Yes, Yes! Understand first one must!
? About NASB vs ESV.
- Thread starter etexas
- Start date
- Status
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
A translation which uses the language of someone as smart as Yoda can't be that bad.
A translation which uses the language of someone as smart as Yoda can't be that bad.
Good point!
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
HA! That "ain't" the real Yoda! BUSTED!
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.
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!
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
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
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.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.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
Stephen,
How do you arrive at this conclusion, or what do you mean by the statement?
Cordially,
Thomas
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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??
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??
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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?
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
Cancelled Commissioner
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".
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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".
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
"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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
- Status
