ESV or NASB?

preacher4truth...

Can you be more specific? What is the "stigma from the KJVO position?" What are the other reasons?

...Bob

 

NIV2011 over ESV and NASB!

 

OK, here goes:

I know that this may seem like an unchristian thing to say but to cite examples I don't care for John Piper at all and I'm not crazy about the brothers Ryken. I don't base my opinions on someone agreeing with me on any particular subject. However, these three individuals try in subtle ways to make it a academic mistake to disagree with their opinions or theology. Dr. Piper in particular grates on my nerves, not a popular thing to say but it is the truth as far as I'm concerned.

I have read their material and in the case of Leland Ryken I bought his book The Word of God in English $15.99 in PB which is supposed to be a guide book for understanding and selecting Bible translations but is instead an infomercial for the ESV. There is some useful information on the various translations but anyone who is interested in the subject can find many books on the subject that are not as biased towards one particular translation.

So the short answer to your question is I associate the ESV with some famous people who, while well respected by many but who impress me with their disdane for others who don't agree with them. This attitude of mine is probably not a healthy thing for me to have but as far as the ESV is concerned, crossways has got some of my money, I own the Reformation SB, the ESV SB and 4 or 5 other editions of the ESV.

Please keep in mind that my associating the ESV with certain individuals is only one of several reasons I don't fall off the cliff for this particular translation. And, I have always maintained that it is a good translation and that my main contention is that it suffers from saturation hype and over-marketing from the publisher. We (conservatives with strong opinions on Bible translations) say that some in the KJVO crowd have a "cult" mentality about their translation of choice but I think the same case can be made for some of the ESV supporters with their zeal for their translation.

Although I cannot prove it and quite frankly I don't really care to but I think that the way some in the reformed camp gush about the ESV and then attack all things Zondervan makes me theorize that they associate the NIV with dispys and in the ESV they finally have a translation that they can call their own. Nothing wrong with having a preference but these are the same people who wouldn't be caught dead carrying the ESV's older cousins the RSV or a NRSV to church. Not that I don't really blame them I would be caught in public with one either but I do have them in my library. I'm not the only one here with a large collection of Bibles and I'm not the most mature in the faith but considering the fact that I can consult 60 or 70 different translations but really only read the NIV, NKJV or NASB at the expense of the ESV says something.

 

You are correct and I freely admit to being a flawed individual. My main defense is that no one is paying me to state my opinions and I try my best to be fair when being critical. But again, you are correct.

I, like you want to get an Allen. I have a few nice Bibles but nothing really spectacular in the craftsmanship department. When I finally do take the plunge, it will be either a NKJV or NASB.

I have a NIV SB in Top Grain Cowhide that I bought in 1988 and have used this as my main Bible on and off since. At the time, I spent 50 or 60 dollars on sale at retail which at that time was a huge amount of money for me. This Bible is Smyth sewn and has really held up well. It is very disappointing how poorly Bibles are made today.

 

To add a little bit more...

I'm quite certain that the folks I mention are fine people and that in person are very likeable. I have a tendency to read very deeply into what people write and I tend to analyze and speculate as to their intentions. Sometimes this makes it hard for me to enjoy what otherwise is a good work.

Most NASB versions available today are the 95 update. I think you will be surprised at how "old fashoned" this translation actually is. Others have already commented on the "wooden" aspect of the verbage, which having read the NASB cover to cover several times I have to admit that I don't know what wooden means and I don't know of any places where I suspect it is wooden. It's really a good solid translation of the Holy Bible in English and makes me for one scratch my head trying to answer the question "what is the real purpose of the ESV?"

 

Well, if I knew for sure that everything I read was to come from the Holy Spirit through an indwelt translator, things would be different. Sadly, since there are differences between translations, I can't buy into that idea as true. In short, I don't trust man in general to be spiritual where money and profit is concerned.

When someone tells me that the "intent" is followed, then why do certain words pop up in one translation and not in another and the meaning of a passage changes? It must be that one group of translators saw the intent being one way while another group saw the intent as being another.

There is no easy fix, so give me the words and let God sort it out.

 

In my humble opinion, the NASB does not flow when read aloud--perhaps this is what other folks mean by "wooden." I think the NASB is better at personal reading and study, rather than public reading. The better translations for public reading, again my humble opinion, are the NIV 1984, NRSV, and--of course--the KJB.

...Bob

 

"Differences between translations" often lie in the eye and mind of the beholder rather than in reality.

Or it could be how YOU (or I or anyone else) interpret(s) what is read, which is more than likely the case.

If you really mean that then you are limited to the Hebrew and the Greek, because ALL translations have bias.

 

Yes, that was my point all along. Unless he only reads the original languages, he is doing the very thing he condemns.

 

I must have a real problem with phrasing my thoughts. Since neither one of you can understand my point, I'll try one more time:

I am aware that ALL translators will have a built-in problem is conveying a message from one language into another. I wasn't born yesterday, OK?

That being said, when I want to eliminate as much error as I can, I have to follow the closest translation that I can understand. The closest translation would, at first glance, be the one that is word-for-word, but because of sentence structure, it would not be understandable. So, not even word-for-word can do the job, it must be reprased into an understandable grammatically correct format.

Once that is done, then it up to the reader to read and comprehend.

We are so lazy, however, that we will allow people to interpret THE INTENT of the writers, which means that they not only translate the words and the sentence structure, but add in their interpretation of what the writer really meant to say 2000 years ago. Strangely enough (not really, since I expect it to happen) the groups who translate and reword for intent disagree with each other, and that is why we can read different translations and get different nuances from the text.

They cannot be perfect, but if you are going to try to read the "Word of God," would it not be better to keep the interpreter's words down to a minimum and try to understand the intent on your own? Some of the discussions that I have had lately dwindled down to an argument because one version of the Bible used a word that another version didn't use and it change the meaning of the verse.

If you think your version is true, then perhaps you would do well to just leave the subject alone. If you don't, then you stand to find that your version has verses that don't match the verses given by others, and there will be no end to the debate on whose is truer.

Not all versions are accurate. Because of wording changes, they cannot all be "God's inerrant Word." Nobody has ever been able to tell me which one actually states exactly what the original manuscripts say.

I'd bet that I can tell you which version I read the most, and then SOMEONE would be able to point out their perceived flaws in it. Those flaws would most likely be based on whether or not my version matched theirs.

I am not one of your dreaded KJVO types, so try to actually understand my point, OK?

 

SRBooe...

Based upon my translation credentials (I have none), I probably should keep quiet and let everyone do the talking. However, here are my two cents.

I think you just have to pick the translation(s) that are going to deliver God's Word to you. One of your posts stated you had selected the NASB for your primary translation. That is a good literal translation, may be the best literal translation we have available in English.

So, continue your study with the NASB. And if you feel the Holy Spirit calling you to use another translation, then use that translation, because you are, after all, following orders.

I feel the Holy Spirit has called me to use three translations to receive God's Word: NIV 1984, NRSV, and KJB.

Thank you for your honest and straight forward posts.

...Bob

 

No translation reflects EXACTLY what the originals say. Of course, that depends upon your definition of 'exactly'. :smilewinkgrin:

 

My conjectures continued. Newly Revised And Expanded!

This will include 20 versions.

Some tidbits: Notice the cluster between 24 and 32.

I have reversed the positions of the NLTse and NJB and REB. The latter two are more formal.

The versions most evangelicals are not used to which use a higher register of English :The NAB,Weymouth,NJB and Phillips. The REB stands out in front-of-the-pack with its style of elegant English.(Eat your hearts out ESV fans).

NASB 15
ESV 20
NRSV 22
MLB 24
HCSB 25
ISV 27
TNIV 28
NORLIE 30
NAB 30
WEYMOUTH 30
NET 32
REB 40
NJB 40
NLT 50
GW 60
CEV 75
TEV 75
NCV 75
PHILLIPS 100
MESSAGE 115

 

Thomas15,
In your first lengthy post, I found a tremendous amount to agree with. However, in your second one, I found you going off the rails, so I have to address a couple of things you wrote:

While Crossway has frustrated me more than once vis-a-vis the ESV, this is a not a good accusation to make against the "famous" people you refer to. All translations line up some people to shill for it. Sometimes, they cross translations. And there are just as many who are anti ESV and pro something else who are guilty of what you say. I don't think it's helpful to bring that to the table because it's fallacy at best. It's understandable I suppose due to the cult of personality on all sides in modern Christianity, but still, it's terribly unfortunate.

I actually think the ESV has done a horrible job at marketing, and I could quote some insiders who'd agree. A lot of people have indeed jumped on the ESV bandwagon, but that happens with almost all translations. See above.

1. No one associates the NIV with dispy. 2. Some of the strongest proponents of the ESV or of literal translations were former RSV/NRSV folks. Stands to reason, since the translations are all so very similar (too much so, IMHO).

I'm no shill for the ESV. It could've served us all much better. But that's also true of the NIV. Ironically, I've yet to meet more than a few scholars who don't argue for the ESV, NRSV, NASB or old RSV over NIV/TNIV. And that's from all strains of evangelicalism. (The left really can't stand the NIV). I'd love to get some of my old liberal profs' take on the new NIV.

Welcome to BaptistBoard. Anyone who quotes Kim Riddlebarger gets points in my book :smilewinkgrin:

 

Rippon...

Thanks for posting your revision.

A few questions.

1. What do you call this list (chart)?
   
2. Where do you put the KJB?
   
3. Where do you put the NIV 1984?

...Bob