cure-real
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Garden Party
    Posts
    1,935

    One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    I wanted to dig up this issue since the ESV has been out for a while now:

    I have separated out the issues in favor of each, according to this article, below:


    NASB ESV
    gives me an extremely literally-accurate text, along with outstanding text notes.
    the NASB’s text notes are about the finest available, outside of the extensive notes that accompany the NET Bible. My new ESV has a fine set of text notes, but they’re not the equal of the NASB
    the NASB in reaction to the RSV ESV in reaction to the NRSV
    the NASB, the translators went back to the old American Standard Version (ASV) and revised it to bring it more in line with the current-at-that-time English usage and scholarship. The latest NASB is the result of a very similar revision of the 1971 NASB done in 1995, with an eye to making it more readable.
    The ESV came about in response to the National Council of Churches’ revision of the RSV, resulting in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Originally the ESV text was simply a revision of the more liberal things contained in the RSV to make it more palatable for evangelicals, but the latest revision of the ESV, though still not very extensive, has included a little more of what we could call “evangelical scholarship”.
    The NASB, on the other hand, while its readability has been improved, is still far more concerned with its literal accuracy than with being fine English. This makes for some frequent odd renderings, at least grammatically speaking. Most of the NASB’s critics complain about how “wooden” the NASB’s English is. the ESV uses a more formal style of English, a more classic English, if you will.
    the NASB in my own personal study, I really kind of enjoy the odd renderings in English, because it gives me a better picture of the original languages, and sometimes will even give me a greater insight into the actual meaning of a passage The ESV, on the other hand, is a much smoother-reading text, especially reading it out loud. Its translation team apparently took this into consideration when they chose to use the RSV text as the basis for the ESV. It was already written in a very classical-style English, yet it was also already quite literally accurate.
    However, since the RSV was already an “old” translation when the ESV people took it up, it contained, and still contains, quite a number of what I would consider “archaic” renderings. But when it comes to reading it out loud, I have found the NASB can be difficult
    I find I usually can understand the NASB easier, especially when I use the text notes.
    I often would tend to carry the ESV to church, since my church uses the NRSV as its pew Bibles and I think the ESV is closer to the NRSV text, making it easier to follow along.
    But I am finding more and more that I tend to prefer the clear, easy understanding of the NASB over the classic English of the ESV. The fact that my ESV is brand new will factor into my using it more than I probably would if they were of equal age and condition


    Are their other issues besides readability and study notes?
    Love first, ... answer questions ... later ...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida panhandle
    Posts
    3,761

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    Study notes depends who who added notes to the bibles. It is not a part of the translation.

    A publisher can provide good study notes or bad ones, but it does not reflect on the translation itself.

    So far, in tracking what I have determined to be errors between translations - and I use both the NASB and the ESV - I have found only one so far in the ESV but a few in the NASB. They are both translations of manuscripts much older than the TR.

    They stand head and shoulders about any of the others I have used.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In God's Hand
    Posts
    333
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    How well do they each keep to the original message? If a modern Bible defers the glory of that testimony regarding the Son to be the glory of the Holy Spirit or the glory of the believer whereas it is on the Son in the KJV, I will go with the KJV.

    Two plumblines to consider if those modern Bibles decline from that testimony of the Son is here: Romans 8:26-27 & 1 Peter 4:19.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...n=KJV;NASB;ESV

    Now if you do not see the error in Romans 8:26-27, then see my blog for more detail and reproofs.

    As for 1 Peter 4:19: in the KJV: the well doing is testifying of how the faithful Creator is keeping our souls while we suffer which is why we can entrust Him with it, but the other two version has shifted the glory of that testimony to the suffering believer in doing what is right or doing good.

    Since scripture is to testify of the Son in seeking His glory: John 5:39 and the disciples led by the Holy Spirit are doing the same thing: John 15:26-27 & John 7:18 & John 16:13-14, then modern Bibles not keeping His words are proving they do not love Him. The Father said that.

    John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

    And Jesus said that about those loving Him would keep the sayings of His disciples.

    John 15:20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

    And so the rule of thumb that the Lord has led me by in considering which Bible holds to the meat of His words to discern good and evil is by how they keep and not decline from the testimony of the Son in seeking the glory of the Son, and thereby the glory of God the Father.

    Psalm 119:157 Many are my persecutors and mine enemies; yet do I not decline from thy testimonies. 158 I beheld the transgressors, and was grieved; because they kept not thy word. 159 Consider how I love thy precepts: quicken me, O Lord, according to thy lovingkindness. 160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. 161 Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word. 162 I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil. 163 I hate and abhor lying:

    Proverbs 30: 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. 7 Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: 8 Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:

    With all of these so called modern Bibles to make it easier for man to read, one has to wonder why they are still churning out newer modern Bibles. Could it be falsehood all along since the copyright patent requires each modern Bible to have a certain amount of changed words, added, and omitted, in order for that newer version to have its own copyright? How can anyone serve God and mammon if the people doing these Bibles are doing it for the purpose of a copyright patent?

    Seems to me that this ongoing churning out of newer Bible versions proves that believers should look to the Lord for wisdom in understanding His words in the KJV, and not man making the Bible "easier" to read. You would think they would have peaked by now, but no.

    The latest Bible version called "The Voice", had removed the word "Christ" from it to "Annointed One". I do not like that at all. In the use of the term "Christ" in the scripture of the NT, to deny Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Father and the Son. That means Christ is God. There are alot of annointed prophets and kings, but they are not the Christ; they are not God. There are educated scholars that refer to the OT of several figures that was like a type of "Christ". They are missing the meaning of Christ in the NT.

    1 John 2: 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

    John equates denying Jesus is the Christ as the same as denying the Father and the Son: thus Christ means God.

    At any rate: just explaining why I prefer the KJV and how the NASB & the ESV did not keep the testimony of the Son to His glory.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida panhandle
    Posts
    3,761

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    Apples and Oranges.

    The KJV does not follow the manuscript in its entirity. That fact that you like the KJV does not put validity in the translation.

    If anything, what you are using comes from a much later and much more tainted source document. The NASB and ESV come from an older source and they have been validated time and again with more recent finding.

    It's nice that you like you bible, but it would be better if you would quit accusing the others of being false. THE KJV is NOT the standard by with bibles are meaured.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    central pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,019

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    Quote Originally Posted by Eyelog View Post
    I wanted to dig up this issue since the ESV has been out for a while now:



    I have separated out the issues in favor of each, according to this article, below:


    NASB ESV
    gives me an extremely literally-accurate text, along with outstanding text notes.
    the NASB’s text notes are about the finest available, outside of the extensive notes that accompany the NET Bible. My new ESV has a fine set of text notes, but they’re not the equal of the NASB
    the NASB in reaction to the RSV ESV in reaction to the NRSV
    the NASB, the translators went back to the old American Standard Version (ASV) and revised it to bring it more in line with the current-at-that-time English usage and scholarship. The latest NASB is the result of a very similar revision of the 1971 NASB done in 1995, with an eye to making it more readable. The ESV came about in response to the National Council of Churches’ revision of the RSV, resulting in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Originally the ESV text was simply a revision of the more liberal things contained in the RSV to make it more palatable for evangelicals, but the latest revision of the ESV, though still not very extensive, has included a little more of what we could call “evangelical scholarship”.
    The NASB, on the other hand, while its readability has been improved, is still far more concerned with its literal accuracy than with being fine English. This makes for some frequent odd renderings, at least grammatically speaking. Most of the NASB’s critics complain about how “wooden” the NASB’s English is. the ESV uses a more formal style of English, a more classic English, if you will.
    the NASB in my own personal study, I really kind of enjoy the odd renderings in English, because it gives me a better picture of the original languages, and sometimes will even give me a greater insight into the actual meaning of a passage The ESV, on the other hand, is a much smoother-reading text, especially reading it out loud. Its translation team apparently took this into consideration when they chose to use the RSV text as the basis for the ESV. It was already written in a very classical-style English, yet it was also already quite literally accurate.
    However, since the RSV was already an “old” translation when the ESV people took it up, it contained, and still contains, quite a number of what I would consider “archaic” renderings. But when it comes to reading it out loud, I have found the NASB can be difficult
    I find I usually can understand the NASB easier, especially when I use the text notes. I often would tend to carry the ESV to church, since my church uses the NRSV as its pew Bibles and I think the ESV is closer to the NRSV text, making it easier to follow along.
    But I am finding more and more that I tend to prefer the clear, easy understanding of the NASB over the classic English of the ESV. The fact that my ESV is brand new will factor into my using it more than I probably would if they were of equal age and condition


    Are their other issues besides readability and study notes?
    English Revised Version (1881-1895)

    New Testament 1881. C.J. Ellicott, et al., The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Translated out of the Greek: Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611 (King James Bible)

    The ASV was the American version of the ERV. The National Council of Churches picked up the copyright for the ASV. The National Council of Churches’ copyright of the ASV was pretty much defunct when Dewy Lockman made a deal with the NCC to revise the ASV, and thus we have the NASB. The National Council of Churches never gave up the rights to the ASV, and thus we have two separate lines of revisions of the ASV. We have the NASB and the RSV-ESV.


    What we end up with is revision of revision, after revision; and just who is the smartest revisionist anyway? They all have to plink here and there to come up with their own distinct translation. Alter a word here, alter a word there, confusion after confusion; where does it all stop?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida panhandle
    Posts
    3,761

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    Quote Originally Posted by rejoice44 View Post
    English Revised Version (1881-1895)

    New Testament 1881. C.J. Ellicott, et al., The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Translated out of the Greek: Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611 (King James Bible)

    The ASV was the American version of the ERV. The National Council of Churches picked up the copyright for the ASV. The National Council of Churches’ copyright of the ASV was pretty much defunct when Dewy Lockman made a deal with the NCC to revise the ASV, and thus we have the NASB. The National Council of Churches never gave up the rights to the ASV, and thus we have two separate lines of revisions of the ASV. We have the NASB and the RSV-ESV.


    What we end up with is revision of revision, after revision; and just who is the smartest revisionist anyway? They all have to plink here and there to come up with their own distinct translation. Alter a word here, alter a word there, confusion after confusion; where does it all stop?
    Why should it stop?

    Language changes over time.

    What is more important: understanding scripture in our language or maintaining tradition by keeping a version that people not only don't understand but will not take the time to attempt to read? If maintaining the oldest English version is more important, it would not be the KJV anyway.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    central pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,019

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo View Post
    Why should it stop?

    Language changes over time.

    What is more important: understanding scripture in our language or maintaining tradition by keeping a version that people not only don't understand but will not take the time to attempt to read? If maintaining the oldest English version is more important, it would not be the KJV anyway.
    The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version

    by J. C. Philpot
    (Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was contemplated)

    We take this opportunity to express our opinion upon a question much agitated of late--whether it would be desirable to have a new (or at least a revised) translation of the Scriptures. We fully admit that there are here and there passages of which the translation might be improved, as, for instance, "love" for "charity" all through 1 Corinthians 13; but we deprecate any alteration as a measure that, for the smallest sprinkling of good, would deluge us with a flood of evil. The following are our reasons:

    1. Who are to undertake it? Into whose hands would the revision fall? What an opportunity for the enemies of truth to give us a mutilated false Bible! Of course, they must be learned men, great critics, scholars, and divines, but these are notoriously either Puseyites or Neologians (We should say: Anglo-Catholics and Modernists.)--in other words, deeply tainted with either popery or infidelity. Where are there learned men sound in the truth, not to say alive unto God, who possess the necessary qualifications for so important a work? And can erroneous men, men dead in trespasses and sins, carnal, worldly, ungodly persons, spiritually translate a book written by the blessed Spirit? We have not the slightest ground for hope that they would be godly men, such as we have reason to believe translated the Scriptures into our present version.


    2. Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan! What a gloom, too, it would cast over the minds of many of God's saints to have those passages which had been applied to their souls translated in a different way, and how it would seem to shake all their experience of the power and preciousness of God's Word!


    3. But besides this, there would be two Bibles spread through the land, the old and the new, and what confusion would this create in almost every place! At present, all sects and denominations agree in acknowledging our present version as the standard of appeal. Nothing settles disputes so soon as when the contending parties have confidence in the same umpire and are willing to abide by his decision. But this judge of all disputes, this umpire of all controversy, would cease to be the looser of strife if the present acknowledged authority were put an end to by a rival.


    4. Again, if the revision and re-translation were once to begin, where would it end? It is good to let well alone, as it is easier to mar than mend. The Socinianising (Denying the Godhead of Christ) Neologian would blot out "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16,and strike out 1 John 5:7,8, as an interpolation.

    The Puseyite would mend it to suit Tractarian views (Led by Newman and Keble, the Tractarians were moving towards Romanism). He would read "priest" where we now read "elder," and put "penance" in the place of "repentance."
    Once set up a notice, "THE OLD BIBLE TO BE MENDED," and there would be plenty of workmen, who, trying to mend the cover, would pull the pages to pieces. The Arminian would soften down the words "election" and "predestination" into some term less displeasing to Pharisaic ears. "Righteousness" would be turned into "justice,"
    and "reprobate" into "undiscerning."

    All our good Bible terms would be so mutilated that they would cease to convey the Spirit's meaning, and instead of the noble simplicity, faithfulness and truth of our present version, we should have a Bible that nobody would accept as the Word of God, to which none could safely appeal, and on which none could implicitly rely.


    5. Instead of our good old Saxon Bible, simple and solid, with few words really obsolete, and alike majestic and beautiful, we should have a modern English translation in the pert and flippant language of the day. Besides its authority as the Word of God, our present version is the great English classic generally accepted as the standard of the English language. The great classics of a language cannot be modernised. What an outcry there would be against modernising Shakespeare, or making Hooker, Bacon or Milton talk the English of the newspapers or of the House of Commons!

    6. The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children.

    (Taken from pages 103-105, Sin & Salvation, Selections from J. C. Philpot)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    3,299
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    Really? More of this?
    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - unknown

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida panhandle
    Posts
    3,761

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    Quote Originally Posted by rejoice44 View Post
    6. The present English Bible has been blessed to thousands of the saints of God; and not only so, it has become part of our national inheritance which we have received unimpaired from our fathers, and are bound to hand down unimpaired to our children.
    That is what it all boils down to.

    Tradition

    Before that, we still had other English bibles and they also had been used by thousands of saints of God.

    The logic is broken.

    Yes, more of this. Shame isn't it?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Dwight, IL
    Posts
    3,299
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    The subject of this thread is the NASB and the ESV. That is what the OP is talking about. This is not a KJV thread. KJV posts are off topic.
    In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - unknown

    Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    central pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,019

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    The subject of this thread is the NASB and the ESV. That is what the OP is talking about. This is not a KJV thread. KJV posts are off topic.
    Right, and distinguishing between the NASB and the ESV, it is only proper that we recognize that one group had control over the copyright for which both translations were formed from. The National Council of Churches gave limited rights to the NASB translators, as the NCC did not relinguish the rights to the translation that was being revised.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    in the gap
    Posts
    8,812
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    I think it's fair to say that the commandment to love one another is the exact same in both versions ...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hilo, HI
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    Quote Originally Posted by TrustGzus View Post
    The subject of this thread is the NASB and the ESV. That is what the OP is talking about. This is not a KJV thread. KJV posts are off topic.
    Spot on!! But you know how these threads evolve into KJV threads after a while. Some just can't help themselves.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hilo, HI
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    Quote Originally Posted by Dani H View Post
    I think it's fair to say that the commandment to love one another is the exact same in both versions ...
    Yep, that's the way my bibles read.

  15. #15

    Re: One more Time: NASB vs. ESV

    I can tell you definitively, that the ESV was not a reaction to the NRSV. It was created for reasons that were completely independent of the NRSV or the TNIV. It was created at the request of some leading pastors who wanted to be able to faithfully preach from the Bible text without having to consistently correct it, as well as being a Bible that could be used across the breadth of the church experience. Here is one pastor's rationale for switching over to the ESV.
    Last edited by gdennis; Aug 20th 2012 at 02:33 PM. Reason: forgot to add link

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. NKJV vs NASB
    By johntom2000 in forum Solomon's Porch
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 17th 2011, 11:24 AM
  2. Discussion The KJV or the Updated NASB
    By Jemand in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Feb 5th 2010, 07:35 PM
  3. Please Help NASB for the blind
    By bryan0731 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sep 16th 2009, 03:09 PM
  4. Which is most accurate, the KJV or the NASB?
    By Tbone in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Oct 10th 2008, 10:19 AM
  5. Rev 13:1 NASB vs KJV
    By Yishai in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Jul 12th 2007, 12:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •