NAS(95) or ESV?

Neither one

 

I prefer the NASB because it is slightly more literal. The ESV, however, is quite literal itself. Both are good, IMO.

 

I like both but prefer the NASB. The ESV seems a little too "calvinistic" for me in places, and is the main version used by many mainstream calvinists.

 

Marcia, I agree with RSR. The NASV was my old standby when I was young and couldn't understand 15th century English. I bought an ESV and I love it.

The ESV is a very accurate translation. I have challenged it several times and the professors would always confirm that the verse that I challenged did indeed say what the Greek (or Hebrew) intended.

 

Marcia, don't just depend on what others think because others cannot always speak for you. Why don't you do a comparison for yourself? The ESV is available online at StudyLight.org. There you can compare it with the NASB95 you use. Do verse searches on several verses or read several chapters and see how you feel the ESV sompares to the NASB95. Then you will be able to make a more informed decision, one that you should be more comfortable with than if you just listen to what others say. I would have to say that my personal preference between the ESV and the NASB95 would have to be the NASB, but that is only because I have just not used the ESV that much. From what little experience i have had with the ESV, I can't really say whether it is better than the NASB95 or not.

God bless you, and keep studying the word!

 

And, if I may be so bold, William, Marcia asked a question in regard to the NASV vs. the ESV. It was not an invitation for KJVO folks to butt in with a blanket condemnation of MVs. </font>[/QUOTE]AMEN!!!

 

I use the ESV but mostly just because that's what we use at Church and in all our SS material. I actually enjoy the ESV a lot as posters have mentioned it's accurate maybe not as much as the NASB '95 but it is a bit more readable and to be sure is very accurate itself. I still use the NASB some but now the ESV is the version I use for everything.

 

Marcia asked:

Those of you who have used both the NAS and the ESV, which do you prefer and why?

My personal preference is still for the NASB, simply because I have been using it since 1993 and am quite accustomed to it.

However, I bought an ESV on its first day of release and have been impressed with it from Day One. It's an excellent literary Bible - I intended one day to read a single chapter from Acts, and before I realized it I was so absorbed in the story that I was in the 20th chapter. It's a real page-turner.

The ESV also has a strong online following, because the publishers are very encouraging about its use on blogs, etc.

 

I have read through the ESV back in 2002 and found it to be a nice translation for transitioning out of the KJV (which was my case at the time). As I read through it, I noticed that there were several strange things about the wording or the grammer, but figured nothing of it at the time. Recently there has been some issue taken with the english grammer. You might want to check out these links:

This one is more textual in nature: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/04/esv-conjectures-in-jeremiah-1814.html

http://www.pantokrator.org/2006/04/14/esv-poor-grammar-at-table/

Here is the response to the link above: http://www.esv.org/blog/2006/04/at.table

I mean no-ill towards the ESV - I like the translation and still reference it from time-to-time. These are just a few things to consider before making the switch to the ESV.

 

I read the older NAS Bible through a few times and the ESV also .I just ordered the updated NAS .Thanks for asking the question I was wondering the same thing !I wonder if theres a big difference in the older NAS and the updated version ?

 

I use the ESV over the NASB'95 simply because it has much of the same cadance for the KJV users, yet is modern enough that NIVers and the like don't get lost when I am reading outloud. It is a great "bridge" between the KJV and modern translations

It footnotes the usage of brothers with brothers and sisters where needed without changing the text.

Keeps "churchy" words like justification and propitiation

It is funny that someone mentioned it sounded too Calvinistic because I always thought the NASB sounded too dispensational (I'm speaking of the sub-headings).

The software was free for e-Sword, which I use all the time.

 

Depends on the non-Reformed person, probably. One who hates Calvinism and thinks Calvinists are heretics, or at least close, should go for somethng else obviously. The notes support infant baptism and such. I guess it depends on whether you think you could learn from Presbyterians. Some can, some cannot.

Oh yeah, I love the ESV and have never used the NAS in any edition. I think either would be fine though.

 

If you are dispensational the Scofield3 Study Bible is now out in the ESV version, so you are not stuck with the Reformation Study Bible as the only ESV study version.
I like the Esv very much but do not have it in a study version.It is as accurate as the NASB but more readable.There are some who would say the NASB is more accurate but the difference is like potatoes and potaatoe as far as accuracy goes,in other words barely noticable.

 

the Scofield3 Study Bible is now out in the ESV version

[inappropriate remark deleted]. . .

[ May 07, 2006, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]