishers
10 International Children’s Bible Thomas Nelson


----------



## etexas

Pilgrim said:


> Here are the most recent rankings by the Christian Bookseller's Association.
> 
> Top 10 in dollar sales:
> 
> 1 New International Version various publishers
> 2 King James Version various publishers
> 3 New King James Version various publishers
> 4 New Living Translation Tyndale
> 5 Holman Christian Standard Bible B&H Publishing Group
> 6 Today’s New International Version Zondervan
> 7 New American Standard Bible update various publishers
> 8 English Standard Version Crossway
> 9 The Message Eugene Peterson, NavPress
> 10 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish) various publishers
> 
> Top 10 in Unit Sales:
> 
> 1 New International Version various publishers
> 2 King James Version various publishers
> 3 New King James Version various publishers
> 4 English Standard Version Crossway
> 5 New Living Translation Tyndale
> 6 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish) various publishers
> 7 Holman Christian Standard Bible B&H Publishing Group
> 8 The Message Eugene Peterson, NavPress
> 9 New American Standard Bible update various publishers
> 10 International Children’s Bible Thomas Nelson


Man, how DOES the NIV still hang in there! Granted it is easy to read, and I used it myself after my Salvation, but I don't know how it seems to keep topping out!


----------



## Pilgrim

etexas said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the most recent rankings by the Christian Bookseller's Association.
> 
> Top 10 in dollar sales:
> 
> 1 New International Version various publishers
> 2 King James Version various publishers
> 3 New King James Version various publishers
> 4 New Living Translation Tyndale
> 5 Holman Christian Standard Bible B&H Publishing Group
> 6 Today’s New International Version Zondervan
> 7 New American Standard Bible update various publishers
> 8 English Standard Version Crossway
> 9 The Message Eugene Peterson, NavPress
> 10 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish) various publishers
> 
> Top 10 in Unit Sales:
> 
> 1 New International Version various publishers
> 2 King James Version various publishers
> 3 New King James Version various publishers
> 4 English Standard Version Crossway
> 5 New Living Translation Tyndale
> 6 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish) various publishers
> 7 Holman Christian Standard Bible B&H Publishing Group
> 8 The Message Eugene Peterson, NavPress
> 9 New American Standard Bible update various publishers
> 10 International Children’s Bible Thomas Nelson
> 
> 
> 
> Man, how DOES the NIV still hang in there! Granted it is easy to read, and I used it myself after my Salvation, but I don't know how it seems to keep topping out!
Click to expand...


I think in part it is because it is what a lot of people are familiar with and also because there are so many study bibles available in the NIV, and Zondervan seems to be continuing to issue new ones using the NIV. The NIV Study Bible continues to be a big seller, and 4 out of the top 6 specialty/study Bibles ranked by CBA are NIV. http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bibles.pdf

I guess it could be worse. I've been to large churches, both Baptist and charismatic, where the preacher used the NLT.


----------



## etexas

Pilgrim said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the most recent rankings by the Christian Bookseller's Association.
> 
> Top 10 in dollar sales:
> 
> 1 New International Version various publishers
> 2 King James Version various publishers
> 3 New King James Version various publishers
> 4 New Living Translation Tyndale
> 5 Holman Christian Standard Bible B&H Publishing Group
> 6 Today’s New International Version Zondervan
> 7 New American Standard Bible update various publishers
> 8 English Standard Version Crossway
> 9 The Message Eugene Peterson, NavPress
> 10 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish) various publishers
> 
> Top 10 in Unit Sales:
> 
> 1 New International Version various publishers
> 2 King James Version various publishers
> 3 New King James Version various publishers
> 4 English Standard Version Crossway
> 5 New Living Translation Tyndale
> 6 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish) various publishers
> 7 Holman Christian Standard Bible B&H Publishing Group
> 8 The Message Eugene Peterson, NavPress
> 9 New American Standard Bible update various publishers
> 10 International Children’s Bible Thomas Nelson
> 
> 
> 
> Man, how DOES the NIV still hang in there! Granted it is easy to read, and I used it myself after my Salvation, but I don't know how it seems to keep topping out!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think in part it is because it is what a lot of people are familiar with and also because there are so many study bibles available in the NIV, and Zondervan seems to be continuing to issue new ones using the NIV. The NIV Study Bible continues to be a big seller, and 4 out of the top 6 specialty/study Bibles ranked by CBA are NIV. http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bibles.pdf
> 
> I guess it could be worse. I've been to large churches, both Baptist and charismatic, where the preacher used the NLT.
Click to expand...

Chuckle. I wonder how you bang out a sermon from the NLT! My wife reads one! Sigh! Well, I would rather her read that than not read any Bible.


----------



## Pilgrim

etexas said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, how DOES the NIV still hang in there! Granted it is easy to read, and I used it myself after my Salvation, but I don't know how it seems to keep topping out!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think in part it is because it is what a lot of people are familiar with and also because there are so many study bibles available in the NIV, and Zondervan seems to be continuing to issue new ones using the NIV. The NIV Study Bible continues to be a big seller, and 4 out of the top 6 specialty/study Bibles ranked by CBA are NIV. http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bibles.pdf
> 
> I guess it could be worse. I've been to large churches, both Baptist and charismatic, where the preacher used the NLT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chuckle. I wonder how you bang out a sermon from the NLT! My wife reads one! Sigh! Well, I would rather her read that than not read any Bible.
Click to expand...


Well, brother, these are the types of churches where typically one or maybe two verses are read and then often either taken out of context or scarcely referred to during the sermon.


----------



## bookslover

Believe it or not, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the publication of the NIV (full Bible) in 1978.

I use the ESV (NASB when I got saved in 1980, because that was the translation being used in the [non-Reformed] church I was attending then). I recently purchased a NKJV by Thomas Nelson: hardback, two columns per page, each verse starts a new line - and only about $15.


----------



## DMcFadden

etexas said:


> Man, how DOES the NIV still hang in there! Granted it is easy to read, and I used it myself after my Salvation, but I don't know how it seems to keep topping out!



in my opinion the very BEST study Bible is the Spirit of the Reformation which only comes in NIV. With that kind of packaging, it will keep selling well.


----------



## etexas

bookslover said:


> Believe it or not, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the publication of the NIV (full Bible) in 1978.
> 
> I use the ESV (NASB when I got saved in 1980, because that was the translation being used in the [non-Reformed] church I was attending then). I recently purchased a NKJV by Thomas Nelson: hardback, two columns per page, each verse starts a new line - and only about $15.


30 yeas is not so long in tearms of "classic translations", this is why so many people cried bunk when Zondervan did the TNIV, claiming amoung other things "changes in English over the past 30 years." Sorry, I was speaking English 30 years ago, I am not sure there have been too many vast changes.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Another problem with the ESV (first problem I noted in my first comment about the verses running into each other in paragraph form, making it difficult to easily point out individual verses like the NASB) is that verses that are questionable in the manuscripts are left out of the main text body but are footnoted below (e.g. Mark 11:26). This is where the NIV committee, I believe, did a better job by bracketing those questionable verses but still kept them as part of the main text body.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Never caused problems for me in understanding did the NASV. 

Prefer not ESV. Find it challenge to read I do. ESV language not clear. Prefer familiar language of the NASV I do.


----------



## etexas

Robert Truelove said:


> Never caused problems for me in understanding did the NASV.
> 
> Prefer not ESV. Find it challenge to read I do. ESV language not clear. Prefer familiar language of the NASV I do.


Yes, Yes! Understand first one must!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Richard King said:


> language of Yoda it has?



A translation which uses the language of someone as smart as Yoda can't be that bad.


----------



## etexas

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Richard King said:
> 
> 
> 
> language of Yoda it has?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A translation which uses the language of someone as smart as Yoda can't be that bad.
Click to expand...

 Good point!


----------



## DMcFadden

Smart one am I now? Thank you Mr. Ritchie. May the Force be with you. But, since converting to the doctrines of grace did I, the ESV has my favorite translation been. The NASB is too wooden and choppy, it is.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

DMcFadden said:


> Smart one am I now? Thank you Mr. Ritchie. May the Force be with you. But, since converting to the doctrines of grace did I, the ESV has my favorite translation been. The NASB is too wooden and choppy, it is.



Now come on, brother; you could at least spell my name right.


----------



## etexas

Daniel Ritchie said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smart one am I now? Thank you Mr. Ritchie. May the Force be with you. But, since converting to the doctrines of grace did I, the ESV has my favorite translation been. The NASB is too wooden and choppy, it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now come on, brother; you could at least spell my name right.
Click to expand...

HA! That "ain't" the real Yoda! BUSTED!


----------



## DMcFadden

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Fixed.


----------



## etexas

DMcFadden said:


> Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Fixed.


Too little too late Dennis! The Real Yoda is SMART! He would have spelled it right at the first! He does not do my level of typos!


----------



## Stephen L Smith

I think the ESV has specific strengths that lend itself well to the Reformed tradition:

*1* It is a well rounded translation
*2* It has made many fine translation choices – especially from a Reformed perspective
*3* It is very readable (unlike the NASB)
*4 *It lends itself to good exegesis (something highly regarded in the Reformed tradition). I think this explains why the dynamic equivalence approach is not really endorsed by the Reformed churches. 
*5* Many leading Reformed theologians were involved in the translation project. If it were produced say 30 years ago when there was less Reformed influence in the evangelical scene, I doubt you would have had the same quality of Reformed translators. A good comparison would be the NKJV.
*6* The NIV does not have a historical lineage – something I think is a danger in our a historical culture. The ESV has a heritage via the RSV, ASV, KJV, Tyndale etc. 
*7* In short, I converted from being a devout NKJV supporter to being a ESV supporter


----------



## Pilgrim

Stephen L Smith said:


> I think the ESV has specific strengths that lend itself well to the Reformed tradition:
> 
> *1* It is a well rounded translation
> *2* It has made many fine translation choices – especially from a Reformed perspective
> *3* It is very readable (unlike the NASB)
> *4 *It lends itself to good exegesis (something highly regarded in the Reformed tradition). I think this explains why the dynamic equivalence approach is not really endorsed by the Reformed churches.
> *5* Many leading Reformed theologians were involved in the translation project. If it were produced say 30 years ago when there was less Reformed influence in the evangelical scene, I doubt you would have had the same quality of Reformed translators. A good comparison would be the NKJV.
> *6* The NIV does not have a historical lineage – something I think is a danger in our a historical culture. The ESV has a heritage via the RSV, ASV, KJV, Tyndale etc.
> *7* In short, I converted from being a devout NKJV supporter to being a ESV supporter



The question for me is, how much translation was actually done with the ESV? While there are certainly some impressive names involved with the ESV, I think it's important to recognize that at least 90% of the finished product is still the old RSV which was translated by liberals. Most of the revision seems to have consisted of cleaning up the RSV's antisupernatural bias and some other glaring issues, like reintroducing terms like propitiation in place of the RSV's expiation. John Piper said as much when he said that the ESV is the RSV with the theological problems fixed. It is certainly better than the NIV and is generally although not always more readable than the NASB. 

I know that most of the NKJV translators were Baptists but there were some Presbyterians involved too. There were actually a good number of Reformed people (using Reformed broadly here) who were involved with the NIV, and it had its origins with the Christian Reformed Church, which was much sounder in the 1960's than now. 

I prefer the NKJV to the ESV due to the textual issue, it being as readable and more literal.


----------



## etexas

Pilgrim said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the ESV has specific strengths that lend itself well to the Reformed tradition:
> 
> *1* It is a well rounded translation
> *2* It has made many fine translation choices – especially from a Reformed perspective
> *3* It is very readable (unlike the NASB)
> *4 *It lends itself to good exegesis (something highly regarded in the Reformed tradition). I think this explains why the dynamic equivalence approach is not really endorsed by the Reformed churches.
> *5* Many leading Reformed theologians were involved in the translation project. If it were produced say 30 years ago when there was less Reformed influence in the evangelical scene, I doubt you would have had the same quality of Reformed translators. A good comparison would be the NKJV.
> *6* The NIV does not have a historical lineage – something I think is a danger in our a historical culture. The ESV has a heritage via the RSV, ASV, KJV, Tyndale etc.
> *7* In short, I converted from being a devout NKJV supporter to being a ESV supporter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question for me is, how much translation was actually done with the ESV? While there are certainly some impressive names involved with the ESV, I think it's important to recognize that at least 90% of the finished product is still the old RSV which was translated by liberals. Most of the revision seems to have consisted of cleaning up the RSV's antisupernatural bias and some other glaring issues, like reintroducing terms like propitiation in place of the RSV's expiation. John Piper said as much when he said that the ESV is the RSV with the theological problems fixed. It is certainly better than the NIV and is generally although not always more readable than the NASB.
> 
> I know that most of the NKJV translators were Baptists but there were some Presbyterians involved too. There were actually a good number of Reformed people (using Reformed broadly here) who were involved with the NIV, and it had its origins with the Christian Reformed Church, which was much sounder in the 1960's than now.
> 
> I prefer the NKJV to the ESV due to the textual issue, it being as readable and more literal.
Click to expand...

Chris, this is a VERY good point that has concerned many (the small % of changes done to the RSV), look at the timeframe, the idea for the ESV was conceived in Colorado in late 98, after some negotiation with the NCC RSV rights were obtained, after this Translation Teams were formed, work started and the ESV was on the shelves in 2001. There are a LOT of people who feel much of the work was rushed! Why? The Holman Bible and TNIV were on the way, Bible publishing is a business, a big one in North America. It is felt that there was a lot of haste to achieve "Market Penetration" before the debut of the Holman and TNIV. Crossway has had to backtrack and fix quite a few mistakes that were in the 2001 edition, some mistakes still linger. For a CT based translation I DO think the ESV is good, it is not my intent to bash it at all. I will say the NASB has had MUCH longer to evolve and be corrected.


----------



## DMcFadden

Again, it really depends upon what you want from a Bible. If your purpose is preaching and teaching, you might want to consider how the thing sounds when read aloud. If your concern is as a study Bible, that is another matter entirely. Then, there is the issue of CT vs. TR.


----------



## Thomas2007

Stephen L Smith said:


> 6 The NIV does not have a historical lineage – something I think is a danger in our a historical culture. The ESV has a heritage via the RSV, ASV, KJV, Tyndale etc.



Stephen,

How do you arrive at this conclusion, or what do you mean by the statement?

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Pilgrim

Thomas2007 said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6 The NIV does not have a historical lineage – something I think is a danger in our a historical culture. The ESV has a heritage via the RSV, ASV, KJV, Tyndale etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> How do you arrive at this conclusion, or what do you mean by the statement?
> 
> Cordially,
> 
> Thomas
Click to expand...


I would imagine that he means that the ESV purports to be in the Tyndale-King James tradition and one in a series of revisions that include the RV, ASV and RSV. Of course many will disagree with that to varying degrees, from the textual issue to other issues. On the other hand the NIV made no such claims and explicitly stated that it was a new translation and not a revision of any existing version.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pilgrim, I think you have committed a logical fallacy or two (esp the Ad hominem fallacy). Whether it is like the RSV or not is not the issue. The fact is that the ESV is an evangelical revision of the RSV - I don't know of any major theological (liberal) problem with the ESV as such. 

On the whole it is more readable than the NASB. That is beyond dispute.

I tend to agree with you on the NKJV vs ESV. I hold to the Byzantine priority text so like the NKJV here (though its TR base is problematic), however the ESV is more accurate than the NKJV. The NKJV tends to follow some of the translation errors of the KJV, unfortunately.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Stephen L Smith said:


> 6 The NIV does not have a historical lineage – something I think is a danger in our a historical culture. The ESV has a heritage via the RSV, ASV, KJV, Tyndale etc.





Thomas2007 said:


> Stephen,
> 
> How do you arrive at this conclusion, or what do you mean by the statement?
> 
> Cordially,
> 
> Thomas



The NIV has no historal legacy. Today's culture does not appreciate history (today's values are more superior to the past etc) so I think a translation that shows a historical lineage is a good antidote to modern culture and shows the Christian heritage to have a great lineage. The ESV has this heritage going back to Tyndale etc.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

I should add to my last posts - I think using both the ESV AND NKJV gives a good balance. The ESV is slightly more accurate than the NKJV abd the english flows slightly more smoothly. On the other hand the NKJV uses the Received text with footnotes showing where there are differences with the Byzantine text.


----------



## etexas

Stephen L Smith said:


> I should add to my last posts - I think using both the ESV AND NKJV gives a good balance. The ESV is slightly more accurate than the NKJV abd the english flows slightly more smoothly. On the other hand the NKJV uses the Received text with footnotes showing where there are differences with the Byzantine text.


I always thought the footnotes in the NKJV were pretty good, as far as modern translations go I think it is one of the more under-rated translations.


----------



## Grymir

O.k., etexas, I've tried to stay away from this thread....trying....trying....trying....

But I've actually got something valuable to add. I know why the NIV is tops in sales over the KJV.... There are more lost people than saved...... Yes...I added something without insulting the new (per)versions. Aren't y'all so proud of me... 

For my next amazing philosophical trick....I've solved the age old question - 'which came first, the chicken or the egg'

Oh yea, I heard on many threads someone has a birthday tommorow...hmmm....I wonder who it could be??


----------



## etexas

Grymir said:


> O.k., etexas, I've tried to stay away from this thread....trying....trying....trying....
> 
> But I've actually got something valuable to add. I know why the NIV is tops in sales over the KJV.... There are more lost people than saved...... Yes...I added something without insulting the new (per)versions. Aren't y'all so proud of me...
> 
> For my next amazing philosophical trick....I've solved the age old question - 'which came first, the chicken or the egg'
> 
> Oh yea, I heard on many threads someone has a birthday tommorow...hmmm....I wonder who it could be??


NO!!!! Tim! Man! THE 6th!


----------



## Grymir

By the time most people read this thread, it will be tommorow, which would mean that tommorow will be the 6th. (I've only got 36 min till midnight my time zone) Which will be tommorow tommorow. The 6th.


----------



## etexas

Grymir said:


> By the time most people read this thread, it will be tommorow, which would mean that tommorow will be the 6th. (I've only got 36 min till midnight my time zone) Which will be tommorow tommorow. The 6th.


DOH! Stupid Time Zones.  Only Central counts!


----------



## etexas

My thoughts ESV vs NASB, after getting feedback, looking at online comparisons, textual deviation charts, and plain old reading from the two: My conclusion: AS FAR AS CT BASED BIBLES GO.......I feel the NASB is superior to the ESV. It is not as "pretty" in regard to the English, but it has an amazing fidelity to the Hebrew and Greek. Someone stated more Reformed Scholars worked on the ESV, TRUE! But, I feel the NASB team were (overall) fair and unbiassed with this in mind, and the overall accuracy, the Reformed position can be defended quite well from the NASB. In short, after some research, I feel the NASB edges out the ESV.


----------



## Thomas2007

Stephen L Smith said:


> The NIV has no historal legacy. Today's culture does not appreciate history (today's values are more superior to the past etc) so I think a translation that shows a historical lineage is a good antidote to modern culture and shows the Christian heritage to have a great lineage. The ESV has this heritage going back to Tyndale etc.



How does any modern translation have a heritage going back to Tyndale? All of them depart from the Reformation text. The NIV is based upon the critical text, the ESV is based upon the critical text - they are both orphaned siblings.
How do you see the ESV having a lineage back to Tyndale?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

etexas said:


> My conclusion: AS FAR AS CT BASED BIBLES GO.......I feel the NASB is superior to the ESV. It is not as "pretty" in regard to the English, but it has an amazing fidelity to the Hebrew and Greek. Someone stated more Reformed Scholars worked on the ESV, TRUE! But, I feel the NASB team were (overall) fair and unbiassed with this in mind,



Etexas, I think the ESV does a better job of readability vs. accuracy than the NASB. This is important for the average member in the pew. The ESV is a good 'overall' bible. If accuracy is the main issue, then the ASV [1901] is the most accurate. Further, the NASB update is less accurate than the original NASB - these factors led me to use the ESV as having a good balance. 

As for bias, the NASB has a premillennial bias in a few places - eg, how it translates Daniel 12:1-2.

I am not bashing the NASB. It is an excellent translation and I certainly use it for serious bible study.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Thomas2007 said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NIV has no historal legacy. Today's culture does not appreciate history (today's values are more superior to the past etc) so I think a translation that shows a historical lineage is a good antidote to modern culture and shows the Christian heritage to have a great lineage. The ESV has this heritage going back to Tyndale etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does any modern translation have a heritage going back to Tyndale? All of them depart from the Reformation text. The NIV is based upon the critical text, the ESV is based upon the critical text - they are both orphaned siblings.
> How do you see the ESV having a lineage back to Tyndale?
Click to expand...


It means in regard to translation philosophy, not textual criticism but that is 

And let's not forget that even Edward Hills admitted the Reformers did not always agree with the "Reformation Text".


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Thomas2007 said:


> How does any modern translation have a heritage going back to Tyndale? All of them depart from the Reformation text. The NIV is based upon the critical text, the ESV is based upon the critical text - they are both orphaned siblings.
> How do you see the ESV having a lineage back to Tyndale?



Two points:
*1.* The ESV is a revision of the RSV, which was a revision of the ASV, which was a revision of the KJV ........ 
*2.* The biggest changes in the text of a particular translation are not textual but translation methodology (ie, dynamic equalivent vs. literal). Also, the changes in the text of Received text vs. Critical text are about 6% (if you add in the OT, it becomes a much lower variation). Also, Tyndale's bible was not based on the same precise text as the KJV anyway (Tyndale was before Erasmus). My point is that the Critical vs Received text debate becomes a minor issue in the historical legacy debate. If you look at the actual text of the ESV, one can see a legacy back to older translations.


----------



## matthew11v25

THE ESV IS SUPERIOR BECAUSE...RL Allan makes an edition of it in Highland Goatskin with full leather linings and two ribbon markers!!! 

RL Allan only binds the NASB in a pitt minion ed. with red letters (gasp!!!)...too small for me to read.

Too be honest I really like the literal features of the NASB but I get the willies if I take the NASB to a bible study and some one calls on me to read a long passage out loud (bad memories trust me)...the feeling afterwards makes me want to call up and order "Hooked on Phonics".


----------



## DMcFadden

matthew11v25 said:


> THE ESV IS SUPERIOR BECAUSE...RL Allan makes an edition of it in Highland Goatskin with full leather linings and two ribbon markers!!!
> 
> RL Allan only binds the NASB in a pitt minion ed. with red letters (gasp!!!)...too small for me to read.
> 
> Too be honest I really like the literal features of the NASB but I get the willies if I take the NASB to a bible study and some one calls on me to read a long passage out loud (bad memories trust me)...the feeling afterwards makes me want to call up and order "Hooked on Phonics".





"with . . . _*two*_ ribbon markers!!!"??? No kidding? Does R.L. Allan produce a mainstream denom edition with multiple markers to differentiate Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah? Or maybe one that includes the Gospel of Thomas just before John?

In all seriousness, you may be winning me over. Your previous posts about the Allan got me salivating a bit.


----------



## Thomas2007

Stephen L Smith said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does any modern translation have a heritage going back to Tyndale? All of them depart from the Reformation text. The NIV is based upon the critical text, the ESV is based upon the critical text - they are both orphaned siblings.
> How do you see the ESV having a lineage back to Tyndale?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two points:
> *1.* The ESV is a revision of the RSV, which was a revision of the ASV, which was a revision of the KJV ........
Click to expand...


OK, thank you. In my view the departure from the sacred criticism of historic Reformed orthodoxy and its replacement with enlightenment criticism and the Alexandrian text cannot properly be considered a "revision" of the Authorized Version. In other words, once one enjoins Simon in the Tridentine attack upon Sola Scriptura through enlightenment criticism, as the RV and its American counterpart the ASV, then one is no longer engaged as a descendent of the Reformation. The departure is an independence, a shift in allegiance, no different than the way in which the high orthodox polemic against Rome altered the Protestant reaction to the problem of the vowel points in the debate over the Hebrew text and turned a textual issue into a highly charged doctrinal one.

For the orthodox, especially after Trent, the issue of authentic texts becomes a critical argument in their defense of Sola Scriptura through the doctrine of Providential Preservation. Since Erasmus had already dealt with Vaticanus and rejected it, and both Calvin and Beza had dealt with Colines text and rejected it, the Westminster Confession of Faith was drafted and confessionally defended only authentic texts in Greek and Hebrew. These were the foundation of the Received Text.




Stephen L Smith said:


> *2.* The biggest changes in the text of a particular translation are not textual but translation methodology (ie, dynamic equalivent vs. literal). Also, the changes in the text of Received text vs. Critical text are about 6% (if you add in the OT, it becomes a much lower variation). Also, Tyndale's bible was not based on the same precise text as the KJV anyway (Tyndale was before Erasmus). My point is that the Critical vs Received text debate becomes a minor issue in the historical legacy debate. If you look at the actual text of the ESV, one can see a legacy back to older translations.



I believe the text is prior to a translation. Tyndale studied under Eramus at Cambridge, he didn't finish his English translation until 1525, it is derived from both Erasmus editions and Luther's Bible - as far as translational methodology. His "germanisms" are still present in the Authorized Version. Also, the textual issue is a major issue in the historical legacy debate - there would have been no Reformation without it.


----------



## pilgrim3970

DMcFadden said:


> in my opinion the very BEST study Bible is the Spirit of the Reformation which only comes in NIV. With that kind of packaging, it will keep selling well.



Well, let's start a letter writing campaign to Zondervan and convince them to introduce a NASB Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (that would about be the perfect study Bible)! 

The congregation I serve uses the NIV so that is what I currently use on the occassions that I am called upon to preach. There was a point where a decision was made to move to a modern translation from the AV which was being used for the lectionary readings. I had hoped to shift towards the ESV but most all use the NIV so that is what we ended up with. 

As far as what I use to study with, it is a toss up between the ESV and NASB. I have a ESV RSB but I find myself frequently drifiting back to the NASB (which I've never really found cumbersome to read). I suppose this is because the NASB was the version I was introduced to when I came to the reformed faith making this the version I cut my reformed teeth on.


----------



## Contra Marcion

servantofmosthigh said:


> Another problem with the ESV (first problem I noted in my first comment about the verses running into each other in paragraph form, making it difficult to easily point out individual verses like the NASB) is that verses that are questionable in the manuscripts are left out of the main text body but are footnoted below (e.g. Mark 11:26). This is where the NIV committee, I believe, did a better job by bracketing those questionable verses but still kept them as part of the main text body.



Have you tried the ESV Single-column reference Bible? It's a verse-per-line format, and the calfskin edition is very nice. I have one on my desk right now.


----------



## Contra Marcion

matthew11v25 said:


> THE ESV IS SUPERIOR BECAUSE...RL Allan makes an edition of it in Highland Goatskin with full leather linings and two ribbon markers!!!
> 
> RL Allan only binds the NASB in a pitt minion ed. with red letters (gasp!!!)...too small for me to read.
> 
> Too be honest I really like the literal features of the NASB but I get the willies if I take the NASB to a bible study and some one calls on me to read a long passage out loud (bad memories trust me)...the feeling afterwards makes me want to call up and order "Hooked on Phonics".



Amen! I LOVE my Allan's ESV bible!


----------



## heartoflesh

I just have to ask: What part of the NASB is unreadable? 

I myself have never had any trouble with it and frankly don't know what everyone is talking about.


----------



## Yodas_Prodigy

*Yoda English*



etexas said:


> (and yes Fred Greco, I know it has some Yoda English  ),



I might have to read that one more.


----------

