# NASB or ESV?



## Jash Comstock

I own a copy of both translations, and I am looking to switch to just one of them as my primary translation. I like the ESV because it is easier to memorize, and easier to homogenize in a church; but I like how literal the NASB is. Any thoughts on which of these two translations would be a better primary version?


----------



## jwithnell

Aren't both the NASB and ESV from the same translation methodology? Anyway, I use the NASB and love it: that's the translation I first heard from the pulpit as a young believer. Sadly, I think the ESV is the future and is being used in Reformed circles more and more frequently while the NASB fads in usage, so the ESV would be of more value as a primary text.


----------



## Jash Comstock

jwithnell said:


> Aren't both the NASB and ESV from the same translation methodology?



Both are literal, but the NASB is a little more literal. The ESV flows better because it is slightly less word for word.


----------



## Zach

I personally use the ESV because my church uses the ESV; but, I also don't own an NASB. I began using the ESV because a broad range of people I respected used and recommended it. Ultimately, the widespread use of the ESV across various Christian circles in addition to its accuracy and readability has me convinced that it is most profitable for me as my primary translation. When reading allowed or sharing in a small group or Bible Study there's a much better chance that people will be able to follow along.


----------



## Somerset

KJV - if you use the search facility you will find numerous threads on this topic.

"homogenize in a church" - think this lost its meaning somewhere in the mid Atlantic!


----------



## J. Dean

If you're going for pure study, the NASB is the best Bible, period. 

If you're going for ease of general readability, then the ESV is the best choice.

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------




Somerset said:


> KJV - if you use the search facility you will find numerous threads on this topic.
> 
> "homogenize in a church" - think this lost its meaning somewhere in the mid Atlantic!



Which version of the KJV? It's gone through at least four significant revisions (one within the lifetime of the original translators if I recall correctly), and different companies nuance the text in different ways.

Not to get off topic, but even people touted as "KJV only" icons admitted the NASB is a more literal and reliable translation of the original texts.


----------



## jogri17

ESV because it is a Bible translated for use for public reading, and I find the NASB is a bit more awkward to read outloud.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

I have both, and "grew up" using the NASB. However, I find myself using the ESV most often now. I tend to look at each of the KJV, ESV and HCSB these days when studying.


----------



## Jack K

I'm an ESV guy.

NASB is more stilted because it preserves more of the Greek syntax. I suppose that's okay if Greek syntax helps you understand the Bible. But personally, I do better with good English syntax.


----------



## Somerset

J Dean "Not to get off topic, but even people touted as "KJV only" icons admitted the NASB is a more literal and reliable translation of the original texts." I have not come across this idea before - many thanks posting. I will certainly look into it on this site.


----------



## nicnap

Hmmm ... maybe I am an odd ball, but I don't find anything difficult with the NASB; are those having difficulty, perhaps utilizing the 1977 instead of the 1995? Out of all the newer CT translations, the NASB is by far my favorite.


----------



## jambo

I am in a similar position to Jash. I was a NASB man but over the last 2-3 years I have tried to get into the ESV and have used it almost solely during this last year as you have to give a new translation a decent chance if you are considering changing. However after this length of time I find my preference lies with the NASB.


----------



## N. Eshelman

In my humble opinion, the ESV is better for public reading, ie, liturgical usage. KJV is nice too, of course.


----------



## Logan Almy

I prefer the ESV. I preach from the ESV; our pew Bibles are NASB. I have not heard any complaints. Since I prepare my sermons from the Hebrew OT or the Greek NT, I comment when necessary on the differences between the translations. Usually, the ESV or the NASB has a solid translation; so I can appeal to the translation in my hand (ESV) or the one in the pew (NASB). From time to time I have been tempted to switch to the NASB because it is more literal.


----------



## reaganmarsh

I love the NASB (and really love the KJV, truthfully), but in our situation the ESV is best. I like the ESV, but it's taking some "getting used to" coming from NASB/KJV. But ESV is serving us well. 

I use the biblical languages as I'm able, and it does seem that the NASB/ESV are more accurate translations.


----------



## py3ak

J. Dean said:


> Not to get off topic, but even people touted as "KJV only" icons admitted the NASB is a more literal and reliable translation of the original texts.



This is the kind of claim that shouldn't stand alone; until at least one clear instance is provided why should such a statement be regarded as anything other than an urban legend? I'm perfectly happy to see documentation; but I maintain that such assertions shouldn't be received unless they are documented.


----------



## surnamelevi

Jack K said:


> I'm an ESV guy.
> 
> NASB is more stilted because it preserves more of the Greek syntax. I suppose that's okay if Greek syntax helps you understand the Bible. But personally, I do better with good English syntax.


----------



## tleaf

As always, I appreciate everyone's comments, which is why I read this post (but seldom reply!). I'm bothered, however, by the sense of "tailoring" a bible to suit one's needs. Yes, one needs to comprehend what one is reading, but if we are searching for Truth, shouldn't we want to get as close as possible (in translation) to God's original words? To me bible study should be a continuing education, with increasingly challenging versions. I find reading interlinears ( I don't know Greek or Hebrew!) gives valuable insights into what/how the original authors wrote.

Anyway, my two cents!!

May God bless all the readings of His Word.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Not to go further from the topic, but the NASB is a more literal translation than the KJV. However, the Greek text used by the NASB was inferior to the one used by the KJV. Consequently, both the NASB and the ESB are less reliable - from their Greek text - than the KJV. If you would like to talk about this more, then we need to start a different thread.

Blessings in King Jesus,

Rob


J. Dean said:


> If you're going for pure study, the NASB is the best Bible, period.
> 
> If you're going for ease of general readability, then the ESV is the best choice.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somerset said:
> 
> 
> 
> KJV - if you use the search facility you will find numerous threads on this topic.
> 
> "homogenize in a church" - think this lost its meaning somewhere in the mid Atlantic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which version of the KJV? It's gone through at least four significant revisions (one within the lifetime of the original translators if I recall correctly), and different companies nuance the text in different ways.
> 
> Not to get off topic, but even people touted as "KJV only" icons admitted the NASB is a more literal and reliable translation of the original texts.
Click to expand...


----------



## SRoper

Somerset said:


> "homogenize in a church" - think this lost its meaning somewhere in the mid Atlantic!



I believe this usage is idiosyncratic at best over here.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Not to go further from the topic, but the NASB is a more literal translation than the KJV. However, the Greek text used by the NASB was inferior to the one used by the KJV. Consequently, both the NASB and the ESB are less reliable - from their Greek text - than the KJV. If you would like to talk about this more, then we need to start a different thread.



I tend to agree with you Rob, however I do believe we have covered this ad nauseum.


----------



## Jeff Burns

Which one? Both! That's what I do. I am a recovering "translation snob." I was NASB only for about 8 years, but recently bought an ESV Legacy edition from WTS books, and it is a wonderful Bible. Easily the best $30 I've ever spent on a Bible. I love to sit and read long chunks of scripture in this Bible. When I'm preparing to preach I do so almost exclusively in the NASB and Greek, and then when I actually preach, I go back to the ESV. There's no denying the ESV is the translation of choice in most reformed churches. I used to discredit Crossway for their marketing schemes (new cover, new font, new layout, etc.) so that every month they're releasing a new Bible it seems. But now I see that as a good thing. It means that if a person wants a Bible with no red letters, no references, and very readable typesetting, they can have it. If they want red letter, references, etc. they can have it. New verse on each line? No problem. Paragraphs throughout? No problem? Need a Bible for a child? No problem. Need a Bible for a student? No problem. Need a cheap Bible for evangelism and outreach? No problem. Need a $200 Bible bound in unicorn fur and printed on elfish paper with eco-friendly soy based ink? No probl....well, maybe Allan will have that next fall.... But you get the point. Very very few other translations can boast such a wide range of formats and styles to suit individual preferences. I'm no ESV fanboy, but I've given up downing on the translation and have chosen to embrace it instead.


----------



## Jack K

Jeff Burns said:


> I used to discredit Crossway for their marketing schemes (new cover, new font, new layout, etc.) so that every month they're releasing a new Bible it seems. But now I see that as a good thing.



Absolutely. Crossway's decision to diversify its line of Bibles by offering a variety of covers, typesetting, etc. rather than by offering your choice of extra-biblical devotional material is highly commendable. The folks who hold the NASB copyright have not been nearly so careful when it comes to what is published alongside and among the pages of their Scripture text.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Bill:

I agree with you as well, but there are newer people here who may not be familiar with the issues!

Blessings brother,

Rob


----------

