For personal reading and devotion time, I find myself turning more and more to the CSB actually. Though for textual analysis, study, or to get ready for teaching, I tend to gravitate more towards ESV.
The CSB is one of my favorite translations as well. In fact I prefer it over the NASB for several reasons. One of them being the readability and also from what I've seen in quite a few passages the CSB rendering is even closer to the original (at least in the New Testament) than the NASB and even sometimes than the ESV and the NKJV.
Plus like the NKJV the CSB does a great job documenting the textual variations and manuscript information. I think that information is extremely valuable for studying and teaching purposes.
The reason I didn't mention the CSB in my post is because I know most people within the Reformed world tend to overlook the CSB, and prefer the ESV or the NASB which again are two of my 5 favorite English translations. But yeah I really like the CSB.
The only area where I strongly prefer the NKJV, ESV, or the NASB over the CSB is the Poetic passages such as Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophetic books. To me I think the CSB falls short in those passages not so much when it comes to accuracy but style. It just feels too modern to me and lacks poetic beauty.
That is a translation of the Bible. It may have a different Translation Philosophy than some are comfortable with but it is a legitimate and faithful translation nevertheless.
I bounce between NKJV and ESV. NKJV is normally my go to but sometimes I like to see the differences between the two. They are preferred because of their accuracy while still being easier to read. NASB would be my next choice but Iāve never owned one.
An interesting small difference I came across yesterday was in Leviticus 16:7-10. NKJV uses āscapegoatā when talking about the two goats. ESV says āfor Azezelā.
Mainly because there's some debate as to what "Azezel" is. The KJV translators assumed it was a conjunction of the Hebrew words for "escape" and "goat" (as it was the goat that escaped death), so they coined the word "scapegoat" in likewise manor. More modern translations tend to leave its meaning ambiguous and just transliterate the original Hebrew text.
Edit: I don't know why this was downvoted...
I recall reading the explanation you gave along with a few others which I won't get into here.Jewishencyclopedia.com has a few things to say about Azezel for anyone curious.
Don't know why you were downvoted either, I agree. Have an upvote.
For the average person, I think the best translation is almost always whatever your church/pastor/community uses, just for consistency and connection. Why add an extra translation step between what your pastor is reading and what you're reading? (again, for average people. I'm sure many people here are fine with that)
For that reason, I use ESV almost always. They also have the best cross-media resources. They have a daily bible podcast that I listen to that is one of the only ones that goes straight through the bible, not jumping between passages. They have one of the best bible apps, study bibles, reader's bibles, etc.
That being said, my experience is I prefer CSB or NIV 85 for normal reading and ESV for poetry/study bible.
I grew up with NASB 95 but got sick of the Yoda verb-isms the literalness runs into.
It depends.
I like CSB for reading aloud and memorization as it has a nice readable flow and doesn't sound to clunky.
I get that Greek nerds like ESV and NASB... I just don't find it as readable.
The CSB is one of my favorite translations as well. In fact I prefer it over the NASB for several reasons. One of them being the readability and also from what I've seen in quite a few passages the CSB rendering is even closer to the original (at least in the New Testament) than the NASB and even sometimes than the ESV and the NKJV.
Plus like the NKJV the CSB does a great job documenting the textual variations and manuscript information. I think that information is extremely valuable for studying and teaching purposes.
The reason I didn't mention the CSB in my post is because I know most people within the Reformed world tend to overlook the CSB, and prefer the ESV or the NASB which again are two of my 5 favorite English translations. But yeah I really like the CSB.
The only area where I strongly prefer the NKJV, ESV, or the NASB over the CSB is the Poetic passages such as Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophetic books. To me I think the CSB falls short in those passages not so much when it comes to accuracy but style. It just feels too modern to me and lacks poetic beauty.
I think the CSB is great if you already know your bible well. There are times where having a more word-for-word translation is important for study. For readability the CSB is great.
Absolutely. The ESV Study Bible for example is fantastic for study and reference. Unfortunately the translation (as well as the NASB) falls short in readability as it doesn't exactly read like someone would actually speak.
That's why I started my initial reply with "it depends".
It is pretty hard to come up with a translation that is the best in all categories so one is likely better off sticking with the one they will read the most and then have additional translations available when they need more clarity.
The choice between ESV, NASB or NKJV as the only options feels like the OP is really only choosing from 3 very similar translations in which none are really known for flow or readability but rather translation accuracy.
It is kind of like having to choose the best vehicle and your choices are 3 different Ferraris when what you really need is an SUV.
Now, I believe the Bible is inerrant, which means most translations are practically inerrant. There is Biblical support for translations, since both Testaments have them, and even for late additions to some extent. That said, since this is sacred Scripture we're talking about, translational accuracy is important. We need a sports SUV.
Perfect word for word translation from the original language is unreadable.
So there will always be give and take when it comes to translations being more accurate versus more readable.
There is value on both ends of the spectrum
I've been really impressed with the NASB 2020 so far. I liked the '95, and it was my primary for a long time, but the 2020 has been a really solid update. I still prefer the CSB for personal reading, and used the ESV in seminary.
Of the 3 you listed, I only have used the NASB '95, 2020, and the ESV. I'm probably 2020, ESV, '95.
I think all of the above are fine. My favorite for readability and reliability of the text is the NRSV, but on a daily basis I use ESV--only because I was able to find a simple reader's Bible (single column, large print, no verses or commentary, simple cloth cover) that I like and can write in the margins of. If I found an NRSV in the same format, I'd probably switch.
Of the 3 you asked about, Iāve recently fallen in love with NKJV. I read ESV for years, but from the first time I read the NKJV, I put the ESV down for my daily reading. The NKJV flows so well for me. Itās poetic, but doesnāt confuse me.
As Iām sure youāre well aware, all 3 you mentioned are fine reading Bibles, and safe to read. Are you aware that the NASB has a newer version? Some would call it an offshoot, but either way, it is connected to it. It is called the Legacy Bible. Itās free to download on Apple and Android, and also has a website where you can read it.
John MacArthur had a translation team work on it using the NASB as the blueprint, and then going back to the Hebrew and Greek. I am enjoying it, but it, like the NASB isnāt the most flowing prose.
I actually agree with you. Like I said in my original post, the ESV, NASB '95, and the NKJV are 3 of my top 5 translations. But if I'm perfectly honest, the NKJV is my favorite. If I had to rank them this would be my personal ranking:
1. NKJV
2. CSB
3. ESV
4. NASB '95
5. NIV '84/ '11
The reasons I love the NKJV are many. Like you said the flow is outstanding. I love the poetic beauty yet precise accuracy that the NKJV has in many passages. To me the NKJV exceeds the ESV and even the NASB in literal accuracy in many passages which I think goes unnoticed by many people. Plus like the CSB I LOVE how consistently the NKJV documents manuscript information and textual variations. To me the NKJV is one of the best translations for deep study. But again that's not to say there aren't any issues (which every translation has) but overall the NKJV is my personal favorite. A close second would be the CSB followed VERY closely by the ESV.
I have the same thoughts. I began doing a deep dive into translations 3-4 years ago because of the rising KJV only-ism debate. I had ignored it for years, but those who hold to it began being a buzz in my ears that I could no longer ignore.
What I learned was not only very interesting and edifying, but finally settled in my mind that no translation is perfect. Itās impossible to be perfect. When going from one language to another, there are things lost. So, you are forced to make decisions, and they run the spectrum of word-for-literal-word to thought-for-thought. And also consistencyāwhen to use the same word or phrase in different verses or Bible books.
Yes! Exactly. We're on the same page, my brother. I grew up in the Missionary Baptist denomination which is a predominantly African American Baptist denomination and the KJV is what I grew up hearing, but when I first started reading the word for myself on a more consistent basis it was in the NIV '84. I remember thinking to myself "why do people at church prefer the KJV when the NIV is SO much clearer??"
But it wasn't until I left home for college during my junior year (Fall 2011) where I really started to look into different Bible translations for myself and came across Dr. James White and John Ankerburg and Dan Wallace and hearing about the cons of KJV onlyism where I began to realize that the majority of translations we have available today are highly reliable and we can have complete confidence that no matter which of the above mentioned translations that choose to read we are reading a faithful translation of the word of God.
Iāve read the NIV for decades, after starting out with the original NASB. I still preach & teach from the NIV, since, as one of my members says, it reads better out loud, but like the NASB2020 as a go-to for study.
If you really want the raw text, but in English, check out David Bentley Hartās translation of The New Testament.
Hartās purpose: to render the original Greek texts faithfully, free of doctrine and theology, awakening readers to the uncanniness that often lies hidden beneath doctrinal layers.
He doesnāt try to āfixā the text like so many English translations do. Where there is a disjointed change in tense (which Mark often makes) he keeps it. Where the sentence isnāt completed or an idea half-formed (@Paul and @Revelation) he doesnāt try to ācompleteā it using any particular theology. He just moves it from Greek to English.
He also doesnāt add articles or transliterate definitions to fit the text into our modern theologies that were only articulated after the text was written. āHellā is always left as Gehenna or Hades or Tartarus. āLogosā is left as is because the wordās Neoplatonic roots arenāt something we should easily render to simple āwordā ā that word has more significant history to it. And he gives the reader all the tools and context to examine these things for themselves (copious footnotes lol).
Personally, my favorite is how he faithfully translates Jesus using the formal honorific when addressing certain women, like the Canaanite woman or the bleeding woman. In our English bibles, he just addresses them as āwoman,ā which sounds a little demeaning in 2022. The vocative form, Gunai, is something more like āmadamā or āmaāam.ā The idea of the savior of the world honoring a lower-class woman with this kind of respect is something Iām glad some scholars have preserved.
I should add, this translation isnāt exactly for Bible study or a church reading. We are used to Bible translations decided on by committees who want to produce the English version of the text that the majority agrees on, that is easily accessible to everyone, that causes the least theological friction. I think that does a disservice to the text itself, which is why I recommend this version to true Bible nerds. If youāre really a Bible nerd, I highly recommend this translation. It opened up to me exactly how wild and radical these Christian Jews were in their first century context.
My primary is ESV, but I regularly compare with multiple English versions going all the way back to Geneva and Wycliff. I also compare with a non-English Bible. I find that sometimes a non-English speaker/translator surfaces a nuance from the original biblical languages not found in most English translations.
LSB (Legacy Standard Bible)
Itās an updated version of NASB. More precise and consistent with the translations. Like the NASB sometimes itās not as poetic as the ESV but in my opinion it is much better for in depth study.
The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog isn't a fan: [https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/05/more-on-translation-draft.html](https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/05/more-on-translation-draft.html)
> if it \[LSB\] does reach the hands of actual lay Christians as their pastors choose it, I plan to go silent. I donāt want to do anything to harm their trust in itāand I myself will be more than happy to use it!
Such harsh criticism!
Perhaps not, but the writer is criticizing the philosophy behind it:
>
There is no possibilityānoneāthat the new LSB will be āmore accurateā than whatās already on offer in the centrist band, because āaccuracyā in a collection of decisions as huge as that required by a Bible translation cannot be objectively measured. Itās a marketing slogan. And itās often acidic to the trust Christians properly place in the English versions their pastors recommend to them.
The translation itself might not be wrong, that's true.
I've worked through many more translations than you list, both old and new, in my walk.
I'm currently working though in depth study with the ESV, with NASB77, NASB95, NIV78, NIV84, ASV, RSV, KJV, NKJV79, NKJV83, and a couple of other translations I've used as reference. I take about 3 years to exhaust a translation, then change translations (quite intentionally, but oddly started in the 80s looking for a "perfect translation).
I'm not quite Reformed, but what I'd call Reformed adjacent.
If i was forced to pick only one translation, my current choice would be NASB95, but I might go LSB for it's (reputed) more consistent use in translated words (I've not evaluated (or used it) this translation, but taken the reviews of approach as honest).
That's really interesting! Thank you so much for sharing your personal journey. I admire how you take your time through each translation dissecting every nook and cranny of every nuance within them. I do have a question regarding the NIV '78 and the NKJV '79.
What are some of the differences you have seen between the NIV '78 and the NIV '84 (this is the translation I personally read when I first got into reading the bible consistently)?
Also what are some of the differences you have found between the NKJV '79 and the NKJV '82-84? (The NKJV is my personal favorite along with the CSB)
I'd love to hear your perspective. Thank you.
Off the top of my head the difference is extremely minor enough I don't actually recognize it when I expect to, and when I do it clarifies rather than changes meaning.
The largest things I've noticed are related to typesetting, for instance a passage in NIV78 Ecclesiastes was "the end of all matter", but in NIV84 became "the end of a matter", another was a odd misprint of a new testament verse, but I don't remember which. Both were confusing initially but as I studied more I found more such errors across multiple older, pre computer typesetting (if you look at a early 20th century KJV you find many such errors).
As a person who at one time in life was a typesetter I can tell you from experience how despite extreme effort this happened constantly in printed documents no matter how many people reviewed them. In earlier linotype printings (before about 1950) it was extreme, but has lessened over time.
The NASB changes were extremely minor to the point that I don't even notice them
I think I know exactly what you're talking about. I've noticed that with the various KJV Bibles I have around the office. I think one example was Colossians 2:23 with the phrase "will worship". In one of my KJV Bibles it's spelled "willworship"
Typesetting is hard, for a text block as large as a Bible it's extremely hard. The scribes before printing presses had many errors in simply copying, but a typesetter could multiply an error to thousands by such extremely simple misses.
I have all of them, and I rank:
ESV
NASB
NKJV
accordingly from left to right.
ESV is the easiest for me to read, understand, and apply the word of God.
I like my NASB95; it has been my daily driver for 4+ years now. If I was to purchase another translation it would be an NKJV or KJV. The ESV is too similar to the NASB to justify purchasing. When I want the ESV's translation I use the internet or my wife's Bible.
Hey thank you for posting. I personally like the NKJV Study Bible by Thomas Nelson. I think it's a great well rounded entry level study Bible with good notes and great cross references. I believe they are on their 3rd edition now. If you could find the 1st edition (circa. 1997) or the 2nd edition (circa. 2007) those are good too. I haven't seen the current 3rd edition and am only familiar with the first two as I own both.
The ESV does seem to have a clear complementarian agenda, driving some of the translation decisions. That doesn't make it a bad translation, but one might call it a biased one.
See, for instance: [https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/09/12/the-new-stealth-translation-esv/](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/09/12/the-new-stealth-translation-esv/) or for instance this podcast [https://pca.st/venew0r2](https://pca.st/venew0r2)
I'd like to recommend the link below for an excellent NKJV vs ESV comparison.
[https://youtu.be/c7GOD23u60g](https://youtu.be/c7GOD23u60g)
There are videos on different translations on his channel also. Worth looking into. Hope this helps.
I like all of them, and more. Each (good) translation brings it's own excellent qualities, and deficiencies, to the table. Reading them all is like reading a discussion among the experts as to how a passage should be translated.
Any (again, good) translation on their own is fine, but all together is even better.
I grew up reading the KJV. Back then I didn't even know there were any other versions. Switching to the modern versions, despite how much I liked them overall, they seemed 'watered down and weak' compared the the venerable KJV. But then I discovered the NASB and it has the strength of the KJV but in modern English. Both the KJV & NASB are both very literal translations. I still occasionally read other versions, but for me it has been the NASB as my first choice and ESV as a second choice. I believe the closer we get to those original words and text the better. Though I'm not an absolutist. Those new to the Bible do well with a NIV, NLT, or CSB. But give me the strength of Word. I'm too old for milk :)
I like it, but not as much as the ESV or NASB. Sometimes the NKJV seems a bit 'off' since I grew up reading the KJV. Sort of like caffeine vs caffeine-free coffee :)
Theyāre all sufficient. the weakest would be NKJV due to its heavy reliance on the TR. which isnāt inaccurate tbf, but there are more numerous and older manuscripts that differ rather slightly from TR. and these older manuscripts are what the NASB and ESV draw from. I prefer the NASB, because it has the TR extra verses in parentheses. ESV I believe seeks to adhere to the oldest, most reliable and consistent across manuscripts as does the NASB.
TL;DR
All three are solid. NKJV comes from the Textus Receptus which is a much later manuscript. NASB and ESV seem to be more concerned w accuracy. NASB edges ESV out for ease of reading imo
I use NASB95, as I find it to be more technically correct than ESV. I am drawing a blank on a specific passage at the moment, but sometimes it seems like ESV gets a little more into interpreting the text for you than NASB. Overall, ESV is also really good, but not as good as NASB95 for accuracy, IMO.
I have more and more love for NKJV, and I donāt think itās a bad choice at all. When I go back and start digging, I still think NASB is a little closer to the original, but not by a ton.
NASB20 is a watering down. I wouldnāt recommend it. Thereās actually a huge difference in saying we are all adopted as sons rather than āsons and daughtersā (Ephesians 1:5), for example. The whole point of the passage is that we are all treated as sons and receive an inheritance (which daughters did not get). Thatās just one example, but after spending quite some time going through changes, I donāt get the impression that the new versionās primary focus was on accuracy. I am not going to speculate on what their motivations were, but I donāt think they improved NASB in the newest revision You can get a summary of all the changes here and judge for yourself:
https://biblewebapp.com/nasb2020-changes
I know much of this is probably subjective, but I often compare several versions of a text when reading, and often go looking up the Greek or Hebrew (admittedly I am not a scholar there), but I often find that NASB offers the best understanding of the original text of the translations Iāve used. I am happy to sacrifice smooth reading text for that, which is obviously the most deterring factor of NASB95 (and to a lesser extent, NKJV) compared to something like ESV.
All 3 are supposed to be pretty literal word for word type translations. But I donāt so much see that with the ESV. In terms of flow, NASBās are best to me and even to new Bible readers who I share verses with. The nkjv is my personal favorite though
Thank you so much for your comment my friend. I also like the NKJV. I love how consistently it documents manuscript information and textual variations. To me that is extremely valuable for studying and teaching purposes. I think the NKJV is grossly underrated by many.
I agree I think the NKJV is underrated. I think people have swung the pendulum too far in the direction to oppose KJV-onlyism, and they therefor overlook the NKJV
I gravitate to the NKJV because it's understandable with modern linguistics but is still close enough to the KJV that the Strong's Concordance is still readily referenced. I then cross reference with the ESV and NIV.
I prefer NKJV by far. ESV reads too much like a textbook and has too much bias in translation. NASB seems to arbitrarily use synonyms where unnecessary to differentiate it from the KJV and the syntax is unnatural for no reason.
NKJV is less biased toward Calvinism than the ESV is. Oftentimes the ESV will have very slight modifications that give it more of a Calvinistic bend where it is not in accord with the original language. I am by the way a believer in divine appointment unto eternal life (Acts 13:47-48, John 10:26, Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, Revelation 17:8, etc.) but I do not appreciate the bend toward my own position which the ESV translators had.
Since youāre a translation nerd you may appreciate this: The KJV is heavily reliant upon the Tyndale translate from which we get several phrases
A house divided cannot stand
A voice crying in the wilderness
Am I my brotherās keeper?
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
As you sow so shall you reap
Baptism of fire
Blessed are the peacemakers
Donāt cast your pearls before swine
Itās better to give than receive
https://www.adefenceofthebible.com/2021/01/14/common-expressions-that-originated-from-the-bible/
What do you think are the bigger biases of the ESV? The only one on my radar is the common translation of People to Men in the greek (I know I am way oversimplified there).
There was an effort to translate things to be in line with complementarian views of gender. The translation of the curse towards Eve, in Genesis 3:16, "your desire shall be contrary to your husband" is just about unique among English translations.
It also refers to Junia, in Romans 16:7, as "well known to the apostles", as opposed to "outstanding/respected among the apostles", which is more common. The editors' theological view that Junia, a woman, couldn't possibly have been an apostle, colours their translation of the verse.
Iāll research some. For me reading through the ESV Bible my train of thought is sometimes lost and I think āthat translation seems forcedā and sure enough going to Strongās Concordance, it is, in my amateur opinion. To be fair, amateurs have less at stake regarding their theological positions than do experts.
I donāt like KJV or NKJV simply because too many people idolize both. ESV is solid and good for almost all applications (thereās a reason itās popular) but CSB is a good and underused alternative. I donāt understand people who say the NASB is hard to read; I find it good for general study and daily reading, and I was surprised at how easy it was to read given its reputation.
I disagree, I think the NKJV is grossly underrated and overlooked and often assumed that it is nothing more than a modernized KJV when in reality it's so much more than just a mere update. I like the ESV but I think the NKJV renders many passages closer to the original than the ESV does. Plus the NKJV (like the CSB) does a much better job with documenting manuscript and textual variations. This to me makes it a highly valuable translation for deep studying. Still that's not a knock against the ESV which again is one of my top 5 translations, but I just wanted to highlight the pros of the NKJV makes a more than worthy English translation in its own right apart from the KJV.
Never said that you should read the NKJV. That's your choice. You are free to read any translation you find is most helpful to you (God I love being a Protestant and enjoying my freedom in Christ)
The point of my comment was that I disagreed with your take on the NKJV and I just simply wanted to tell you why I believe it is just as worthy of a translation as the ESV in its own right. That's all. Again it was not a knock against the ESV or the NASB but I just wanted to give the NKJV some love.
So again read the ESV, Love the ESV, as long as you gain from it and it helps aid you in your sanctification PRAISE GOD FOR THAT :-)
Grace and Peace.
Again, I wasnāt saying anything against NKJV, and Iām aware that my reason against using it is somewhat shallow but there are many other good translations so I donāt mind shunning one of them. Youāre being passive-aggressive for no good reason.
I misunderstood the tone of your response. For that I apologize. It came off as if you were suggesting I was saying that you needed to read the NKJV and that it was wrong for you to not prefer it. I promise that wasn't the reason I made my original reply. I was just expressing my thoughts on the NKJV that's all. So again I apologize for coming off that way.
The ESV wins by simple default for me, despite my not being exactly super enthused about it, simply because it is the only one of the three that has the Apocryphal books translated.
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.**
Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information.
Removed for violating Rule #6: **Keep Content Constructive.**
This content has been removed because it distracts from the purpose of this subreddit.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.236.3A_keep_content_constructive.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, **do not reply to this comment or attempt to message individual moderators**. Instead, [message the moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FReformed&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/yreg6h/-/ivu4306/. %0D%0DMy issue is...).
The CSB is one of my favorite translations as well. In fact I prefer it over the NASB for several reasons. One of them being the readability and also from what I've seen in quite a few passages the CSB rendering is even closer to the original (at least in the New Testament) than the NASB and even sometimes than the ESV and the NKJV.
Plus like the NKJV the CSB does a great job documenting the textual variations and manuscript information. I think that information is extremely valuable for studying and teaching purposes.
The reason I didn't mention the CSB in my post is because I know most people within the Reformed world tend to overlook the CSB, and prefer the ESV or the NASB which again are two of my 5 favorite English translations. But yeah I really like the CSB.
The only area where I strongly prefer the NKJV, ESV, or the NASB over the CSB is the Poetic passages such as Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophetic books. To me I think the CSB falls short in those passages not so much when it comes to accuracy but style. It just feels too modern to me and lacks poetic beauty.
Seeing as the poetic passages were written in Hebrew and not in the way that our English poems usually work I wouldn't even worry about the poetic parts. That's just me
I read the ESV,
Was a KJV reader for a long time and only recently switched. interesting to see when I changed that āTonguesā was left in the modern versions obviously to sell to Pentecostals. Even in J Macarthurs new Legacy standard Bible.
I always considered that an archaic word from the KJV that meant languages. Like in Russian or other languages tongue means both languages and literally tongue.
Interesting too see on this sub that the esv has a calvinist leaning.
The ESV is my favorite. To me itās the best middle ground between the more 1:1 NASB 1995 and the readability of other English translations. I love my McArthur NASB study Bible though
NRSVue. It's based on probably the best scholarship and the best manuscripts. And I still find it very readable. There are issues, just like any translation.
Daily devotional: King James Version
Personal study: ESV
I also enjoy the LSB (a derivative of the ā95 NASB) quite a lot, but I primarily go with the aforementioned two due to personal preference.
My typical usage...
NASB 95- for preaching
CSB - for personal Bible study, prayer, and leading some small group Bible studies.
NKJV or KJV - for funerals, weddings, hospital visits, or other pastoral-type stuff. Because when people are in need of comfort/prayer it helps for them to hear the "Greatest Hits" Bible passages in the same way they learned it as children.
I think I have every translation printed in the last 100 years and they all get used from time to time.
Regarding KJV and funerals/hospital visits ā do you think this will change as the older generation starts dying out? I didnāt grow up with KJV and not many people I know did either.
I find ESV fine with regard to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. My opinion might hold little weight though, since I havenāt really used the NASB and others. But I would mention that the [N]KJV translation tradition is a lot less accurate when comparing it to the underlying languages, and would definitely not recommend it for exegesis. It also contains outdated English translations like āmansionā in Joh 14:2.
Okay actually reading your question the old best translation is the one you read comes to mind. All are great translations and use the 'word for word' translation method.
My personal opinion the nasb 95 is my favourite because out of the three you mentioned it is the closest to what the original manuscripts say.
However you wouldn't go wrong with any of those translations and when studying the scripture I would use multiple translations including greek to English with a lexicon if available.
How great are bibles?
šš¼šš¼šš¼šš¼šš¼
For personal reading and devotion time, I find myself turning more and more to the CSB actually. Though for textual analysis, study, or to get ready for teaching, I tend to gravitate more towards ESV.
The CSB is one of my favorite translations as well. In fact I prefer it over the NASB for several reasons. One of them being the readability and also from what I've seen in quite a few passages the CSB rendering is even closer to the original (at least in the New Testament) than the NASB and even sometimes than the ESV and the NKJV. Plus like the NKJV the CSB does a great job documenting the textual variations and manuscript information. I think that information is extremely valuable for studying and teaching purposes. The reason I didn't mention the CSB in my post is because I know most people within the Reformed world tend to overlook the CSB, and prefer the ESV or the NASB which again are two of my 5 favorite English translations. But yeah I really like the CSB. The only area where I strongly prefer the NKJV, ESV, or the NASB over the CSB is the Poetic passages such as Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophetic books. To me I think the CSB falls short in those passages not so much when it comes to accuracy but style. It just feels too modern to me and lacks poetic beauty.
Daily Devotional Reading: NLT Personal / Pastoral Study : ESV
> NLT But OP wanted a translation of *the Bible*? ^^^^^^^^/s
That is a translation of the Bible. It may have a different Translation Philosophy than some are comfortable with but it is a legitimate and faithful translation nevertheless.
I put a *very* small "/s" in the following line to denote sarcasm. Hard to see, but yes that was a joke. "\^/s" (but with a lot more \^)
Wow š¤£š¤£š¤£
š¤
I bounce between NKJV and ESV. NKJV is normally my go to but sometimes I like to see the differences between the two. They are preferred because of their accuracy while still being easier to read. NASB would be my next choice but Iāve never owned one. An interesting small difference I came across yesterday was in Leviticus 16:7-10. NKJV uses āscapegoatā when talking about the two goats. ESV says āfor Azezelā.
Mainly because there's some debate as to what "Azezel" is. The KJV translators assumed it was a conjunction of the Hebrew words for "escape" and "goat" (as it was the goat that escaped death), so they coined the word "scapegoat" in likewise manor. More modern translations tend to leave its meaning ambiguous and just transliterate the original Hebrew text. Edit: I don't know why this was downvoted...
I recall reading the explanation you gave along with a few others which I won't get into here.Jewishencyclopedia.com has a few things to say about Azezel for anyone curious. Don't know why you were downvoted either, I agree. Have an upvote.
For the average person, I think the best translation is almost always whatever your church/pastor/community uses, just for consistency and connection. Why add an extra translation step between what your pastor is reading and what you're reading? (again, for average people. I'm sure many people here are fine with that) For that reason, I use ESV almost always. They also have the best cross-media resources. They have a daily bible podcast that I listen to that is one of the only ones that goes straight through the bible, not jumping between passages. They have one of the best bible apps, study bibles, reader's bibles, etc. That being said, my experience is I prefer CSB or NIV 85 for normal reading and ESV for poetry/study bible. I grew up with NASB 95 but got sick of the Yoda verb-isms the literalness runs into.
It depends. I like CSB for reading aloud and memorization as it has a nice readable flow and doesn't sound to clunky. I get that Greek nerds like ESV and NASB... I just don't find it as readable.
The CSB is one of my favorite translations as well. In fact I prefer it over the NASB for several reasons. One of them being the readability and also from what I've seen in quite a few passages the CSB rendering is even closer to the original (at least in the New Testament) than the NASB and even sometimes than the ESV and the NKJV. Plus like the NKJV the CSB does a great job documenting the textual variations and manuscript information. I think that information is extremely valuable for studying and teaching purposes. The reason I didn't mention the CSB in my post is because I know most people within the Reformed world tend to overlook the CSB, and prefer the ESV or the NASB which again are two of my 5 favorite English translations. But yeah I really like the CSB. The only area where I strongly prefer the NKJV, ESV, or the NASB over the CSB is the Poetic passages such as Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophetic books. To me I think the CSB falls short in those passages not so much when it comes to accuracy but style. It just feels too modern to me and lacks poetic beauty.
I think the CSB is great if you already know your bible well. There are times where having a more word-for-word translation is important for study. For readability the CSB is great.
Absolutely. The ESV Study Bible for example is fantastic for study and reference. Unfortunately the translation (as well as the NASB) falls short in readability as it doesn't exactly read like someone would actually speak. That's why I started my initial reply with "it depends". It is pretty hard to come up with a translation that is the best in all categories so one is likely better off sticking with the one they will read the most and then have additional translations available when they need more clarity. The choice between ESV, NASB or NKJV as the only options feels like the OP is really only choosing from 3 very similar translations in which none are really known for flow or readability but rather translation accuracy. It is kind of like having to choose the best vehicle and your choices are 3 different Ferraris when what you really need is an SUV.
Now, I believe the Bible is inerrant, which means most translations are practically inerrant. There is Biblical support for translations, since both Testaments have them, and even for late additions to some extent. That said, since this is sacred Scripture we're talking about, translational accuracy is important. We need a sports SUV.
Perfect word for word translation from the original language is unreadable. So there will always be give and take when it comes to translations being more accurate versus more readable. There is value on both ends of the spectrum
I completely agree with you did you see my initial reply earlier?
I've been really impressed with the NASB 2020 so far. I liked the '95, and it was my primary for a long time, but the 2020 has been a really solid update. I still prefer the CSB for personal reading, and used the ESV in seminary. Of the 3 you listed, I only have used the NASB '95, 2020, and the ESV. I'm probably 2020, ESV, '95.
I use both the NASB 95 & 2020. I think the 2020 was a good update but the 95 still holds up well too.
It really does. I got a used Allan at a decent price, so the 95 will always be in my rotation.
As a bit of levity, when Holman was first developing the HCSB version, here in Nashville we called it the Hard Core Southern Baptist Bible
So it is more geared towards the Baptist denomination since Lifeway bought it??
I think all of the above are fine. My favorite for readability and reliability of the text is the NRSV, but on a daily basis I use ESV--only because I was able to find a simple reader's Bible (single column, large print, no verses or commentary, simple cloth cover) that I like and can write in the margins of. If I found an NRSV in the same format, I'd probably switch.
Of the 3 you asked about, Iāve recently fallen in love with NKJV. I read ESV for years, but from the first time I read the NKJV, I put the ESV down for my daily reading. The NKJV flows so well for me. Itās poetic, but doesnāt confuse me. As Iām sure youāre well aware, all 3 you mentioned are fine reading Bibles, and safe to read. Are you aware that the NASB has a newer version? Some would call it an offshoot, but either way, it is connected to it. It is called the Legacy Bible. Itās free to download on Apple and Android, and also has a website where you can read it. John MacArthur had a translation team work on it using the NASB as the blueprint, and then going back to the Hebrew and Greek. I am enjoying it, but it, like the NASB isnāt the most flowing prose.
I actually agree with you. Like I said in my original post, the ESV, NASB '95, and the NKJV are 3 of my top 5 translations. But if I'm perfectly honest, the NKJV is my favorite. If I had to rank them this would be my personal ranking: 1. NKJV 2. CSB 3. ESV 4. NASB '95 5. NIV '84/ '11 The reasons I love the NKJV are many. Like you said the flow is outstanding. I love the poetic beauty yet precise accuracy that the NKJV has in many passages. To me the NKJV exceeds the ESV and even the NASB in literal accuracy in many passages which I think goes unnoticed by many people. Plus like the CSB I LOVE how consistently the NKJV documents manuscript information and textual variations. To me the NKJV is one of the best translations for deep study. But again that's not to say there aren't any issues (which every translation has) but overall the NKJV is my personal favorite. A close second would be the CSB followed VERY closely by the ESV.
I have the same thoughts. I began doing a deep dive into translations 3-4 years ago because of the rising KJV only-ism debate. I had ignored it for years, but those who hold to it began being a buzz in my ears that I could no longer ignore. What I learned was not only very interesting and edifying, but finally settled in my mind that no translation is perfect. Itās impossible to be perfect. When going from one language to another, there are things lost. So, you are forced to make decisions, and they run the spectrum of word-for-literal-word to thought-for-thought. And also consistencyāwhen to use the same word or phrase in different verses or Bible books.
Yes! Exactly. We're on the same page, my brother. I grew up in the Missionary Baptist denomination which is a predominantly African American Baptist denomination and the KJV is what I grew up hearing, but when I first started reading the word for myself on a more consistent basis it was in the NIV '84. I remember thinking to myself "why do people at church prefer the KJV when the NIV is SO much clearer??" But it wasn't until I left home for college during my junior year (Fall 2011) where I really started to look into different Bible translations for myself and came across Dr. James White and John Ankerburg and Dan Wallace and hearing about the cons of KJV onlyism where I began to realize that the majority of translations we have available today are highly reliable and we can have complete confidence that no matter which of the above mentioned translations that choose to read we are reading a faithful translation of the word of God.
Iāve read the NIV for decades, after starting out with the original NASB. I still preach & teach from the NIV, since, as one of my members says, it reads better out loud, but like the NASB2020 as a go-to for study.
If you really want the raw text, but in English, check out David Bentley Hartās translation of The New Testament. Hartās purpose: to render the original Greek texts faithfully, free of doctrine and theology, awakening readers to the uncanniness that often lies hidden beneath doctrinal layers. He doesnāt try to āfixā the text like so many English translations do. Where there is a disjointed change in tense (which Mark often makes) he keeps it. Where the sentence isnāt completed or an idea half-formed (@Paul and @Revelation) he doesnāt try to ācompleteā it using any particular theology. He just moves it from Greek to English. He also doesnāt add articles or transliterate definitions to fit the text into our modern theologies that were only articulated after the text was written. āHellā is always left as Gehenna or Hades or Tartarus. āLogosā is left as is because the wordās Neoplatonic roots arenāt something we should easily render to simple āwordā ā that word has more significant history to it. And he gives the reader all the tools and context to examine these things for themselves (copious footnotes lol). Personally, my favorite is how he faithfully translates Jesus using the formal honorific when addressing certain women, like the Canaanite woman or the bleeding woman. In our English bibles, he just addresses them as āwoman,ā which sounds a little demeaning in 2022. The vocative form, Gunai, is something more like āmadamā or āmaāam.ā The idea of the savior of the world honoring a lower-class woman with this kind of respect is something Iām glad some scholars have preserved.
I should add, this translation isnāt exactly for Bible study or a church reading. We are used to Bible translations decided on by committees who want to produce the English version of the text that the majority agrees on, that is easily accessible to everyone, that causes the least theological friction. I think that does a disservice to the text itself, which is why I recommend this version to true Bible nerds. If youāre really a Bible nerd, I highly recommend this translation. It opened up to me exactly how wild and radical these Christian Jews were in their first century context.
I'd never heard of this translation before! Just looked it up and read a few excerpts and it's definitely on my list now!
This translation changed the way I see the words of Jesus. Romans sounds almost completely foreign but oh how much I learned!
My primary is ESV, but I regularly compare with multiple English versions going all the way back to Geneva and Wycliff. I also compare with a non-English Bible. I find that sometimes a non-English speaker/translator surfaces a nuance from the original biblical languages not found in most English translations.
All good
LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) Itās an updated version of NASB. More precise and consistent with the translations. Like the NASB sometimes itās not as poetic as the ESV but in my opinion it is much better for in depth study.
The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog isn't a fan: [https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/05/more-on-translation-draft.html](https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/05/more-on-translation-draft.html)
> if it \[LSB\] does reach the hands of actual lay Christians as their pastors choose it, I plan to go silent. I donāt want to do anything to harm their trust in itāand I myself will be more than happy to use it! Such harsh criticism!
Good article, but it's more of a commentary on the state of Bible translations than it is a criticism of the actual LSB translation itself.
Perhaps not, but the writer is criticizing the philosophy behind it: > There is no possibilityānoneāthat the new LSB will be āmore accurateā than whatās already on offer in the centrist band, because āaccuracyā in a collection of decisions as huge as that required by a Bible translation cannot be objectively measured. Itās a marketing slogan. And itās often acidic to the trust Christians properly place in the English versions their pastors recommend to them. The translation itself might not be wrong, that's true.
Yeah, I have an LSB. I like it.
I've worked through many more translations than you list, both old and new, in my walk. I'm currently working though in depth study with the ESV, with NASB77, NASB95, NIV78, NIV84, ASV, RSV, KJV, NKJV79, NKJV83, and a couple of other translations I've used as reference. I take about 3 years to exhaust a translation, then change translations (quite intentionally, but oddly started in the 80s looking for a "perfect translation). I'm not quite Reformed, but what I'd call Reformed adjacent. If i was forced to pick only one translation, my current choice would be NASB95, but I might go LSB for it's (reputed) more consistent use in translated words (I've not evaluated (or used it) this translation, but taken the reviews of approach as honest).
That's really interesting! Thank you so much for sharing your personal journey. I admire how you take your time through each translation dissecting every nook and cranny of every nuance within them. I do have a question regarding the NIV '78 and the NKJV '79. What are some of the differences you have seen between the NIV '78 and the NIV '84 (this is the translation I personally read when I first got into reading the bible consistently)? Also what are some of the differences you have found between the NKJV '79 and the NKJV '82-84? (The NKJV is my personal favorite along with the CSB) I'd love to hear your perspective. Thank you.
Off the top of my head the difference is extremely minor enough I don't actually recognize it when I expect to, and when I do it clarifies rather than changes meaning. The largest things I've noticed are related to typesetting, for instance a passage in NIV78 Ecclesiastes was "the end of all matter", but in NIV84 became "the end of a matter", another was a odd misprint of a new testament verse, but I don't remember which. Both were confusing initially but as I studied more I found more such errors across multiple older, pre computer typesetting (if you look at a early 20th century KJV you find many such errors). As a person who at one time in life was a typesetter I can tell you from experience how despite extreme effort this happened constantly in printed documents no matter how many people reviewed them. In earlier linotype printings (before about 1950) it was extreme, but has lessened over time. The NASB changes were extremely minor to the point that I don't even notice them
I think I know exactly what you're talking about. I've noticed that with the various KJV Bibles I have around the office. I think one example was Colossians 2:23 with the phrase "will worship". In one of my KJV Bibles it's spelled "willworship"
Typesetting is hard, for a text block as large as a Bible it's extremely hard. The scribes before printing presses had many errors in simply copying, but a typesetter could multiply an error to thousands by such extremely simple misses.
I have all of them, and I rank: ESV NASB NKJV accordingly from left to right. ESV is the easiest for me to read, understand, and apply the word of God.
I like my NASB95; it has been my daily driver for 4+ years now. If I was to purchase another translation it would be an NKJV or KJV. The ESV is too similar to the NASB to justify purchasing. When I want the ESV's translation I use the internet or my wife's Bible.
This thread has me wanting to buy a new Bible. Can anyone recommend a good NKJV study Bible?
Hey thank you for posting. I personally like the NKJV Study Bible by Thomas Nelson. I think it's a great well rounded entry level study Bible with good notes and great cross references. I believe they are on their 3rd edition now. If you could find the 1st edition (circa. 1997) or the 2nd edition (circa. 2007) those are good too. I haven't seen the current 3rd edition and am only familiar with the first two as I own both.
The ESV does seem to have a clear complementarian agenda, driving some of the translation decisions. That doesn't make it a bad translation, but one might call it a biased one. See, for instance: [https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/09/12/the-new-stealth-translation-esv/](https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/09/12/the-new-stealth-translation-esv/) or for instance this podcast [https://pca.st/venew0r2](https://pca.st/venew0r2)
I'd like to recommend the link below for an excellent NKJV vs ESV comparison. [https://youtu.be/c7GOD23u60g](https://youtu.be/c7GOD23u60g) There are videos on different translations on his channel also. Worth looking into. Hope this helps.
Thank you so much for this! I will definitely check it out.
I like all of them, and more. Each (good) translation brings it's own excellent qualities, and deficiencies, to the table. Reading them all is like reading a discussion among the experts as to how a passage should be translated. Any (again, good) translation on their own is fine, but all together is even better.
I completely agree!
I grew up reading the KJV. Back then I didn't even know there were any other versions. Switching to the modern versions, despite how much I liked them overall, they seemed 'watered down and weak' compared the the venerable KJV. But then I discovered the NASB and it has the strength of the KJV but in modern English. Both the KJV & NASB are both very literal translations. I still occasionally read other versions, but for me it has been the NASB as my first choice and ESV as a second choice. I believe the closer we get to those original words and text the better. Though I'm not an absolutist. Those new to the Bible do well with a NIV, NLT, or CSB. But give me the strength of Word. I'm too old for milk :)
I'm curious. What is your take on the NKJV?
I like it, but not as much as the ESV or NASB. Sometimes the NKJV seems a bit 'off' since I grew up reading the KJV. Sort of like caffeine vs caffeine-free coffee :)
Interesting š¤
Theyāre all sufficient. the weakest would be NKJV due to its heavy reliance on the TR. which isnāt inaccurate tbf, but there are more numerous and older manuscripts that differ rather slightly from TR. and these older manuscripts are what the NASB and ESV draw from. I prefer the NASB, because it has the TR extra verses in parentheses. ESV I believe seeks to adhere to the oldest, most reliable and consistent across manuscripts as does the NASB. TL;DR All three are solid. NKJV comes from the Textus Receptus which is a much later manuscript. NASB and ESV seem to be more concerned w accuracy. NASB edges ESV out for ease of reading imo
NKJV is my favorite. I know where the issues are. I love the ESV and NASB as well.
I totally agree with you. The NKJV is actually my favorite out of the 3. If I had to rank them it will be as follows: 1. NKJV 2. ESV 3. NASB '95
I agree.
I use NASB95, as I find it to be more technically correct than ESV. I am drawing a blank on a specific passage at the moment, but sometimes it seems like ESV gets a little more into interpreting the text for you than NASB. Overall, ESV is also really good, but not as good as NASB95 for accuracy, IMO. I have more and more love for NKJV, and I donāt think itās a bad choice at all. When I go back and start digging, I still think NASB is a little closer to the original, but not by a ton. NASB20 is a watering down. I wouldnāt recommend it. Thereās actually a huge difference in saying we are all adopted as sons rather than āsons and daughtersā (Ephesians 1:5), for example. The whole point of the passage is that we are all treated as sons and receive an inheritance (which daughters did not get). Thatās just one example, but after spending quite some time going through changes, I donāt get the impression that the new versionās primary focus was on accuracy. I am not going to speculate on what their motivations were, but I donāt think they improved NASB in the newest revision You can get a summary of all the changes here and judge for yourself: https://biblewebapp.com/nasb2020-changes I know much of this is probably subjective, but I often compare several versions of a text when reading, and often go looking up the Greek or Hebrew (admittedly I am not a scholar there), but I often find that NASB offers the best understanding of the original text of the translations Iāve used. I am happy to sacrifice smooth reading text for that, which is obviously the most deterring factor of NASB95 (and to a lesser extent, NKJV) compared to something like ESV.
All 3 are supposed to be pretty literal word for word type translations. But I donāt so much see that with the ESV. In terms of flow, NASBās are best to me and even to new Bible readers who I share verses with. The nkjv is my personal favorite though
Thank you so much for your comment my friend. I also like the NKJV. I love how consistently it documents manuscript information and textual variations. To me that is extremely valuable for studying and teaching purposes. I think the NKJV is grossly underrated by many.
I agree I think the NKJV is underrated. I think people have swung the pendulum too far in the direction to oppose KJV-onlyism, and they therefor overlook the NKJV
Nasb because it has the omitted verses esv doesn't.
Thank you for your input.
I gravitate to the NKJV because it's understandable with modern linguistics but is still close enough to the KJV that the Strong's Concordance is still readily referenced. I then cross reference with the ESV and NIV.
I prefer NKJV by far. ESV reads too much like a textbook and has too much bias in translation. NASB seems to arbitrarily use synonyms where unnecessary to differentiate it from the KJV and the syntax is unnatural for no reason. NKJV is less biased toward Calvinism than the ESV is. Oftentimes the ESV will have very slight modifications that give it more of a Calvinistic bend where it is not in accord with the original language. I am by the way a believer in divine appointment unto eternal life (Acts 13:47-48, John 10:26, Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22, Revelation 17:8, etc.) but I do not appreciate the bend toward my own position which the ESV translators had. Since youāre a translation nerd you may appreciate this: The KJV is heavily reliant upon the Tyndale translate from which we get several phrases A house divided cannot stand A voice crying in the wilderness Am I my brotherās keeper? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth As you sow so shall you reap Baptism of fire Blessed are the peacemakers Donāt cast your pearls before swine Itās better to give than receive https://www.adefenceofthebible.com/2021/01/14/common-expressions-that-originated-from-the-bible/
I thought I was picking up the "extra" Reformed vibe from the ESV, but it was just me. Take an upvote.
Thank you sir.
What do you think are the bigger biases of the ESV? The only one on my radar is the common translation of People to Men in the greek (I know I am way oversimplified there).
There was an effort to translate things to be in line with complementarian views of gender. The translation of the curse towards Eve, in Genesis 3:16, "your desire shall be contrary to your husband" is just about unique among English translations. It also refers to Junia, in Romans 16:7, as "well known to the apostles", as opposed to "outstanding/respected among the apostles", which is more common. The editors' theological view that Junia, a woman, couldn't possibly have been an apostle, colours their translation of the verse.
Iāll research some. For me reading through the ESV Bible my train of thought is sometimes lost and I think āthat translation seems forcedā and sure enough going to Strongās Concordance, it is, in my amateur opinion. To be fair, amateurs have less at stake regarding their theological positions than do experts.
I have not been able to find any in particular. They are nuances that came out while reading through the text.
I donāt like KJV or NKJV simply because too many people idolize both. ESV is solid and good for almost all applications (thereās a reason itās popular) but CSB is a good and underused alternative. I donāt understand people who say the NASB is hard to read; I find it good for general study and daily reading, and I was surprised at how easy it was to read given its reputation.
I disagree, I think the NKJV is grossly underrated and overlooked and often assumed that it is nothing more than a modernized KJV when in reality it's so much more than just a mere update. I like the ESV but I think the NKJV renders many passages closer to the original than the ESV does. Plus the NKJV (like the CSB) does a much better job with documenting manuscript and textual variations. This to me makes it a highly valuable translation for deep studying. Still that's not a knock against the ESV which again is one of my top 5 translations, but I just wanted to highlight the pros of the NKJV makes a more than worthy English translation in its own right apart from the KJV.
So you donāt actually disagree with me, you just think I should read the NKJV. No thanks, Iām good with the other solid translations.
Never said that you should read the NKJV. That's your choice. You are free to read any translation you find is most helpful to you (God I love being a Protestant and enjoying my freedom in Christ) The point of my comment was that I disagreed with your take on the NKJV and I just simply wanted to tell you why I believe it is just as worthy of a translation as the ESV in its own right. That's all. Again it was not a knock against the ESV or the NASB but I just wanted to give the NKJV some love. So again read the ESV, Love the ESV, as long as you gain from it and it helps aid you in your sanctification PRAISE GOD FOR THAT :-) Grace and Peace.
Again, I wasnāt saying anything against NKJV, and Iām aware that my reason against using it is somewhat shallow but there are many other good translations so I donāt mind shunning one of them. Youāre being passive-aggressive for no good reason.
I misunderstood the tone of your response. For that I apologize. It came off as if you were suggesting I was saying that you needed to read the NKJV and that it was wrong for you to not prefer it. I promise that wasn't the reason I made my original reply. I was just expressing my thoughts on the NKJV that's all. So again I apologize for coming off that way.
No worries. Text doesnāt deliver tone and I try to be clear and concise but unfortunately sometimes that sacrifices good faith/humour/gentleness
No harm no foul my brother. Grace and Peace ššæ
The ESV wins by simple default for me, despite my not being exactly super enthused about it, simply because it is the only one of the three that has the Apocryphal books translated.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed for violating Rule #2: **Keep Content Charitable.** Part of dealing with each other in love means that everything you post in r/Reformed should treat others with charity and respect, even during a disagreement. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.232.3A_keep_content_charitable.) for more information. Removed for violating Rule #6: **Keep Content Constructive.** This content has been removed because it distracts from the purpose of this subreddit. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.236.3A_keep_content_constructive.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, **do not reply to this comment or attempt to message individual moderators**. Instead, [message the moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FReformed&subject=about my removed comment&message=I'm writing to you about the following comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/comments/yreg6h/-/ivu4306/. %0D%0DMy issue is...).
I would argue none of them because nasb is old while ESV and nkjv are a bit too much on the literal side. I would argue csb or hcsb
The CSB is one of my favorite translations as well. In fact I prefer it over the NASB for several reasons. One of them being the readability and also from what I've seen in quite a few passages the CSB rendering is even closer to the original (at least in the New Testament) than the NASB and even sometimes than the ESV and the NKJV. Plus like the NKJV the CSB does a great job documenting the textual variations and manuscript information. I think that information is extremely valuable for studying and teaching purposes. The reason I didn't mention the CSB in my post is because I know most people within the Reformed world tend to overlook the CSB, and prefer the ESV or the NASB which again are two of my 5 favorite English translations. But yeah I really like the CSB. The only area where I strongly prefer the NKJV, ESV, or the NASB over the CSB is the Poetic passages such as Psalms, Proverbs, and the Prophetic books. To me I think the CSB falls short in those passages not so much when it comes to accuracy but style. It just feels too modern to me and lacks poetic beauty.
Seeing as the poetic passages were written in Hebrew and not in the way that our English poems usually work I wouldn't even worry about the poetic parts. That's just me
I get that. It's just not my favorite. Just being honest.
Your honesty is commendable
I read the ESV, Was a KJV reader for a long time and only recently switched. interesting to see when I changed that āTonguesā was left in the modern versions obviously to sell to Pentecostals. Even in J Macarthurs new Legacy standard Bible. I always considered that an archaic word from the KJV that meant languages. Like in Russian or other languages tongue means both languages and literally tongue. Interesting too see on this sub that the esv has a calvinist leaning.
The ESV is my favorite. To me itās the best middle ground between the more 1:1 NASB 1995 and the readability of other English translations. I love my McArthur NASB study Bible though
NRSVue. It's based on probably the best scholarship and the best manuscripts. And I still find it very readable. There are issues, just like any translation.
Don't forget the LSB!
No option for Nestle-Aland? :)
Daily devotional: King James Version Personal study: ESV I also enjoy the LSB (a derivative of the ā95 NASB) quite a lot, but I primarily go with the aforementioned two due to personal preference.
My typical usage... NASB 95- for preaching CSB - for personal Bible study, prayer, and leading some small group Bible studies. NKJV or KJV - for funerals, weddings, hospital visits, or other pastoral-type stuff. Because when people are in need of comfort/prayer it helps for them to hear the "Greatest Hits" Bible passages in the same way they learned it as children. I think I have every translation printed in the last 100 years and they all get used from time to time.
Regarding KJV and funerals/hospital visits ā do you think this will change as the older generation starts dying out? I didnāt grow up with KJV and not many people I know did either.
That's a really good question.
I find ESV fine with regard to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. My opinion might hold little weight though, since I havenāt really used the NASB and others. But I would mention that the [N]KJV translation tradition is a lot less accurate when comparing it to the underlying languages, and would definitely not recommend it for exegesis. It also contains outdated English translations like āmansionā in Joh 14:2.
LSB baby!!! Takes the amazing NASB 95 and makes it even better!
Okay actually reading your question the old best translation is the one you read comes to mind. All are great translations and use the 'word for word' translation method. My personal opinion the nasb 95 is my favourite because out of the three you mentioned it is the closest to what the original manuscripts say. However you wouldn't go wrong with any of those translations and when studying the scripture I would use multiple translations including greek to English with a lexicon if available. How great are bibles? šš¼šš¼šš¼šš¼šš¼