Which is more accurate the NASB or the ESV?

I need to get a NASB to comment.

Will purchase one today. Any good links?

 

I don't think that anyone would argue that the NASB is more literal. Accuracy is not just a measure of fidelity to the source text but fidelity to receptor language. At times, the ESV reads more smoothly and readable to current English. At times, the NASB does.

Good places to buy the NASB are American Bible Sales, Christianbook.com, amazon.com. Get one in paragraph form (all Bibles should be). www.americanbiblesales.com www.christianbook.com www.amazon.com

 

Yes; from bible-researcher.com:

[The ESV is basically the RSV text altered a bit to suit conservative evangelicals]

 

I have often compared some ESV passages to the same ones in the NASB and I like the NASB better. It might be because I'm more used to it although in the passages I looked at, I just thought that sometimes the NASB seemed more explicit in how it said things.

I use the NASB for Bible study though I take a NKJV to church right now because it's a personal sized Thompson Chain (which does not come in the NASB in that size - the NASB Thompson Chain weighs a ton).

 

Depends on what you mean by accuracy.

Not being snarky, just accuracy means different things.

Now to be snarky.......depends on where you look. I'm guessing you mean for formally equaivalent to the original language. The issue here is that no one person translated all of the text. Both, to my knowledge, were done by committees. Thus both have varying levels of formal equivalency at different points. It would be hard to say which one is more or less "accurate" because not all passages are equal. Both are excellent translations imho. Maybe you would do well to buy one of each...hardback...and use both and see what you enjoy more.

 

I use the NASB because it seems - and I am neither a Hebrew nor Greek scholar - a more literal word for word translation. I haven't read enough of the ESV to compare it.

Dr. Bob has it right about what should be our view of translations.

 

And I will ask one more time, just how does the average non Hebrew and Greek speaking person determine this?

 

Please folks - stick to the topic and if someone tries to drag it off report it and don't respond to the derail attempt, it only encourages those who have that agenda.

 

Simple, just ask me and I'll tell you :tongue3:

 

The NASB is more literal in the sense of sticking to the original language syntax and nuances and often retaining idioms. But I like the ESV for a smoother read. If I'm gonna do a deep study on a select group of passages, I use the NASB. But when reading whole sets of chapters or whole books in one sitting, I use the ESV. But that's just me.

Both are worth having and putting some money into a high quality Bible.

 

Do you think this true, even of the most recent revision? I think it's leap years ahead of the old NASB.

 

IMHO, the NASB 77 is more accurate and literal than the NASBU(1995) because the Update omits many conjunctions. In about 85 places, it introduces gender-inclusive language. At times, the NKJV is more literal than the NASBU. All are more literal and accurate than the ESV---which is a good translation---but, it is really a warmed-over 1971 RSV.

 

The ESV is a smoother read? It must be just you.

 

The gender-inclusive NASBU. Now I've heard everyting.