Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You might be interested in the Legacy Standard Bible. It combines the strengths of the NASB 77 and 95, and is written in modern English. From what I can see the standard of translation is very high. The New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs are now available, the rest of the Bible should be completed by the end of the year.Recommendations on each?
This is interesting, I didn't know about it. Did they not necessarily like the changes coming in the NASB 2020 so they put together their own version of an update? Kind of sounds like that. I only read through a few passages but I still prefer the 95, both to the NASB 20 and the Legacy Standard. I'm going to keep stocking upYou might be interested in the Legacy Standard Bible. It combines the strengths of the NASB 77 and 95, and is written in modern English. From what I can see the standard of translation is very high. The New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs are now available, the rest of the Bible should be completed by the end of the year.
https://lsbible.org/
I am looking forward to ordering the LSB once the whole bible is done.You might be interested in the Legacy Standard Bible. It combines the strengths of the NASB 77 and 95, and is written in modern English. From what I can see the standard of translation is very high. The New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs are now available, the rest of the Bible should be completed by the end of the year.
https://lsbible.org/
The project started when John MacArthur read the NASB 2020 and did not like it. He got permission from the Lockman foundation to update the NASB 95, and selected a group of translators to work on the project. You will find a lot of helpful details at https://lsbible.org/Did they not necessarily like the changes coming in the NASB 2020 so they put together their own version of an update?
I am curious. Why do you prefer the NASB 95 over the LSB? I use the ESV so the 95 is no major advantage to me, because it seems to me the 95 is less literal than the 77.Kind of sounds like that. I only read through a few passages but I still prefer the 95, both to the NASB 20 and the Legacy Standard.
I'm not sure; I just like 95 better than the LSB. I read through Psalm 62, parts of 119 and some other passages. In LSB 62:9 says:I am curious. Why do you prefer the NASB 95 over the LSB? I use the ESV so the 95 is no major advantage to me, because it seems to me the 95 is less literal than the 77.
The idea of the LSB was to make the NASB 95 more literal to the original languages where needed. That is why I said earlier they tried to use the best of both the NASB 95 and the more literal 77.If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Agreed. I use the ESV which is about as literal as the NASB 95 so I don't see any point in using the 95 edition. My philosophy for using the LSB is that I will get the benefit of the fairly literal ESV and the very literal LSB.Just my preference.
Good stuff Stephen. Again, I just read a few passages and you're talking to a dude who has used NASB 95 for basically my whole Christian life. I'd like to look more into the LSB trying to be a bit less biased from the outsetThe idea of the LSB was to make the NASB 95 more literal to the original languages where needed. That is why I said earlier they tried to use the best of both the NASB 95 and the more literal 77.
Agreed. I use the ESV which is about as literal as the NASB 95 so I don't see any point in using the 95 edition. My philosophy for using the LSB is that I will get the benefit of the fairly literal ESV and the very literal LSB.
I am glad the LSB changed the NASB 95 "All Scripture is inspired by God" to "All scripture is God-breathed". 2 Tim 3:16. The point of the passage is that all scripture is breathed out by God [ESV], not inspired.
But I must emphasise all the translations we are talking about are very good translations.
I don't think there are confessional Reformed study Bibles in the NASB. You could use the Reformation Heritage Study Bible and/or the Reformation Study Bible and use the NASB (ideally the LSB ) alongside it.Of the NASB Study Bibles, which do you recommend???
Brother, as someone who consults both of these translations on a weekly basis, I cannot agree with this statement. The ESV is much less literal than the NASB 95 and only slightly more literal than the NIV. Just my .I use the ESV which is about as literal as the NASB 95
Christopher, I will revise my statement slightly. The ESV is almost as literal as the NASB 95. Let me list my reasons:Brother, as someone who consults both of these translations on a weekly basis, I cannot agree with this statement. The ESV is much less literal than the NASB 95 and only slightly more literal than the NIV. Just my .
My philosophy for using the LSB is that I will get the benefit of the fairly literal ESV and the very literal LSB.
Brother, Your first three points consist of little more than ESV talking points for advertising. And it can't be doubted, this is their strong suit! Your last point is merely anecdotal. What you've said here consists of little more than bare assertions.Christopher, I will revise my statement slightly. The ESV is almost as literal as the NASB 95. Let me list my reasons:
Personally I think the NASB 95 is slightly less literal than the NASB 77. The LSB has moved closer to the NASB 77 in terms of being a literal translation. That is why I also added in an earlier post:
- The CSB claims to be midway between the ESV and NIV. See their literal vs readable chart. They put the ESV and NASB close together in terms of literalness https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/translation-philosophy/
- When the ESV was translated J.I. Packer said the ESV will essentially do everything you need in terms of a literal translation. In terms of market share the ESV has taken most of the NASB's market share.
- Like the NASB, the ESV states it is an 'essentially literal' translation. It is a long way from a dynamic equivalent translation.
- A close friend of mine uses the NIV. I wanted him to use the ESV but he complains it has 'greekified' English - the same criticism he makes of the NASB. Here are a couple of examples of 'greekified' English in the ESV. Eph 6:10 "Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might." "strength of his might is not natural English. 1 Cor 2:4 "but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" Again this is very literal English. The NIV and CSB are somewhat more readable.
Brother, your argument was also a bare assertion.Brother, Your first three points consist of little more than ESV talking points for advertising. And it can't be doubted, this is their strong suit! Your last point is merely anecdotal. What you've said here consists of little more than bare assertions.
Brother, as someone who consults both of these translations on a weekly basis, I cannot agree with this statement. The ESV is much less literal than the NASB 95 and only slightly more literal than the NIV. Just my .
With all due respect to both of you, this conversation about "most literal" has been had so many times on this forum that I’m surprised you are deciding to hash it out again in this thread.Christopher, I will revise my statement slightly. The ESV is almost as literal as the NASB 95. Let me list my reasons:
Personally I think the NASB 95 is slightly less literal than the NASB 77. The LSB has moved closer to the NASB 77 in terms of being a literal translation. That is why I also added in an earlier post:
- The CSB claims to be midway between the ESV and NIV. See their literal vs readable chart. They put the ESV and NASB close together in terms of literalness https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/translation-philosophy/
- When the ESV was translated J.I. Packer said the ESV will essentially do everything you need in terms of a literal translation. In terms of market share the ESV has taken most of the NASB's market share.
- Like the NASB, the ESV states it is an 'essentially literal' translation. It is a long way from a dynamic equivalent translation.
- A close friend of mine uses the NIV. I wanted him to use the ESV but he complains it has 'greekified' English - the same criticism he makes of the NASB. Here are a couple of examples of 'greekified' English in the ESV. Eph 6:10 "Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might." "strength of his might is not natural English. 1 Cor 2:4 "but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" Again this is very literal English. The NIV and CSB are somewhat more readable.
Taylor, I honestly was going to put a stop to this; I was not going to let our original conversation drag on. I am aware of the problem of definition. Your last comment is basically my view.Third, and along the same lines as the previous point, as someone who has used and compared these two translations extensively, I can say confidently that there are many places where the NASB is more literal than the ESV, and there are about as many places where the ESV is more literal than the NASB.