NASB or ESV?

[Char|ie]

I am looking for a translation of the bible that is literal and geared toward an American English speaker. So I've settled on the ESV or NASB, which should I go with?

 

[Christownsme]

They are both very literal and good choices. I have the NASB, I've only picked up a ESV for a few times. I guess I really like my NASB. In fact, it's my favorite bible on my shelf.

 

[Markus6]

The NASB is more literal which is good if you want the translation to be very true to the Greek/Hebrew but it also makes the English quite wooden an awkward in some places. The ESV scans a little better so is probably better if you ever want to read it aloud, especially if you're using it with children.

I'd always recommend a range of bibles though.

 

[Big Drew]

I just recently picked up a copy of the ESV...I'd been using the NASB for a while, and like it...although it is kind of clumsy in some places...So far I like the ESV better...it's also literal, but has the poetic flow that scripture is supposed to have as well.

 

[holyrokker]

I prefer the ESV because it's easier for me to read.

(I'm an English teacher.)

 

[The Templar]

Greetings!

Read as many different translations/revisions as you can.
Pew Bibles tend to not be too costly.
Select a solid translation as a reference, I use The Geneva 1560, 1587, 1599.
Pray before you start and trust God to deliver His truth to you.
NASB uses some wordings which are hard for most readers to understand easily.
ESV can be somewhat liberal and interpretive as opposed to literal.
The Geneva 1599 is available from Toll Lege Press with updated spelling which makes it much easier to read.
Several of the other modern translations are also good and worthy of having.
Some of the other translations/revisions I use are the GNT, NRSV, NLT, ASV, KJV, AKJV, NASB, NAB, CEV, The Message, BBE, GW, Wesley, JPS and a few others.

In HIS Service

Pastor Steve

 

[Big Drew]

Greetings!

Read as many different translations/revisions as you can.
Pew Bibles tend to not be too costly.
Select a solid translation as a reference, I use The Geneva 1560, 1587, 1599.
Pray before you start and trust God to deliver His truth to you.
NASB uses some wordings which are hard for most readers to understand easily.
ESV can be somewhat liberal and interpretive as opposed to literal.
The Geneva 1599 is available from Toll Lege Press with updated spelling which makes it much easier to read.
Several of the other modern translations are also good and worthy of having.
Some of the other translations/revisions I use are the GNT, NRSV, NLT, ASV, KJV, AKJV, NASB, NAB, CEV, The Message, BBE, GW, Wesley, JPS and a few others.

In HIS Service

Pastor Steve

I'm not a fan of The Message or the NLT at all...yeah, they're easier to read...but there was some real liberties taken with those...understandable with The Message since it's a paraphrase...but the NLT really misses the mark in a lot of places for something that's supposed to be a trustworthy translation...probably because it's a revision of the Good News, if I'm not mistaken...and that one was absolutely horrible.

 

[Char|ie]

So it appears that the ESV version is influenced by evangelicalism? I basically want a truly non-denominational bible.

 

[Big Drew]

So it appears that the ESV version is influenced by evangelicalism? I basically want a truly non-denominational bible.

Good luck with that...I don't believe you'll find a version that has no bias...unless you learn Greek and Hebrew and stick to reading the ancient text.

The ESV and the NRSV are both revisions of the RSV, which was the original revision of the ASV...ESV seems to be more conservative in its translation...in that it doesn't have the gender inclusive language that the NRSV uses.

 

[Char|ie]

I dont see any conflict of bias with the NASB?

 

[Big Drew]

I dont see any conflict of bias with the NASB?

Guess that would depend on what one considers bias...The Lockman Foundation are the ones who are responsible for translating the NASB...Dewey Lockman was Baptist. As far as the actual translators, I'm unsure of their backgrounds...

Catholics would consider it biased since it does not contain the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha)...

There were several Reformed folks who translated the ESV...but there were translators and consultants from many denominations who had a hand in the translation.

It all comes down to personal preference though...if you don't mind reading clumsy English then NASB is a good translation...it is the most literal...but because of that it loses much of the poetry...the ESV and NRSV both try to retain the poetic flow...IMO the ESV does a better job...but, I consider myself a Conservative Christian...were I liberal I'd probably prefer the NRSV.

 

[The Templar]

I'm not a fan of The Message or the NLT at all...yeah, they're easier to read...but there was some real liberties taken with those...understandable with The Message since it's a paraphrase...but the NLT really misses the mark in a lot of places for something that's supposed to be a trustworthy translation...probably because it's a revision of the Good News, if I'm not mistaken...and that one was absolutely horrible.

The Message is a paraphrase, so we need to keep that in mind as we read it so we are not led astray by Rev. Peterson's personal views. (The very reason I recommend many if not all available translations!)
I am not sure how The NLT misses the mark or how that mark has been set, are you using another translation or Syriac/Aramaic/Hebrew/Koine texts?
The New Living Translation (NLT) is, in fact, not a revision of The Good News Bible (TEV), it is a revision of The Living Bible (LB). The Good News Bible or Today's English Version (TEV) has been revised and is now called The Good News Translation (GNT) and is a pretty good translation when compared to the oldest manuscripts. Many of the newer versions are incorporating "gender neutral" language in an effort to appease the few who could not figure out that God's Word is for everyone.
A feature of The GNT that I like is the fact that the New Testament has been translated from the oldest of the manuscripts, not just the "accepted texts". The GNT also does not refer to the Latin Vulgate.
Also by using The Geneva as my base translation I remove any/all politcal/personal agenda of newer translations.

But I must warn you, as I have before, I am an unrepentant Bibleholic.
And yes, I go to meetings!

 

[kiwimac]

New English / Revised English are both good.

 

[Char|ie]

Guess that would depend on what one considers bias...The Lockman Foundation are the ones who are responsible for translating the NASB...Dewey Lockman was Baptist. As far as the actual translators, I'm unsure of their backgrounds...

Well to be fair, non-denominational churches share a FEW beliefs with baptists, I'm more concerned about footnotes/annotations.

The ESV study bibles use evangelicaism christian theology in their annotations/footnotes. I basically want something neutral and without influence from any denomination.

 

[Markus6]

The Message is a paraphrase, so we need to keep that in mind as we read it so we are not led astray by Rev. Peterson's personal views. (The very reason I recommend many if not all available translations!)
I am not sure how The NLT misses the mark or how that mark has been set, are you using another translation or Syriac/Aramaic/Hebrew/Koine texts?
The New Living Translation (NLT) is, in fact, not a revision of The Good News Bible (TEV), it is a revision of The Living Bible (LB). The Good News Bible or Today's English Version (TEV) has been revised and is now called The Good News Translation (GNT) and is a pretty good translation when compared to the oldest manuscripts. Many of the newer versions are incorporating "gender neutral" language in an effort to appease the few who could not figure out that God's Word is for everyone.
A feature of The GNT that I like is the fact that the New Testament has been translated from the oldest of the manuscripts, not just the "accepted texts". The GNT also does not refer to the Latin Vulgate.
Also by using The Geneva as my base translation I remove any/all politcal/personal agenda of newer translations.

But I must warn you, as I have before, I am an unrepentant Bibleholic.
And yes, I go to meetings!

I'm afraid you don't lose ALL political/personal agenda you just get a 16th century agenda instead of a modern one. Considering the intense political and religious upheavals of the time (the recent reformation bringing an anti-catholic sentiment and the Bible being translated in Geneva the centre of Calvinism) it would be a miracle if some bias didn't slip in. The notes that were included in the Bible had a particularly Calvinistic slant and that was one of the main reasons the King James Bible was commissioned (the Church of England being anti-Calvinist). Also because it was the first English Bible completely from the original languages it only uses the textual basis of the manuscripts available at the time - we have discovered a lot of manuscripts since.

 

[Markus6]

Well to be fair, non-denominational churches share a FEW beliefs with baptists, I'm more concerned about footnotes/annotations.

The ESV study bibles use evangelicaism christian theology in their annotations/footnotes. I basically want something neutral and without influence from any denomination.

Unbiased translations are one thing (most people are striving for that at least) but unbiased footnotes/annotations sounds basically impossible to me.

 

[Big Drew]

Well to be fair, non-denominational churches share a FEW beliefs with baptists, I'm more concerned about footnotes/annotations.

The ESV study bibles use evangelicaism christian theology in their annotations/footnotes. I basically want something neutral and without influence from any denomination.

And most nondenoms are evangelical....


But, you could just get the basic ESV reference Bible...it's what I have...the only footnotes give an alternate version of a verse, or that a certain word could have been translated in a different way.

Then you can buy commentaries...but all commentaries and study Bibles are going to have a slant one way or the other...Scofield, dispensational...MacArthur Dispensational and Calvinist...Nelson Study Bibles have a Baptist slant...Spirit Filled Life Bible...Pentecostal/Charismatic...and the list goes on...no Study Bible is going to be unbiased, because they contain a man or a group men sharing their opinions on what a scripture means.

 

[Big Drew]

Unbiased translations are one thing (most people are striving for that at least) but unbiased footnotes/annotations sounds basically impossible to me.

Exactly...some may claim to be, but there's no way they can...everybody thinks their way of thinking is right and make the claim to be unbiased.

A good example is John MacArthur, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 12-14 repeatedly calling speaking in tongues a form of Paganism...which shows that he is a cessationist...and because of this a Pentecostal or Charismatic would not want to use his study Bible.

 

[The Templar]

I'm afraid you don't lose ALL political/personal agenda you just get a 16th century agenda instead of a modern one. Considering the intense political and religious upheavals of the time (the recent reformation bringing an anti-catholic sentiment and the Bible being translated in Geneva the centre of Calvinism) it would be a miracle if some bias didn't slip in. The notes that were included in the Bible had a particularly Calvinistic slant and that was one of the main reasons the King James Bible was commissioned (the Church of England being anti-Calvinist). Also because it was the first English Bible completely from the original languages it only uses the textual basis of the manuscripts available at the time - we have discovered a lot of manuscripts since.

Yes we have discovered many more, but, are they newer or older?
Margin notes are not part of Scripture.

 

[Markus6]

Yes we have discovered many more, but, are they newer or older?
Margin notes are not part of Scripture.

Both but we have discovered a lot of older ones e.g. P52 (the oldest manuscript we have - a portion of John) discovered 50 years ago and Codex Sinaiticus (a complete copy of the New Testament along with the Greek New Testament) discovered in 1844. Regardless of age though the more manuscripts we have the more information we have with which to track variations.

Margin notes are not part of Scripture but if the notes have a clear bias is it likely that the translation itself will have none at all?