Since I do not possess the linguistic or critical skills needed to evaluate translations, I have primarily relied on the reviews of others. Some examples:. Notice a few examples:. Here are just a few examples:. The NASB follows more of a formal equivalence model of translation.
They also try to be consistent in how they express grammatical constructions. However, this benefit comes at a cost. The ESV follows a little more of a functional equivalence model.
They still try to remain consistent with how they translate words and grammatical constructions. They are both said to be fairly literal word for word translations, with the NASB having the slight advantage. Both are said to be very accurate. No translation is perfect because translation involves some subjectivity, but both of these are good. Verses that are included in some of the manuscript bases but not in others such as part of the Lord's prayer are included in the main text, inside brackets, in the NASB.
In the ESV, they are only shown as a footnote. They are very similar. In fact, none of the mainstream translations excluding those adulterated to fit cult theology, of course differ in basic Christian doctrine. The NIV is a thought for thought rather than more literal translation, however. One what exactly is dispensationalism? I have been following some of your posts. Love the cover. I am happy with the ESV.
I chose an ESV text and cross reference-indexed version. Great for portability. I wanted a Bible which I could prayerfully read and apply to myself. I wanted to listen to God as I read it together with Him. Decide how you want to use it.
You will have more choices I think with ESV. Bryan thank you very much for your time and for the knowledge you have imparted on me. Well brother I have to say thank you very much as for your recommendation are these just regular NASB bible or are they like study bibles and also are these easy to find online just by googling them? Thank you for all the help. Just curious if you ever got the chance to look over the HCSB study bibke?
Also any recommendations on some good commentaries for someone who is new to the whole studying of the a Word seriously because before this I only studied my bible on Wednesday and Sunday.
I was realky big on listening to sermons but I want to grow. So any thoughts on a great concordance and commentary?? Am I right or am I missing something? God bless to all. I am not aware of any major translation flaw for either translation which impacts major Biblical Doctrine.
Over time you may find that you end up using both translations. Whichever one you select, may our Lord greatly bless your reading of the Word and speak to you through it. I wanted to get an overall picture of the Gospels. You might want to try it. Hi Bryan thank you for the input I guess what I was trying to say is that both of these translation are great trustworthy translations and in the end it might come down to personal preference and what style you enjoy between the two but from my very limited time they seem to be pretty similar just using different words to explain the same thing and like you said I might end up using both a lot.
Any other suggestion or help you have for me is greatly greatly appreciated God bless. I have been studying the Greek New Testament since I am currently working through the Greek New Testament. A wonderful experience.
I find both translations to be fairly literal. I use them both. I do think the NASB is slightly more accurate in some passages. People often say, the ESV flows better. But, that is not the real question. For me it was the best available with the highest quality binding and paper.
I will probably buy one as well. If you can afford a high end bible, you want a Goatskin Leather and print block printed by Jongbloed in the Netherlands, with as thick of paper as possible. Most text blocks these days are printed in China.
They do a nice job, but I like the ones printed in the Netherlands best. Brother, the important thing here is to read the text, apply it to yourself 1st and foremost. The minor translation differences between the two will have no bearing on your ability to read and listen to God speak to you! Thanks Bryan for providing your experience and expertise. This is not a different translation of the Biblical text.
The study bible adds study tools and commentary bound in a single volume. It is very good and worthy of your bookshelf but understand that the commentary is not on equal footing with the actual Biblical text. Nor is it meant to be. As has been said, between the ESV and NASB, choose the one that works for you and that you feel most comfortable reading and understanding. Do not feel like you are missing anything by preferring one over the other. I nearly bought the MacArthur Study Bible last month.
The bibles I had mentioned in the last post were fairly expensive. You will do fine with either of the two you mentioned. Even if people have the bible only a few people will give it a good read, less than half will read a little every now and then, and most will just shelve it.
Hollis, You are entitled to your opinion but I happen to disagree with you. As do many, many Bible and language scholars. Again, the focus of my article was to compare and contrast the ESV vs. This is the last post I will approve dealing with that. If you want to post about these translations, fine, but no more about the translation methodology.
Having said this, which ever you choose would be a great choose and much superior to the NIV edition and the Message paraphrase. Something you failed to discuss as a con or at least I see it as the only major con for the ESV is that it tends to footnote entire verses that are viewed as likely not in the original manuscripts. This gets awkward in Bible studies with people and they wonder why they are missing a verse or why somewhat else skipped a verse and often a person can read right over it without even noticing they skipped what is included in other versions.
In the NASB, you quickly see that this is not included in some mss if you know what their bracketing means , but not so with the ESV because at first glance you do not know why there is a footnote without inspecting and then you realized you missed an entire verse that may or may not be in the originals. The NASB is a useful translation. Many scholars still use it as a point of reference when doing exegesis. The main problem with the ASV is the archaic language.
It is extremely difficult to read. The NIV is not as bad as is often alleged. The words they translate often are not so limited. Tradition often influences ones translation choice rather than simple accuracy. The ESV is a good translation. It, like the others I have mentioned has translation errors. There are other places where the ESV has shifted to an unnecessarily conservative posture.
I used it for the next 12 years or so, and memorized whole letters of Paul, which I would now wish to revisit 35 years on. Has anyone else dealt with this issue? I try to use a different version every year for my reading program, and have been very blessed doing so, but when it comes to Scripture memory, I want to be consistent.
What did you decide to use for memory, Tony? I too struggle with this, because on the one hand, I want the most literal and accurate text in my memory, so the Holy Spirit can use the words which are often important to reveal things to me in His time.
I want to like the ESV! I even bought a high-end R. I have problems with some places where the ESV translation blocks off three of four possible translations while using the one that pleases the translators theology.
The NASB leaves the interpretation alone, and this is my preference. I think it reads pretty well and is close enough to the NASB to follow along. It is just different enough from traditional readings to be interesting. I am planning a review of that one as well if I ever get back into writing. Knight, thanks for the suggestion. This is arguably important. For example, Phil More than that, I also consider everything to be a loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.
Boggles my mind, that one. BUT… those are the negatives in my opinion. I had been thinking on it for some time and this article pushed me to go with it, Thanks! But I like what Tony said about Scripture memory, for that is important to good teaching and preaching. I am a little late in coming to this page. I am deeply grateful to the author and those who have commented on the article. I prefer the capitalized pronouns for God because it helps to make references clearer to me.
As a child i remember being told that it was out of respect and therefore required that we do this. It is good for me to know that it really is against the conventions of the English language to do this.
Lack of capitalization for pronouns referring to God was one of the things i had against the ESV, since i was being dogmatic about it and now i can lay it to rest. The Con would be the fact that it is not a word for word translation. It is the most literal translation on the market. Albert Mohler, Dr. Sproul, Bruce A. Ware Ph. Study Bibles to choose. Other Bible translations.
Please prayerfully consider each translation and study their background carefully.
0コメント