Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Aug 30, 2011.
Which would be considered the better "study version?"
Lets start with whether a person thinks the TR is closer to the original autographs than the CT. If we are on the CT side, as I am, then we can continue. Those of the other side would say the KJV and NKJV are more faithful. So setting that aside...
Most charts depicting the "literal to the left, liberal to the right" faithfulness show the NASB and ASV as more literal. Next the ESV would appear as a more "word for word" translation than most others. Being a conservative, the RSV and the like, I would not accept as a study bible. Next would come the HCSB, and then a little or quite a bit (depending on the chart) would be the NIV1984. And slightly to the right of that would appear the NIV2011.
In summary, the ESV is superior to the NIV as a study bible, but the NASB, with the "NIV" study notes is considered superior to both. Now because on a verse by verse basis, every one of them might best capture and present the actual intended message, serious study would include a comparison of the NASB, ESV, HCSB, NIV84 and NKJV.
tend to agree with you, but have ead that the Esv is "cumbersome: in places in the OT, and that there are places in NT where the NIV 2011 actually made more sense of what God inteeded to say!
You can always find anecdotal evidence (based on selecting verses where that version best captured the message) to support this is better than that. However, an objective analysis would conclude the ESV hits closer to the mark overall as compared with the NIV or HCSB. But using the same criteria, it would lose out to the ASV or NASB. Most critics actually praise the ESV for not being as cumbersome as the NASB. So I am dubious that anecdotal evidence (from "places in the OT) reflects an overall assessment. On the other hand, there is no doubt there are a great many verses where both the ESV and NIV say the same thing, but the NIV says it better. The NIV will of course win any "readability" assessment, but this thread is considering how accurately the versions present the intended message.
One thing that is "funny" to me is that the Esv read to me very much like the KJV, more so than even my Nasv!
Must be its "British" influence, eh?