FIVE REASONS the NASB Is BETTER than the ESV 

Thank you!

How about the NKJV?

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.

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.

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.

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.

In addition, I'm eager to include the Legacy Standard Bible in my comparisons.

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.

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.

Greek behind the NKJV and KJV, the textus receptus is a catholic text and won't trust it at all

@@candida.nnunes1233 but you trust codex VATICANUS? All Catholic approved bibles use the same text as the NASB. You are seriously confused.

@@Nick-wn1xw yeah hes wrong codex b is not to trust so nasb is a no

@@Nick-wn1xw that's not true, it's the text the apostles used

@@Nick-wn1xw the codex Vaticanus is a Catholic Text and I don’t trust it. The KJV is not translated from that text

Your own comment is contradictory though, because capitalized pronouns for God were not in the original manuscripts

For me its content is more important

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.

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.

Don’t take this as argumentative it isn’t meant that way. The Hebrew at Isaiah 7:14 really isn’t ambiguous. It just means “young woman of marrying age.” Almah was the word there. The Hebrew word for virgin is Betulah. The LXX rendered ‘almah” as parthenos which does mean virgin. Everywhere else in the OT where almah is used it is NOT referring to a virgin. So I’m agreeing with you and just wanted to throw a little more light on what you already said so well.

Might want to study μονογενῆ a little more…

I've been studying it for 50 years already... :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nnDoqGvl8zQ.html starting at the 9:35 time

@@GanttCarterservant might want to realize "only son" is flat out wrong as God is referred to as having many sons throughtout the bible. Only one is begotton though.

@@Nick-wn1xw oh? what are you suggesting monogenes means, exactly?

@@Nick-wn1xw Then see passages like 1 John 5

What does that mean? “Wooden”?

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?

Oh my goodness how can anything be more important than accuracy.

With the exception of 1 Maccabees, the other books tend to have laughable errors of fact, especially Tobit and Judith.

@@fnjesusfreak and the addition to Daniel!

@@Nick-wn1xw Yeah, like, what was with mentioning Habakkuk? He would've been long-dead by Daniel's day.

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.

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'

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

Julio Alvarenga Martinez you should try Literal Word app. It allows the to look up the Hebrew and Greek and its very nicely formatted.

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).

Please explain why.

@@dmikemike translating gender, unnecessary changes

Recently rediscovered my faith and have been trying to figure out the differences between all the bible versions.

@@dmikemike God bless you, NASB, 1995 is a very good word for word translation.

Example of what you mean by squeezed to prove the NASB is better?

Thanks for this information I will not be getting the NASB now 😂

I googled it and it seems that the nasb 2020 says “plunder “ but the 1995 says “booty”

​@@watertower1 You people can't be serious. So you're going to avoid one of the most respected and beloved titans of English Bible translations simply because you don't like the word "booty," which is a perfectly acceptable word to describe spoils of war or other stolen valuables? Give me a break! If it's that big of a "stumbling block" for you, just mentally substitute the word "spoils" or "plunder" when reading the NASB '95 or '77 in the few places where that word is used. Sheesh!

You people can't be serious. So you're going to avoid one of the most respected and beloved titans of English Bible translations simply because you don't like the word "booty," which is a perfectly acceptable word to describe spoils of war or other stolen valuables? Give me a break! If it's that big of a "stumbling block" for you, just mentally substitute the word "spoils" or "plunder" when reading the NASB '95 or '77 in the few places where that word is used. Sheesh!

@@Eighties_Child zero F!@#$ should be given as to how rappers funded by the CIA in order to degrade culture, use words. Unfortunately they have been very successful.

What are you referring to, specifically?

🙄

Even the KJV says that he went later in secret. It's not lying.

@@cfrost87 It does agree with some of the verses of the KJB. But it does lie! And continually challenges God and His character. Therefore it is no more worthy of attention than Satan! Consider: (This ls long, He is worthy.) Did God say? Come on, really? God said He preserved His word. Psalm 12:6-7. Most modern bibles do not..In other words they are not admitting that God has a standard, His inspired word. His word is eternal. So most of the modern bibles have at least one out and out lie. NKJB lies in Exodus 6:3. Others quote Jesus saying i am not going to the feast. John 7:8. (Is he saying he is going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! Jesus simply said, not now, not yet. He waits and then goes. No problem, no lie. And blatantly they mock Jesus and unashamedly, constantly, with each change ask, Did God say? Did God say Mark 11:26? Absolutely. It is an essential part of our walk with God. Those blasphemers claim that God did not care enough to place in the original manuscript. Did God say? Acts 15:34? It shows God's divine providence. Silas was there when Paul needed him for a journey. Logically that verse was there from the beginning! BRAZENLY, they change or remove a word that gives the believers true power! Matthew 12:31 and Mark 9:29! Some spiritual warfare needs prayer and fasting! Did God say eleven (11) times in the New Testament the word damnation, eternal burning? Yes. But not in theirs! Did God say? Did God give three witnesses to that truth? Mark 9:44, 46, 48. They however only have v48. The other two they ask, Did God say? This is important because we need to know the truth and those who preach Annialism, we cease to exist, are easily proven wrong with these verses. Jesus is God and Jesus is man. Hebrews supports this with four verses, 3:3, 7:24, 8:3 and 10:12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat down at rhe right hand of God; v10:12. They do not use the clarifying words 'this man' at all. Again, Did God say? Every change they make is an insult to God and His word. God said He would curse those who add to or take from His word. Revelation 22:18-19. In the Old Testament those who honored a false prophet received the reward of that prophet. So the original translators, the bible societies the publishers, the promoters, sellers and those who teach from them (showing those ear tickling bibles as God's word) or honor them will be held responsible. If done ignorantly, repent. God will not be mocked. This happened when the inspired Antioch manuscripts called the Textus Receptus were replaced by the Alexandrian manuscripts called the Codex B or the Vaticanus from the Vatican basement, and the Sianiticus from a monestary. They do not agree with each other and the latter has about 30 changes per page. Obviously inspired by their spiritual father who brings conflict, frustration, despair and DOUBT. King James Bible online Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary online: Look up: REPENT, REGENERATION, BELIEVE, FAITH, REDEMPTION, PERFECT, CONVERSATION, PREVENT, PROPITIATION etc. Sources: Adullum Films Documentary -Tares Among the Wheat video Books: The Revision Revised and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both by William Burgon. Dean Burgon lived during the time of Wescott and Hort. Book: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick.com. If interested an old video called The Forbidden Book video. It has some American History also.

The NASB renders the Greek (NA28) almost word-for word: "(You) go up to the feast; I do not go to this feast because my time is not fulfilled." The word "yet" is not there. Jesus isn't lying, so I am drawn in to a closer look at what he is saying. I take it as "I am not going to participate in this feast."

@@EAKven Nice try. That Jesus said he was not going. Not going means not going. In the inspired Antioch manuscripts Textus Receptus he said not yet. Seek the truth.

Not a chance! The NKJV retains the same obvious scribal/translation errors of the old KJV (and there are many) and is based on the same scant and extremely late manuscripts (i.e., no earlier than the 13th century A.D.). That said, it's still a good English translation of the Bible and is far more readable than the KJV's archaic and obsolete Elizabethan English. But if you want to get as close to the original God-breathed autographs as possible, you're better off studying the NASB '95 and '77, the newly released Legacy Standard Bible (LSB), the original Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), the Lexham English Bible (LEB), and the ESV-in that order of preference.