Thank you, Tim for your post extoling the virtues of the NASB. I think it's worth mentioning that the Legacy Standard Bible also has its roots in the NASB.
Thank you for your video. NASB is my favourite Bible translation and I enjoys the benefits it offers, which you have mentioned. I find your presentations helpful and well balanced for giving people good insights.
Really good video, with good use of graphics. Enjoyed it! After using the NKJV for 21 years (and I still like it), I switched to the ESV in 2017. It's my personal preference for both reading & preaching, but I never prepare a sermon without consulting the NASB (1977 version). As you pointed out, the extra footnotes in the NASB are useful. I find that here in Australia, very few people seem to use the NASB, so I prefer to preach from the ESV as it's more popular here. NIV is also popular, but I prefer the closer-to-literal nature of the ESV, and that imperfect tenses are more often translated than NIV. It's easy to see why so many scholars & preachers like the NASB, as it's a fine translation.
Thank you so much for this breakdown. I have been enjoying my Systematic ESV for sometime now as my favored translation. By God’s grace, I just received a beautiful Schuyler Tuscany Quente NASB (‘95 Ed.). It is my 1st NASB and so it is nice to hear the “other side” of the translation equation. My observation is that the ESV, as the newer version (2001) gets more praise over the NASBs older, traditional and literal translation - which a bit unfortunate. As BOTH translations are steeped in faithful scholarship, we should celebrate the strengths of each… for better understanding. Your breakdown helped me understand the nuances of the design intent build into the translation in a way I previously hadn’t known… which is extremely helpful and appreciated. Thank you for presenting this perspective at the perfect, useful time for me! 🙏
Enjoy then. But know God does nlt enjoy. He has in fact cursed those who change His word. Revelation 22:18-19. KJB v NASB, Legacy Bible KJB, Luke 4:8. "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." NASB, Legacy "Jesus answered him, It is written, You shall worship the LORD thy God, and serve Him only." So, Jesus excluded Himself??? KJB, Galatians 4:7. "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ." NASB, Legacy, "Therefore, ye are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son then an heir through God." Ahhh through Christ. Another attack on Jesus! KJB, 1 John 4:19, "We love him because he first loved us." NASB. Legacy "We love, because he first loved us." He is left out again!!!
I like the literalness of the NASB. The bible says 'Let the reader use discernment.' For me, if the reading isn't as smooth, that's fine. It means I may need to stop and meditate a little - a good thing! In John 3:16 the word "begotten" is in the Greek and in the NASB. ESV and many translations remove it. If it's in the original languages (and especially for 2000 or so years) keep it there.
I love it. Good perspective. My bible translation journey went something like this: KJV->NLT->NIV84->NASB95->ESV->NET19. I’ve read the Bible in it’s entirety in at least three of those translations and working on a fourth (NET). I love the NASB95 for all the reasons you spoke about, but these days I appreciate the huge level of transparency with the NET folks. I’m looking forward to what the NASB2020 and even the LSB are going to be, but right now, the NET has those beat as far as transparency is concerned. I like to know why my translators chose what they chose. Long live the NET!!! XD
@@joep6023 I cannot speak for Levi Gonzales but if I may share some insights as a NET Bible reader. The NET Bible is transparent in its use of marginal notes. The translators show why the translation of the particular verse is such. It also gives an accurate commentary on the particular verse at times.
@@yahsancarlos I respect the thought. The reason why I tend to read so many different translations is because I don’t believe that the word of God purely exists in any one Bible translation, but that it only exists in the manuscripts that have survived time and history. God choosing to disperse his word across thousands of ancient documents across multiple countries means there’s no chance of corruption. We just have to put together the pieces. A Bible translation is merely a picture of the real thing in our language and sometimes those pictures can have smudges and blurred edges that deserve another snapshot. I agree not always for the better, but I would say that what we have today appears to be pretty darn good.
I'm in the exact same boat. Been using the NKJV for roughly 20 years. Will be switching to the MacArthur NASB Study bible And likely to LSB when he releases a study bible version of it
@@TTKChrisking Well, to be honest, I see some things in the NASB that are worded differently and some verses that were left out of it that are in the NKJV. I don't like that! 🤦♂ I have both the NASB and the LSB versions. Nice and I enjoy them but some of the wording sounds off base in comparison to the NKJV and the KJV translations so I have reverted back to the NKJV for the time being. Guess if it ain't broke don't fix it! 😂😂😂😂
@@MilitantX1 I completely understand. I've always been fond of the Textus Receptus argument. And plus I think the NKJV is my favorite worded translation. I grew up on it and when I recite verses it's usually NKJV. But I think I'll still be getting the Study Bible in NASB. To have 1 of each basically
That's what I love about the NASB, it's transparent to what was and was not in the original manuscripts, the notes and the capitalized pronouns for God.
Lol Tim. That’s what I call riding both sides of the fence. I love it. I didn’t even see the other video. I like the NASB 95 and haven’t read the ESV. I do like this new LSV. But I think I’m going to stick with the NASB 95. Thanks for the information. The more I learn the more I love it. GOD is good.
Chris Wilson I've used mine since 1986 when I got saved and joined Bible College. Mine is 1977 which is better than the 1995. The 2020 is worse than all. The NASB 1977 has never failed me, and I have over 20 translations all of which I’ve read and studied.
I used the KJV for many years, and have done all my Scripture memorization in that translation, so it was very difficult for me to switch to something else. But I did switch over to the ESV about ten years ago, and now consider it my primary translation (even though I still use the KJV for memorization). To me, the ESV's tendency to retain the beautiful poetic phrasing of the KJV is a major plus, but I'm sure that is simply because of my long history with the KJV. I tried the NASB, and was enjoying it, but the 2020 update has caused me to set it aside. It appears the translation team has abandoned their primary objective in an effort to expand their reach by "tickling the ears". While I hope they can indeed get God's Word into the hands of more people, I will leave them to it and stick with the ESV/KJV for my own Bible study needs.
@@richardstones1549 KJB vs ESV (and many other versions) KJB, Daniel 9:25-26. "Know therefore that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:......" ESV, Messiah is translated, the anointed one the prince. KJB, Matthew 18:11. "For the Son of man came to save that which was lost." ESV, "Son of man not mentioned, blank." Seriously, would God be pleased with this translation? KJB, Luke 9:56. "For the Son of msn is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village." ESV, "And they went on to another village." They threw Jesus out again!!!
I use the NASB 95. When I’m studying I use KJV, ESV, NASB and others. It’s always good to check but my favorite version is the NASB77. I think it’s because I grew up reading it so it’s familiar. Great video!
Which do you like more, 1995 or 2020 edition? I've only read ESV, KJV and NIV84-not a fan of the new NIV. I'm looking forward to reading through the NSAB next!
Ty for sharing these things, the way you put it is quite palatable. I sent you another email for the February Bible Giveaway (Yoshi) ty for considering me. My favorite translation is NKJV the one I used to help me learn English with a Spanish Reina-Valera and a pocket dictionary, that’s how I began to learn English apart from the few things I knew from Growing up in a place people use English mixed with Spanish. Ty
Bravo! You pulled it off! It appears to me that the NASB is trying harder to appeal to a generational audience that is ever changing. As long as it causes the reader to pick up the Bible in order to connect with God and to establish a relationship with our Lord and Savior, I'm good with it. I've stated in the past, the Holy Spirit will guide and lead the true seeker. We are blessed as a free nation to have access to so many different offerings of the Bible. Something I find I have taken for granted!
I'm a student! and so I pick NASB :D, for me, the literary references to the word is something I really, really appreciate. I always love to cross reference. Thank you for the information. In the first time of my years being a Christian, I've been wondering the past few months about how the Bible is translated. I got into the whole "only KJV" translation and strayed away from that. I recently ordered the NKJV Reformation Study Bible (though I heard the quality is not that great) since my pastor said that the notes there are from his opinion the most theological. I'm happy to replace that with my NIV. As for NASB, I want to order the John macarthur Bible and use that the rest of my life.
The thing I like about the ESB is their Old Testament translation philosophy of using both the Hebrew and the Greek texts comparatively when they translated into English. It's just better in my view.
Why so little, if any, mention of my favorite of the New American Standard editions, the 1971??? I fell in love with it as a college freshman in 1972-73. I have a few, and still consider it to be the final authority among all the editions.
Thanks for comparing two of my favorite literal translations, Tim. You make excellent points regarding the NASB. The NASB 95 has been my foundation for study for a good amount of time. Now that the NASB 2020 has been released I really like the text changes that have been made. All that said, I still use the ESV on a regular basis. It's great to have multiple, quality formal equivalent translations for comparison.
Thank you, brother. It saddens me when believers become quite un-godly about their worship of one particular English translation over and against another. There cannot ever be a "literal" English translation of Biblical Hebrew or Biblical Greek. The three languages are just too dissimilar. God is Dynamic. So are languages.
Thank you for being willing to say this. I think the NASB has suffered bc one person described it as "wooden" and people have parroted that comment ever since. I agree with your assessment that surprisingly the NASB does sound more natural than the ESV at times. Good work
I'm only comparing the latest versions of both the ESV (2016) and the NASB (2020), not earlier versions (e.g. NASB95): 1. Accuracy a. ESV is very accurate b. NASB is very accurate 2. Gender a. ESV is more traditional (e.g. brothers) b. NASB is more contemporary (e.g. brothers and sisters) 3. Readability/aurality/clarity/naturalness a. ESV has better literary style, but sometimes sounds like Yoda b. NASB reads more smoothly, but retains some of the NASB95's stiffness or woodenness 4. Formatting a. ESV -no capitalization of divine pronouns -no extra italics -no extra emphasis of OT quotations -fewer textual footnotes -more like a reader's Bible b. NASB -capitalization of divine pronouns -extra italics -extra emphasis of OT quotations (all caps) -more textual footnotes -more like a study Bible 5. Editions a. ESV has a broad and deep variety of editions from which to choose b. NASB has some good editions, but nowhere near as much as ESV 6. Supporting material a. Crossway has the secondary market all sewn up, perhaps only Zondervan is better, from popular material to academic or scholarly material, from devotionals to commentaries, in all categories, etc. b. Lockman essentially only does Bible translations, not much else Conclusion: Personally I usually prefer the ESV to the NASB 2020. The only major advantage of the NASB 2020 over the ESV for me is the NASB 2020 reads more smoothly than the ESV, though if forced to choose then even the smoothness is probably outweighed by the literary style of the ESV because I love beautiful literary style which among other things is an aide-mémoire.
I bought a NASB in 1971 by Creation House Publishing, single column reference. It has a slightly wide margin which I like. I just this month have purchased an ESV so I'm learning about that one. In between I've bought NIV and NKJV. I actually find myself reading the NIV more but if I have questions I refer back to the NASB and NKJV. I have tried the NLT but it is not a go to for me. Just my way of reading and studying.
I bought 2 Esv bibles about a year ago and I wanted to like them. But they seem to sit on the shelf more than other translations. So I’m trading one for the NASB 1995. It hasn’t arrived but hopeful it will crack the rotation of NLT, NKJV, KJV and the Living bible Paraphrased
I love my NASB for all its pros. I hate the way they do the text lay out though. Very aggressive. It sets everything in the text as a solid block which makes long reading difficult. Whereas the ESV/NIV breaks the text on the page beautifully by way of poetry, dialogue and OT references. Page layout is super important for ease on the eyes that invite to read more and great for verse allocation. Maybe I’m crazy. But I know I’m not😅
When the ESV came out, I wondered "why?" Did they think the NASB ('95) fell short somehow? Examination and study still left me puzzled. The NASB seems noticeably better.
The ESV reads more like the KJV than the NASB, and it is formatted more like the NIV. Plus, the NASB never sold as widely as the KJV or NIV. So I think the ESV was targeting readers of the KJV, NKJV, and NIV.
I cross reference the NKJV, NASB, and ESV. NASB is most accurate. But I'm just here because you're a brother in Christ AND a Phillies fan! #RingTheBell
Speaking of the footnotes, the full NASB retains the ASV's note at Isaiah 7.14: "Or maiden." The RSV did the reverse, placing "young woman" in the text and "Or virgin" in the margin. The ESV makes no attempt to be scholarly here, placing "virgin" in the text with no note to indicate the Hebrew word's ambiguity. The RSV's approach is the one I prefer (even better the NRSV, which more accurately renders the marginal note as "Gk. the virgin"), but at least the NASB (in editions with unabridged notes) allows for readers to understand Isaiah's prophecy as imminent and Matthew's citation of that prophecy as typological. The ESV takes a strict "single fulfillment" stance and rejects even the possibility of a symbolic but natural birth in the time of Ahaz.
@@kevinmacalinao4276 A premium Bible is a leather bound Bible that uses premium paper, and is bound by a premium binding company. Your average Bible that sells for $50 is a fine Bible but it isn't a premium Bible. The words are the same in both.
@@apostasiaelegcho5612 I see, I thought that a premium bible is like study bible with notes or devotional by the preacher on the margin.😅 that’s good to know.
Where can I get a 1977 edition? I lost mine and am stuck with the 95 edition. I'm not going for the 2020 edition. My prediction is the 2020 edition will not do well. BTW, if these translations are all so great, why the need to update every few years?
I personally mainly use the ESV and NASB95 (and I plan to switch to the NASB2020). I have found both their reputations are overstated. When I first heard about the NASB, I was told it was so wooden that it read like an instruction manual. And I was told the ESV retained all the literalness of the NASB but with the readability of the NIV. Neither are true. I think the ESV is even more wooden than the NASB95. In fact there are times when the ESV is pretty awkward. And yes, I think one of the biggest flaws of the ESV is that it doesn’t italicize words added to the text. There’s really no reason not to do that. But as for the NASB capitalizing pronouns.. that’s not necessarily a good thing. For example when the Pharisees speak of Jesus, why would they speak of him with capitalized pronouns? Also we can’t get around the fact that the original language didn’t capitalize pronouns that referred to God.
I will contend that there absolutely ARE reasons to not italicize words in the ESV. For one, italics today usually are used for emphasis, and switching back and forth from standard type to italics within a given text can disrupt the smoothness of the reading process and be visually distracting. In addition, the very concept of those words being "added" is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Greek (and translation in general) works. As an example, let's take the title υιος θεου "Son of God." Should I italicize the word "of" there since there are two words in the greek and three in english so I've "added" one? I would say certainly not, as I haven't added any meaning at all. The word ending "ου" used on the word θεος functions the same way the word "of" does in English, so I find it *more* misleading to italicize that as if it was added when that exact same meaning is directly there in the original language. Let's look at another example. In Lule 1:42 Elizabeth tells Mary "blessed *is* the fruit of thy womb." The word 'is' in the KJV is put in italics, because the rough greek equivalent of the being verb (εστιν) is not present in the original text but only implied. So yes, I guess you could say the KJV "added" the word "is." However, what benefit is it to your study or understanding of the text is it to know that the word "is" is not technically present in the underlying greek text? Absolutely none. It's just a testament to the fact that English and Greek are different and English does not allow for implied verbs the way Greek does.
@@justinj_00 I've never once heard anyone say, "KJV is too distracting because the italicized words just throw me off". So is this really an issue, that italicized words are a distraction? I'd venture to say the people who feel that way would be a very negligible number versus those who read it just fine. As for confusion for emphasis, this is easily remedied simply by stating that the italicized words are added for readability. And, even if italics aren't used, then there should be some type of indication of words added, such as brackets []. Also, your examples are conveniently trivial examples, when there are examples that could be used where the italicized words do make a difference.
@@tkdguy5494 Well now you HAVE heard someone say "KJV us too distracting because the italicized words just throw me off" because that's what I'm saying now. I'm one of those people. I also don't like your implication that I chose "conveniently trivial examples" as if I was manipulating scripture in some way to make an unjustified argument. Both of my examples were from the same passage I randomly opened to: the first chapter of the Gospel according to Luke. I read the whole chapter and every instance of italics was just as trivial
@@justinj_00 sure, I didn’t say no one would find them distracting. I said the number of people who would find them distracting would be negligible compared to those who don’t. You’re the first person I’ve ever heard make this claim, let alone someone who’d choose a different translation because of it. Well sorry if you don’t like the implication, but it’s true. Your examples are trivial but there are places where not only do the italicized words make a difference, but they also change the context.
Good video and info…. NASB is my favorite… I would try the ESV if it capitalized the pronouns… But then again if I’m happy the the NASB 95 no need to look further💪🏻
The two differences that immediately stand out to me regarding the ESV and NKJV is: NKJV is gender neutral, and it includes passages that does not exist on much older manuscripts that we've found within the last 70+ years. Personally, I much rather prefer the ESV over the NKJV.
Honestly, I prefer the ESV, just because its literary quality. For me its a very important issue, even more than the accuracy (of course as always is trusty). But I use and read the NASB. Thank you frisch for your video, it is excellent.
I grew up Methodist, snwcused the KJV, snd the RSV. Zi now prefer the RSV:CE, the NRSV:CE, the NKJV, and the ESV. I’ve bern tradingbthevNKJV and the ESC lately. I thunk it’ s OK that Biblical language sounds a little different thsn our every day speech. A slightly different pattern of speech sets Scripture apart from ordinary books, and I like Thst. I thunk I like the NKJV, because it is the closest...in syntax, and cadence to what I grew up with.I seldom read the KJV ...except for psalms...because I find the language difficult to understsnd. Frankly...even though I read, and enjoyed, the LB, years ago, I don’t want scripture to sound like our every day way of speaking.
I have been a big NASB user for about 30 years and I am giving the NKJV a chance. I am wondering how you feel about the theory that the KJV and NKJV are the only translations to trust because they are the only ones from the Byzantine manuscripts. I would just wonder about your opinion.
The kjv and the nkjv are not working he only ones from the byzantine manuscript tradition, they use the textus receptus for the NT. Tr is not exactly byzantine as there are places in the TR where no other manuscript reads the same. The MEV also uses the TR for the new testament. There are more TR based NT translations out there. The argument is usually from the king James only crowd that claimed that the kjv was inspired by Holy Spirit and hence its God's true inspired word and its the only perfect translation. I prefer the nkjv, used to be kjvo long ago, thank the Lord I'm set free of that bondage.
You also have to take into account the KJV and NKJV only used 10 to 12 manuscripts with the lastest being from 1200AD. Whereas the newer translations use the almost 6,000 manuscripts we have with the majority of them dating much earlier than 1200AD.
Well, maybe so, but I still stick to the King James Version (with the Apocrypha included) and with the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. The others are good to consult for close study, but the K.J.V. and the Douay are for every need. I am a Lutheran who appreciates tradition and the values of the Textus Receptus (N.T.) and the Clementine Vulgate VERY MUCH.
My primary Bible is the ESV but I also refer to the NASB, NET, LSB, KJV and even the CSB. I believe all Christians should have at least 3 English Bibles from literal to thought for thought and possibly paraphrase to better understand God's Word. The CSB is often criticized as just being a "Baptist" Bible product of the Southern Baptist Convention that compromises gender and translation matters. Nevertheless, I keep a CSB Study Bible on my shelf to refer to from time to time. I see by your sweatshirt why your promote the CSB.
I'm pretty sure the esv gets updated every year. When I have family bible study we use the esv and none of them are the same word for word. I did notice the difference in years they were published so this why I believe they change it every year. I like that the nasb let's some time pass before they update.
I'm told the ESV is considered by some scholars to have a theological bias. That fact doesn't surprise me seeing as how the late J.I. Packer, once consider the world foremost Reformed theologian, was the general editor. I'll stick with the CSB and the NKJV just to be safe.
Or you could do even better and incorporate into your Bible study the great NASB '95 and '77, as well as the Legacy Standard Bible (note: the "legacy" being preserved is that of the '77 and '95 NASB, in response to the politically correct and much less-literal NASB 2020).
I prefer the 1966 Catholic Edition of the RSV. The 1995 NASB is a decent and acceptable version. The 2001 ESV is ok. The one version I avoid like the plague is the overly gender inclusive NRSV 1989. I also despise the 1986 NIV.
My mind is twisting over watching videos condemning every other version except the KJV. I don’t know what to think anymore. I started out with the KJV and then fell in love with the ESV. I own both and usually read the ESV but in the back of my mind all i can think is that what I’m reading might be corrupted.
There are plenty of great translations out there-- the teams that translate them are actually working with the greek and hebrew manuscripts. There is nothing wrong with using a different english translation in addition to the kjv.
I was a kjv only reader for awhile still pick it eachcday but its not the inerrant flawless word most think it is, NO TRANSLATION is without mistakes, thats yhe nature of translation nothing comes across smooth without some fixing, and how much was really known about ancient Hebrew and koine greek inthe 15th century? If you read the kjv preface, even they didn't think their translation was only biblical translation or even the best, nor was it the 1st English translation. But very few kjv readers have read the preface and get ducked into Satan's division of the church. And really kjv folks should only be reading the original 1611, not the revised language from like 1798, otherwise they are contradicting them selves, much of the words back then were totally different yet they commend changing at that point, and why base your only knowledge on something from around 1000 ad? Why not study the much older more numerous texts they discard? Most kjv readers so caught up on Rome and Egypt being evil and the source of antichrist yet they don't yield to all the scripture that clearly puts the antichrist from the middle east, the same place that only has "true text" smh. MARANATHA
Thank you, Tim for your post extoling the virtues of the NASB.
I think it's worth mentioning that the Legacy Standard Bible also has its roots in the NASB.
Thank you for your video. NASB is my favourite Bible translation and I enjoys the benefits it offers, which you have mentioned. I find your presentations helpful and well balanced for giving people good insights.
Really good video, with good use of graphics. Enjoyed it! After using the NKJV for 21 years (and I still like it), I switched to the ESV in 2017. It's my personal preference for both reading & preaching, but I never prepare a sermon without consulting the NASB (1977 version). As you pointed out, the extra footnotes in the NASB are useful. I find that here in Australia, very few people seem to use the NASB, so I prefer to preach from the ESV as it's more popular here. NIV is also popular, but I prefer the closer-to-literal nature of the ESV, and that imperfect tenses are more often translated than NIV. It's easy to see why so many scholars & preachers like the NASB, as it's a fine translation.
Really enjoy your commentaries about the various Bible translations. I find them helpful and interesting. Keep up the great work!
Thank you!
Thank you so much for this breakdown. I have been enjoying my Systematic ESV for sometime now as my favored translation.
By God’s grace, I just received a beautiful Schuyler Tuscany Quente NASB (‘95 Ed.). It is my 1st NASB and so it is nice to hear the “other side” of the translation equation.
My observation is that the ESV, as the newer version (2001) gets more praise over the NASBs older, traditional and literal translation - which a bit unfortunate. As BOTH translations are steeped in faithful scholarship, we should celebrate the strengths of each… for better understanding.
Your breakdown helped me understand the nuances of the design intent build into the translation in a way I previously hadn’t known… which is extremely helpful and appreciated.
Thank you for presenting this perspective at the perfect, useful time for me! 🙏
Enjoy then. But know God does nlt enjoy. He has in fact cursed those who change His word. Revelation 22:18-19.
KJB v NASB, Legacy Bible
KJB, Luke 4:8.
"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
NASB, Legacy "Jesus answered him, It is written, You shall worship the LORD thy God, and serve Him only." So, Jesus excluded Himself???
KJB, Galatians 4:7. "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Jesus Christ."
NASB, Legacy, "Therefore, ye are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son then an heir through God."
Ahhh through Christ. Another attack on Jesus!
KJB, 1 John 4:19, "We love him because he first loved us."
NASB. Legacy "We love, because he first loved us." He is left out again!!!
Outstanding job, Tim. Very informative.
You're doing great work, Brother Tim! Blessings for you and yours.
I like the literalness of the NASB. The bible says 'Let the reader use discernment.' For me, if the reading isn't as smooth, that's fine. It means I may need to stop and meditate a little - a good thing! In John 3:16 the word "begotten" is in the Greek and in the NASB. ESV and many translations remove it. If it's in the original languages (and especially for 2000 or so years) keep it there.
Might want to study μονογενῆ a little more…
I've been studying it for 50 years already... :)
th-cam.com/video/nnDoqGvl8zQ/w-d-xo.html starting at the 9:35 time
@Nick-wn1xw oh? what are you suggesting monogenes means, exactly?
@Nick-wn1xw
Then see passages like 1 John 5
I love it. Good perspective. My bible translation journey went something like this: KJV->NLT->NIV84->NASB95->ESV->NET19. I’ve read the Bible in it’s entirety in at least three of those translations and working on a fourth (NET). I love the NASB95 for all the reasons you spoke about, but these days I appreciate the huge level of transparency with the NET folks. I’m looking forward to what the NASB2020 and even the LSB are going to be, but right now, the NET has those beat as far as transparency is concerned. I like to know why my translators chose what they chose. Long live the NET!!! XD
Levi, tell me what you mean by showing transparency.?? Curious.. thanks!
@@joep6023 I cannot speak for Levi Gonzales but if I may share some insights as a NET Bible reader. The NET Bible is transparent in its use of marginal notes. The translators show why the translation of the particular verse is such. It also gives an accurate commentary on the particular verse at times.
Maybe cuz I’m older but new or updated seldom means better. Usually means “man” has influenced the word of God and not always in a positive manner
@@yahsancarlos I respect the thought. The reason why I tend to read so many different translations is because I don’t believe that the word of God purely exists in any one Bible translation, but that it only exists in the manuscripts that have survived time and history. God choosing to disperse his word across thousands of ancient documents across multiple countries means there’s no chance of corruption. We just have to put together the pieces. A Bible translation is merely a picture of the real thing in our language and sometimes those pictures can have smudges and blurred edges that deserve another snapshot. I agree not always for the better, but I would say that what we have today appears to be pretty darn good.
Great video. I've used the KJV for nearly 26 years. I'm slowly switching over to the NASB and the LSB.
I'm in the exact same boat.
Been using the NKJV for roughly 20 years. Will be switching to the MacArthur NASB Study bible
And likely to LSB when he releases a study bible version of it
@@TTKChrisking Well, to be honest, I see some things in the NASB that are worded differently and some verses that were left out of it that are in the NKJV. I don't like that! 🤦♂ I have both the NASB and the LSB versions. Nice and I enjoy them but some of the wording sounds off base in comparison to the NKJV and the KJV translations so I have reverted back to the NKJV for the time being. Guess if it ain't broke don't fix it! 😂😂😂😂
@@MilitantX1 I completely understand. I've always been fond of the Textus Receptus argument. And plus I think the NKJV is my favorite worded translation. I grew up on it and when I recite verses it's usually NKJV.
But I think I'll still be getting the Study Bible in NASB.
To have 1 of each basically
@@TTKChrisking That's cool. I have the Life Application Study Bible in NKJV and absolutely love it.
That's what I love about the NASB, it's transparent to what was and was not in the original manuscripts, the notes and the capitalized pronouns for God.
Your own comment is contradictory though, because capitalized pronouns for God were not in the original manuscripts
Lol Tim. That’s what I call riding both sides of the fence. I love it. I didn’t even see the other video. I like the NASB 95 and haven’t read the ESV. I do like this new LSV. But I think I’m going to stick with the NASB 95. Thanks for the information. The more I learn the more I love it. GOD is good.
My Nasb 77 hopefully is coming tomorrow. Can't wait to get my hands on it.
Bible coveting? : p
Chris Wilson
I've used mine since 1986 when I got saved and joined Bible College. Mine is 1977 which is better than the 1995. The 2020 is worse than all. The NASB 1977 has never failed me, and I have over 20 translations all of which I’ve read and studied.
Appreciate ur channel please keep the videos coming enjoy ur perspectives a lot ...
I used the KJV for many years, and have done all my Scripture memorization in that translation, so it was very difficult for me to switch to something else. But I did switch over to the ESV about ten years ago, and now consider it my primary translation (even though I still use the KJV for memorization). To me, the ESV's tendency to retain the beautiful poetic phrasing of the KJV is a major plus, but I'm sure that is simply because of my long history with the KJV. I tried the NASB, and was enjoying it, but the 2020 update has caused me to set it aside. It appears the translation team has abandoned their primary objective in an effort to expand their reach by "tickling the ears". While I hope they can indeed get God's Word into the hands of more people, I will leave them to it and stick with the ESV/KJV for my own Bible study needs.
How about the NKJV?
@@Saiyan585
Read, What is wrong with the NKJB.
@@richardstones1549
KJB vs ESV (and many other versions)
KJB, Daniel 9:25-26. "Know therefore that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself:......"
ESV, Messiah is translated, the anointed one the prince.
KJB, Matthew 18:11. "For the Son of man came to save that which was lost."
ESV, "Son of man not mentioned, blank." Seriously, would God be pleased with this translation?
KJB, Luke 9:56.
"For the Son of msn is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."
ESV, "And they went on to another village."
They threw Jesus out again!!!
I use the NASB 95. When I’m studying I use KJV, ESV, NASB and others. It’s always good to check but my favorite version is the NASB77. I think it’s because I grew up reading it so it’s familiar. Great video!
Thank you for doing these videos. They are very helpful and informative 👍. I appreciate 🙏 it. Blessings.
Great job Tim. I love these comparisons
Very helpful video. I've been so torn between the two (I'd probably easily decide NASB were the Bible design options not so boring XD). Thank you!
Kay Arthur has wonderful NASB journaling bibles 😊
@@maryw6271 Thanks for the rec! One of those Bibles has actually been my main one for 3 years!
They're catching up now, lots of options with schuyler bibles.
Which do you like more, 1995 or 2020 edition? I've only read ESV, KJV and NIV84-not a fan of the new NIV. I'm looking forward to reading through the NSAB next!
Ty for sharing these things, the way you put it is quite palatable. I sent you another email for the February Bible Giveaway (Yoshi) ty for considering me. My favorite translation is NKJV the one I used to help me learn English with a Spanish Reina-Valera and a pocket dictionary, that’s how I began to learn English apart from the few things I knew from Growing up in a place people use English mixed with Spanish. Ty
Thank you! ESV and nasb are my 2 favorites
Bravo! You pulled it off! It appears to me that the NASB is trying harder to appeal to a generational audience that is ever changing. As long as it causes the reader to pick up the Bible in order to connect with God and to establish a relationship with our Lord and Savior, I'm good with it. I've stated in the past, the Holy Spirit will guide and lead the true seeker. We are blessed as a free nation to have access to so many different offerings of the Bible. Something I find I have taken for granted!
I'm a student! and so I pick NASB :D, for me, the literary references to the word is something I really, really appreciate. I always love to cross reference. Thank you for the information. In the first time of my years being a Christian, I've been wondering the past few months about how the Bible is translated. I got into the whole "only KJV" translation and strayed away from that. I recently ordered the NKJV Reformation Study Bible (though I heard the quality is not that great) since my pastor said that the notes there are from his opinion the most theological. I'm happy to replace that with my NIV. As for NASB, I want to order the John macarthur Bible and use that the rest of my life.
Just when you think you're set, you'll change your mind again. Just stack up a bunch of bibles you like and clear the surplus occasionally.
The thing I like about the ESB is their Old Testament translation philosophy of using both the Hebrew and the Greek texts comparatively when they translated into English. It's just better in my view.
Great comparison video.
Why so little, if any, mention of my favorite of the New American Standard editions, the 1971??? I fell in love with it as a college freshman in 1972-73. I have a few, and still consider it to be the final authority among all the editions.
Thanks for comparing two of my favorite literal translations, Tim. You make excellent points regarding the NASB. The NASB 95 has been my foundation for study for a good amount of time. Now that the NASB 2020 has been released I really like the text changes that have been made.
All that said, I still use the ESV on a regular basis. It's great to have multiple, quality formal equivalent translations for comparison.
In addition, I'm eager to include the Legacy Standard Bible in my comparisons.
Great evaluation, Bro. I concur!
Art you at all familiar with the new Literal Standard Version? I believe it does use the Received Texts. It’s pretty interesting.
Thank you, brother. It saddens me when believers become quite un-godly about their worship of one particular English translation over and against another. There cannot ever be a "literal" English translation of Biblical Hebrew or Biblical Greek. The three languages are just too dissimilar. God is Dynamic. So are languages.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us, now I have a better point of view about these two Bible versions.
How about a comparison review of the next most popular, NKJV. 😊
Greek behind the NKJV and KJV, the textus receptus is a catholic text and won't trust it at all
@Van Guard yeah hes wrong codex b is not to trust so nasb is a no
@Van Guard that's not true, it's the text the apostles used
@Ван Гвардия the codex Vaticanus is a Catholic Text and I don’t trust it. The KJV is not translated from that text
Yes please!
Salvation has come to the house of Frisch this day! (Do the next one on why the Phils win the NL East this year!)
Thank you for being willing to say this. I think the NASB has suffered bc one person described it as "wooden" and people have parroted that comment ever since. I agree with your assessment that surprisingly the NASB does sound more natural than the ESV at times. Good work
What does that mean? “Wooden”?
What NASB version was used for the comparisons?
I'm only comparing the latest versions of both the ESV (2016) and the NASB (2020), not earlier versions (e.g. NASB95):
1. Accuracy
a. ESV is very accurate
b. NASB is very accurate
2. Gender
a. ESV is more traditional (e.g. brothers)
b. NASB is more contemporary (e.g. brothers and sisters)
3. Readability/aurality/clarity/naturalness
a. ESV has better literary style, but sometimes sounds like Yoda
b. NASB reads more smoothly, but retains some of the NASB95's stiffness or woodenness
4. Formatting
a. ESV
-no capitalization of divine pronouns
-no extra italics
-no extra emphasis of OT quotations
-fewer textual footnotes
-more like a reader's Bible
b. NASB
-capitalization of divine pronouns
-extra italics
-extra emphasis of OT quotations (all caps)
-more textual footnotes
-more like a study Bible
5. Editions
a. ESV has a broad and deep variety of editions from which to choose
b. NASB has some good editions, but nowhere near as much as ESV
6. Supporting material
a. Crossway has the secondary market all sewn up, perhaps only Zondervan is better, from popular material to academic or scholarly material, from devotionals to commentaries, in all categories, etc.
b. Lockman essentially only does Bible translations, not much else
Conclusion: Personally I usually prefer the ESV to the NASB 2020. The only major advantage of the NASB 2020 over the ESV for me is the NASB 2020 reads more smoothly than the ESV, though if forced to choose then even the smoothness is probably outweighed by the literary style of the ESV because I love beautiful literary style which among other things is an aide-mémoire.
I bought a NASB in 1971 by Creation House Publishing, single column reference. It has a slightly wide margin which I like. I just this month have purchased an ESV so I'm learning about that one. In between I've bought NIV and NKJV. I actually find myself reading the NIV more but if I have questions I refer back to the NASB and NKJV. I have tried the NLT but it is not a go to for me. Just my way of reading and studying.
I did not know these things. The NASB used to be my favorite version, perhaps a second look at it is due. Thanks.
I have LSB new one 2021 it’s expensive but it’s the nicest Bible I have:)
I bought 2 Esv bibles about a year ago and I wanted to like them. But they seem to sit on the shelf more than other translations. So I’m trading one for the NASB 1995. It hasn’t arrived but hopeful it will crack the rotation of NLT, NKJV, KJV and the Living bible Paraphrased
I love my NASB for all its pros.
I hate the way they do the text lay out though. Very aggressive. It sets everything in the text as a solid block which makes long reading difficult. Whereas the ESV/NIV breaks the text on the page beautifully by way of poetry, dialogue and OT references.
Page layout is super important for ease on the eyes that invite to read more and great for verse allocation.
Maybe I’m crazy. But I know I’m not😅
For me its content is more important
Very helpful, thank you!
When the ESV came out, I wondered "why?" Did they think the NASB ('95) fell short somehow? Examination and study still left me puzzled. The NASB seems noticeably better.
The ESV reads more like the KJV than the NASB, and it is formatted more like the NIV. Plus, the NASB never sold as widely as the KJV or NIV. So I think the ESV was targeting readers of the KJV, NKJV, and NIV.
I cross reference the NKJV, NASB, and ESV. NASB is most accurate. But I'm just here because you're a brother in Christ AND a Phillies fan! #RingTheBell
Speaking of the footnotes, the full NASB retains the ASV's note at Isaiah 7.14: "Or maiden." The RSV did the reverse, placing "young woman" in the text and "Or virgin" in the margin. The ESV makes no attempt to be scholarly here, placing "virgin" in the text with no note to indicate the Hebrew word's ambiguity. The RSV's approach is the one I prefer (even better the NRSV, which more accurately renders the marginal note as "Gk. the virgin"), but at least the NASB (in editions with unabridged notes) allows for readers to understand Isaiah's prophecy as imminent and Matthew's citation of that prophecy as typological. The ESV takes a strict "single fulfillment" stance and rejects even the possibility of a symbolic but natural birth in the time of Ahaz.
I like ESV, KJV and the NASB I have premium Bibles in all three
What is a premium bible?
Is it different from a regular bible?
@@kevinmacalinao4276 A premium Bible is a leather bound Bible that uses premium paper, and is bound by a premium binding company. Your average Bible that sells for $50 is a fine Bible but it isn't a premium Bible. The words are the same in both.
@@apostasiaelegcho5612 I see, I thought that a premium bible is like study bible with notes or devotional by the preacher on the margin.😅 that’s good to know.
@@kevinmacalinao4276 I believe you can get a premium study Bible. Most I've seen aren't, though.
@@apostasiaelegcho5612 thanks for your response, its very helpful.
Very helpful!
Where can I get a 1977 edition? I lost mine and am stuck with the 95 edition. I'm not going for the 2020 edition. My prediction is the 2020 edition will not do well. BTW, if these translations are all so great, why the need to update every few years?
Better off with a ASV
David, AMG publishers in Chattanooga, TN still prints the 77 version. You should check them out!
Amazon, and to a lesser extent Christian book distributor, still have a few editions of NASB77.
I personally mainly use the ESV and NASB95 (and I plan to switch to the NASB2020). I have found both their reputations are overstated. When I first heard about the NASB, I was told it was so wooden that it read like an instruction manual. And I was told the ESV retained all the literalness of the NASB but with the readability of the NIV. Neither are true.
I think the ESV is even more wooden than the NASB95. In fact there are times when the ESV is pretty awkward.
And yes, I think one of the biggest flaws of the ESV is that it doesn’t italicize words added to the text. There’s really no reason not to do that.
But as for the NASB capitalizing pronouns.. that’s not necessarily a good thing. For example when the Pharisees speak of Jesus, why would they speak of him with capitalized pronouns? Also we can’t get around the fact that the original language didn’t capitalize pronouns that referred to God.
I will contend that there absolutely ARE reasons to not italicize words in the ESV. For one, italics today usually are used for emphasis, and switching back and forth from standard type to italics within a given text can disrupt the smoothness of the reading process and be visually distracting. In addition, the very concept of those words being "added" is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Greek (and translation in general) works.
As an example, let's take the title υιος θεου "Son of God." Should I italicize the word "of" there since there are two words in the greek and three in english so I've "added" one? I would say certainly not, as I haven't added any meaning at all. The word ending "ου" used on the word θεος functions the same way the word "of" does in English, so I find it *more* misleading to italicize that as if it was added when that exact same meaning is directly there in the original language.
Let's look at another example. In Lule 1:42 Elizabeth tells Mary "blessed *is* the fruit of thy womb." The word 'is' in the KJV is put in italics, because the rough greek equivalent of the being verb (εστιν) is not present in the original text but only implied. So yes, I guess you could say the KJV "added" the word "is." However, what benefit is it to your study or understanding of the text is it to know that the word "is" is not technically present in the underlying greek text? Absolutely none. It's just a testament to the fact that English and Greek are different and English does not allow for implied verbs the way Greek does.
@@justinj_00 I've never once heard anyone say, "KJV is too distracting because the italicized words just throw me off". So is this really an issue, that italicized words are a distraction? I'd venture to say the people who feel that way would be a very negligible number versus those who read it just fine.
As for confusion for emphasis, this is easily remedied simply by stating that the italicized words are added for readability. And, even if italics aren't used, then there should be some type of indication of words added, such as brackets [].
Also, your examples are conveniently trivial examples, when there are examples that could be used where the italicized words do make a difference.
@@tkdguy5494 Well now you HAVE heard someone say "KJV us too distracting because the italicized words just throw me off" because that's what I'm saying now. I'm one of those people.
I also don't like your implication that I chose "conveniently trivial examples" as if I was manipulating scripture in some way to make an unjustified argument. Both of my examples were from the same passage I randomly opened to: the first chapter of the Gospel according to Luke. I read the whole chapter and every instance of italics was just as trivial
@@justinj_00 sure, I didn’t say no one would find them distracting. I said the number of people who would find them distracting would be negligible compared to those who don’t. You’re the first person I’ve ever heard make this claim, let alone someone who’d choose a different translation because of it.
Well sorry if you don’t like the implication, but it’s true. Your examples are trivial but there are places where not only do the italicized words make a difference, but they also change the context.
@@tkdguy5494 Okay, I'm open to hearing those examples where italics "make a difference" and "change the context" so could you give me some?
you should do an amplified bible if you have not done a review
Good video and info…. NASB is my favorite… I would try the ESV if it capitalized the pronouns…
But then again if I’m happy the the NASB 95 no need to look further💪🏻
I use NASB with NKJV
Torn between two lovers:- ESV and NKJV. (Please do a comparison review of these two compared with the NASB. 😊)
The two differences that immediately stand out to me regarding the ESV and NKJV is:
NKJV is gender neutral, and it includes passages that does not exist on much older manuscripts that we've found within the last 70+ years. Personally, I much rather prefer the ESV over the NKJV.
I love all bibles Different translations
You can't please everyone all the time. Thanks, Tim!
I like both.
Honestly, I prefer the ESV, just because its literary quality. For me its a very important issue, even more than the accuracy (of course as always is trusty). But I use and read the NASB.
Thank you frisch for your video, it is excellent.
Oh my goodness how can anything be more important than accuracy.
Currently..I like
CSB
NASB
ESV
Great video
I grew up Methodist, snwcused the KJV, snd the RSV. Zi now prefer the RSV:CE, the NRSV:CE, the NKJV, and the ESV. I’ve bern tradingbthevNKJV and the ESC lately.
I thunk it’ s OK that Biblical language sounds a little different thsn our every day speech. A slightly different pattern of speech sets Scripture apart from ordinary books, and I like Thst.
I thunk I like the NKJV, because it is the closest...in syntax, and cadence to what I grew up with.I seldom read the KJV ...except for psalms...because I find the language difficult to understsnd.
Frankly...even though I read, and enjoyed, the LB, years ago, I don’t want scripture to sound like our every day way of speaking.
You have another video saying the esv is better than the nasb. which one is it? please.
The way I see it, any place the NASB is better than the ESV is still a win for ESV fans, because we have both and benefit from both ❤
I have been a big NASB user for about 30 years and I am giving the NKJV a chance. I am wondering how you feel about the theory that the KJV and NKJV are the only translations to trust because they are the only ones from the Byzantine manuscripts. I would just wonder about your opinion.
The kjv and the nkjv are not working he only ones from the byzantine manuscript tradition, they use the textus receptus for the NT. Tr is not exactly byzantine as there are places in the TR where no other manuscript reads the same. The MEV also uses the TR for the new testament. There are more TR based NT translations out there. The argument is usually from the king James only crowd that claimed that the kjv was inspired by Holy Spirit and hence its God's true inspired word and its the only perfect translation. I prefer the nkjv, used to be kjvo long ago, thank the Lord I'm set free of that bondage.
You also have to take into account the KJV and NKJV only used 10 to 12 manuscripts with the lastest being from 1200AD. Whereas the newer translations use the almost 6,000 manuscripts we have with the majority of them dating much earlier than 1200AD.
The NKJ is better than the NAS. The ASV is better than the NAS.
@@Brucev7 the nkjv is better than the esv, the Nas is better than the esv. See, I can be just as biased as you 😉
@@nycgalant Not about 'bias'
Nasb 😎👍
ESV study Bibles are the best, though!
can you help me to receive NASB bible. Its hard to find here in Macedonia. Please help me.
Well, maybe so, but I still stick to the King James Version (with the Apocrypha included) and with the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version. The others are good to consult for close study, but the K.J.V. and the Douay are for every need. I am a Lutheran who appreciates tradition and the values of the Textus Receptus (N.T.) and the Clementine Vulgate VERY MUCH.
With the exception of 1 Maccabees, the other books tend to have laughable errors of fact, especially Tobit and Judith.
@Van Guard Yeah, like, what was with mentioning Habakkuk? He would've been long-dead by Daniel's day.
In a other clip you say that the esv is better than the nasb? I don't get it anymore 😊
Any translation whose Old Testament source is the Greek Septuagent is a superior translation so long as it is true to the original text.
And now we go on to the LSB......
My primary Bible is the ESV but I also refer to the NASB, NET, LSB, KJV and even the CSB. I believe all Christians should have at least 3 English Bibles from literal to thought for thought and possibly paraphrase to better understand God's Word. The CSB is often criticized as just being a "Baptist" Bible product of the Southern Baptist Convention that compromises gender and translation matters. Nevertheless, I keep a CSB Study Bible on my shelf to refer to from time to time. I see by your sweatshirt why your promote the CSB.
Did Jesus mince words to be “edifying” when addressing the scribes and Pharisees ?
Nasb is the best
I'm pretty sure the esv gets updated every year. When I have family bible study we use the esv and none of them are the same word for word. I did notice the difference in years they were published so this why I believe they change it every year. I like that the nasb let's some time pass before they update.
Clark Michael Thompson Timothy Garcia Anthony
👍👍👍!
Brilliant
The only Holman print of the NASB-2020 I've seen was very abbreviated.
I USE THE GREEK TEXT ,,,,,,it suits me better
GO PHILLIES!!!
Lucienne Glens
hahaha you got me pal love you tim lolz
Esv ok but prefer kjv nasb 77-95 nkjv niv 84
Lia Curve
I'm told the ESV is considered by some scholars to have a theological bias. That fact doesn't surprise me seeing as how the late J.I. Packer, once consider the world foremost Reformed theologian, was the general editor. I'll stick with the CSB and the NKJV just to be safe.
Or you could do even better and incorporate into your Bible study the great NASB '95 and '77, as well as the Legacy Standard Bible (note: the "legacy" being preserved is that of the '77 and '95 NASB, in response to the politically correct and much less-literal NASB 2020).
I prefer the 1966 Catholic Edition of the RSV. The 1995 NASB is a decent and acceptable version. The 2001 ESV is ok. The one version I avoid like the plague is the overly gender inclusive NRSV 1989. I also despise the 1986 NIV.
My mind is twisting over watching videos condemning every other version except the KJV. I don’t know what to think anymore. I started out with the KJV and then fell in love with the ESV. I own both and usually read the ESV but in the back of my mind all i can think is that what I’m reading might be corrupted.
There are plenty of great translations out there-- the teams that translate them are actually working with the greek and hebrew manuscripts. There is nothing wrong with using a different english translation in addition to the kjv.
I was a kjv only reader for awhile still pick it eachcday but its not the inerrant flawless word most think it is, NO TRANSLATION is without mistakes, thats yhe nature of translation nothing comes across smooth without some fixing, and how much was really known about ancient Hebrew and koine greek inthe 15th century? If you read the kjv preface, even they didn't think their translation was only biblical translation or even the best, nor was it the 1st English translation. But very few kjv readers have read the preface and get ducked into Satan's division of the church. And really kjv folks should only be reading the original 1611, not the revised language from like 1798, otherwise they are contradicting them selves, much of the words back then were totally different yet they commend changing at that point, and why base your only knowledge on something from around 1000 ad? Why not study the much older more numerous texts they discard? Most kjv readers so caught up on Rome and Egypt being evil and the source of antichrist yet they don't yield to all the scripture that clearly puts the antichrist from the middle east, the same place that only has "true text" smh. MARANATHA
Many Scholars do not like the NAS.
Hickle Way
Flatley Well
Leland Valley
I use the R.S.V. CE also the R.S.V.CE 2 have you ever seen these I hope you look at them.
Osborne Valley
Always will love the KJV, but I find the best is the NASB 77 and it works best for me.
Kulas Path
Bins Crossroad
the 1901 ASV is better and more accurate than either.
The NASB is not better because it does not contain all 73 books of the Bible; the ESV does.
i have the nasv 95 on my phone its ok irs not the best bur it is ok
Julio Alvarenga Martinez you should try Literal Word app. It allows the to look up the Hebrew and Greek and its very nicely formatted.