Why Do People Say the NASB Bible Is Wooden? - Literal Translation Pros and Cons; NASB vs ESV 

Note: The definition of the word "haughty" is "blatantly and disdainfully proud : having or showing an attitude of superiority and contempt for people or things perceived to be inferior" (Mirriam-Webster). The Greek is more like "lofty in mind." Both the NASB and ESV present an acceptable translation, although I think the NASB is a bit redundant, from a strictly English perspective. But the main point I was making is that we as English speakers don't ever say so-and-so is "haughty in mind." We just say they are a "haughty" person. Therefore the NASB is using an abnormal English phrase, i.e. wooden rendering. Remember, this is not meant to be a put down, just pointing out the truth from a literary perspective.

One of the reason I prefer the NASB is, as in this example; it tells me that not only should I not behave haughty, but I shouldn’t even think haughty. I was standing in the checkout line and the cashier said to the woman in front of me, “it don’t matter”. I immediately thought to myself, “it doesn’t matter”. The woman in front of me made the cashier feel ignorant by blurting out what I was thinking. Although I never spoke the words, I was also guilty of being haughty in mind…

I never understood why people say the NASB is wooden, my first language is Spanish and i love the NASB (i have upgraded to the LSB which is a great improvement) The literalness, small caps when quoting the OT, italics, so many more things that give us a better idea of what is present in the Greek.

I had never heard the word wooden used about Bible translations. So you have educated me today in that area. As always you make things very clear.

Enjoyed the video. Thanks, Tim. I never really understood the wooden comments about the NASB. My primary translation is the NASB95. I love it for studying and for just plain reading. As for the ESV, it has come down in my time of use over the last couple of years. I don't use it as much other than when I refer to the ESV Study Bible. I have replaced my time with the ESV with other translations such as the NKJV, CSB, and NLT. I always found the NASB much easier to read than the ESV.

Yeah, I use the NASB and I also use the ESV. For just reading for enjoyment I enjoy the new king James version. But I agree with you on your assessment of wine an English speakers would not have trouble with the NASB. I like your commentaries because they seem to me to be natural and non-judge mental. Although I’m sure you have your favorites in your prejudices you don’t necessarily air them out there where everybody can see them. You’re even handing in your assessments. So keep up the good work!

For me as a UK reader - being haughty has as much to do with how someone acts and behaves as how they think so I find the of mind helpful as I think our minds are being shaped first before our behaviour in this passage.

Greetings brother Tim, I am back again! Another fantastic video. I'm going to REPEAT myself again for the 100th time on your videos. There is nothing wooden about the unparalleled brilliant NASB 1997. I have been using it since my first day in Bible College in 1987 as a 20-year-old who was then only a 1-month-old Christian! This was in a KJV-only Baptist College. I used my Nasb for deep study/exegesis and the KJV was used in my notes/assignments. I use other translations for comparison ie NET CSB etc, It has served me perfectly! God bless.

The NASB is really smooth English. A big improvement. Even nicer to read than the ESV.

I’ve had an NASB since the 80’s when I was young. You just learned the way it phrased the verses and knew what it meant. It went on to show that it’s the meaning not the specific words.

O' My goodness! What a great explanation for those who learned English as a second language. The word order in wooden translations make perfect sense to many especially those of us from the east. English is my primary language, as I dream in English now, but I still have problem communicating my intended thought and what the receiver understands what I have transmitted. Same as in various translations. Thank you for this interesting and thoughtful insight.

Haughty of mind to me is a more accurate translation. They were saying don't think you are more superior than others. The ESV translation Is to general in my opinion because "Don't be Haughty" to me means don't act arrogant, or above others. But sometimes we act in a way that doesn't match what we think inside. For example my brother acts haughty around friends, but I know his heart, and he is just presenting himself in a way to fit in. I would be more worried about the person whom acts meek but Is more "Haughty of Mind". JMHO :)

I love the NASB but am finding myself using the LSB more. Being a MacArthur groupie, I like the exacting translation.

That’sme! Im Mexican, and love the NASB and the interlinear

Once again Frisch a great video. Wish I lived near you I’d love to meet you. Love your videos and your fresh perspective. I also enjoy you’re a fan of MacArthur as his study Bible and the reformation study Bible are my favorites. NASB and ESV are my favorite translations btw. 😁

An interesting comparison, but I think the NASB gets it and the ESV misses the mark. When the ESV says do not be haughty, it can easily be interpreted as correcting only outward action. When the NASB says haughty in mind this leaves no wiggle room, it is corrective of both attitude and action. It also supports Romans 12:3. "Don't THINK yourself more highly than you ought".

I always appreciate your videos. I think the NASB is a good translation and have read very little of the ESV. I personally think both can be a little choppy when reading them. For a literal translation I prefer the NKJV. Its very literal and smoother to read. For even better readability and still accurate, I love the NLT. The NLT and the NKJV are my two favorites. I do also like the CSB.

As a non-native speaker (English is my second language), I started with the ESV, and then switched over to NASB. I agree with your point regarding non-native speakers, and never really found the NASB to be WAY more "wooden" than the ESV. Since I am a believer in the infallibility and inerrancy claim only being applicable to the original Greek writings, it was more important to me to find a translation that stuck as closely as possible to it, and I think that describes the NASB a bit more than the ESV, while both are good translations. Especially when it comes to a "devotional reading" Bible. When it comes to Bible STUDY of a more technical nature, I think more literal is kinda important though. For example, when applying study methods like block diagramming or arcing, when you have absolutely no knowledge of the Greek grammar, you are absolutely bound to what you see in your chosen translation. And when applying these methods, the difference in meaning between "and," "but," "now," and "then" (just as an example) can be quite significant. One of those could make the first proposition the main one and the second proposition the supporting one. The other conjunction could make the second proposition the main one and the first one the supporting one. When dealing with technicalities like these, how closely (aka, "woodenly") the translators stuck to the original text could make a big difference. If that is the main purpose of your translation, or at least a big part of its purpose, I would rather sacrifice readability to some extent before I sacrifice "accuracy" as it pertains to the original text.

The NASB rendering of Romans 12:16 isn't a problem in my view. In fact, I prefer it because it is more direct to the issue than the ESV rendering (to me); it's one less step in my thinking process to get to the problem in my thinking, as opposed to a more general attitude or even feeling that the ESV suggests to me. And there's the correlation between the two appearances of the word "mind" as well.

Tim yes Tim what you said about Roman 12:16 is very clear,thank you very much. God Bless

I appreciated this video and your perspective. After using the KJV for five years, which I found to be too stilted and archaic, I switched to the NASB. I’ve used the NASB 1977 then 1995 for the past 35 years. (Of course I do have other translations for study). Now I’m switching to the Legacy Standard Bible. With its improved accuracy and the use of Yahweh, it makes it my “perfect for me” translation. Wooden? Nope, just accurately literal.

The first Bible translation I’ve read is the NASB2020. As a new believer who wasn’t familiar with the nuances of different translations, there were some verses that felt off to me and I couldn’t put my finger on why that was until I started to read the NIV, NLT, and ESV. The one example that I personally go to for the NASB being wooden is Matthew 15:14 which reads “Leave them alone; they are blind guides of blind people. And if a person who is blind guides another who is blind, both will fall into a pit.” Compare that to the ESV which reads “Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” The word that came to my mind wasn’t even “wooden” but rather “clunky.” But I still have a lot of affection for the NASB2020 with it being my first Bible translation and as a study tool to compare less literal translations with. And as a relatively young Californian, the more contemporary “gender inclusive” renderings like “brothers and sisters” and “people” in non-doctrinal contexts (which I think is an important distinction to make against criticisms of this update based on these word choices) has also made the NASB2020 more accessible to me than something like the NASB1995. Despite its Calvinist biases (Revelation 13:8 I think is an example that is straight up sectarian in the translation itself and not just the study notes), I’ve found myself using the ESV as my primary Bible. Not as literal as the NASB2020/1995 but is still pretty traditional and conservative while still being readable. It also has the best audio narrations of all the translations I could find, which is a huge plus for when I’m at work. I’ve also found myself using the CSB more for both casual reading and study. It almost reads like a more contemporary ESV. So I like to use my CSB study bible side by side with my NASB2020, ESV, and KJV for studying, or when I read/hear something from the ESV that raises red flags.

I EVEN LIKE LITERALLY TRANSLATED WORDS THAT I NEED TO LOOK UP.... ESPECIALLY... WHEN IT IS IN THE BIBLE....LIKE LSB.

I've never found the NASB to be "wooden." I think it reads very well. If I have anythig to criticize about it, I would say it doesn't have quite the literary beauty of the KJV, NKJV, and ESV. Speaking of the NKJV, I especially like its rendering of Romans 12:16: "Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble."

I keep on wanting to use the ESV but I find some of the translation choices terrible in comparison to the NASB. The ESV leaves you short while the NASB gives you all the extras so as to do help with your study. Examples just recently. The word ‘woe’ in revelation. The word ‘letter’ in the NT concerning the law. Inconsistent in ESV.

I've never seen or thought of the NASB as wooden. Personally, I find it to be quite enjoyable to read.

In my opinion, the word Wooden shows much more tendency to be considered Wooden than the word Haughty. Until this review, I can never recall hearing the word Wooden used to describe the characteristics of a statement.

I’m not surprised that second language speakers find the pedantic NASB easy to digest. Written languages, when taught to adult students, are usually stiff due to intentional attention to proper grammar and syntax. A more relaxed style of speaking only comes with familiarity of idiom and nuance.

I have the NASB, KJV, and NIV. I like them all, and I am often cross referencing the three of them, so that I can know for myself what the differences are and if there's really enough to argue that one is better than the other. I find that all three of these versions are telling the same story with very minor differences.

Helpful explanation. Thank you. The NASB has long been my standard translation. But as I dig deeper into the original languages, I have some questions on the NASB. One such question: Why does the NASB insert the English word "merely" in the following verses, when the original doesn't have that word? Mat 24:8 Mar 13:8 Phl 2:4 Col 3:22 1Pe 3:3 Maybe a topic for another video.

Good video Tim! I don't really understand how the NASB is "hard" to read. I guess I find it "easy" due to the fact that I read the KJV. The Old English in the KJV is much more difficult, yet understandable, than the NASB. I attended a church for a short time that used the ESV as their main text and keeping up with the KJV was very trying, so I would take my NASB instead. Those 2 translations, for the exception of a FEW words here and there throughout the text are the EXACT SAME translation. So I'm not understanding how the ESV is just "so much easier" to understand and the NASB is just "too hard" or "much harder" to understand. I believe the NASB flows so easily. That being said, I do notice that the NASB tends to use extra "unnecessary" words in the NASB. (Case in point if you didn't catch it). Things like "do not" instead of "don't" or "will not", "can not", etc when the combined word of don't, won't, can't, would make perfect sense in its place. Other than that, I find the NASB to be extremely smooth to read.

I don’t find NASAB20 as woody translation. It’s my fave english translations are-NASB20, NKJV, NIV, CSB

Thank you, Tim. I have no issues reading the NASB. That said, the ESV is my primary reading bible.

We don’t say haughty in mind because haughty is a mental thing. We just don’t expound on the fact because we know that is the case.

Check out Ps 54:7 in the LSB. “And was strong in his destruction.” Is very literal, which I appreciate, but not easy to understand.

Here's how I rendered Romans 12.16 about a decade ago: "Be of one mind toward each other, not thinking too highly of yourselves, but on the same level as the humble. Do not be wise according to your own conception of wisdom."

I would love to hear a vid or read a blog post on the NASB where the W word isn't used. Firstly because I don't think it is at all. It's a nice smooth read. The Legacy seems to have lost some of that. I can remember the nasb77 being a little stiff...like the asv that I sometimes read back in the early 90s. But not the Revision. Secondly the W word just seems like people are parroting what they've heard and aren't intelligent enuf to read for themselves and say "oh yeah this isn't bad." I think it's clear as a bell.

Wait, what was that cool tool you used that showed the Greek and the English words? Is that something that is available on-line? Great videos by the way!

I never understood the “wooden” charge towards the Nasb. If it is I’m sure that it isn’t so much so that the meaning is opaque. Personally, I thin “haughty of mind” is more eloquent. Perhaps the Nasb is more formal and that is conflated with “wooden”?

Thank you for another interesting video. You did ask for comments though so here goes … I disagree with you here believing that the NASB is clearer than the ESV in the example you gave. True, most English speakers today would probably prefer the ESV but it only says, “…don’t be haughty”. If we look at the NASB it says, “…haughty in mind”. The ESV conveys a behaviour, e.g. don’t act in a haughty manner but the NASB is more faithful addressing the heart issue - don’t be haughty in mind. The motive and heart attitude is addressed. I do like the ESV but my favs are the NASB (77 and 95) and the NKJV. I am saddened when more modern translations sacrifice accuracy for readability in some cases. You did ask us to comment, so this is my opinion only of course. No doubt many will disagree. Blessings 😊

Perhaps it is not a question of whether one is a native speaker or not, but whether one is familiar and flexible with different registers of the same language?

I've heard the term and didn't agree with it at all. I enjoy the NASB95 and I'm hoping for the LSB for Mother's day :D

In the comments of a recent Mark Ward video, I briefly compared four verses in the NASB 2020 with the NRSVue (both descendants of the super-literal ASV) to demonstrate this issue. I'll partially reuse that post here. Ephesians 1.3-14 is one of the best places to test just how dedicated a translation is to formal equivalence, since it's one big sentence in Greek with a seemingly-endless string of subordinate clauses. Verses 3-6 are adequate for demonstrating the difference between "very literal" and "essentially literal" in translation. - NASB: Blessed _be_ the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly _places_ in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons _and daughters_ through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, with which He favored us in the Beloved. - NRSV: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. The NRSV places the prepositional phrase "in Christ" beside "blessed us" to avoid a potentially misplaced modifier in English, while the NASB retains the Greek word order. The NRSV also opts to clarify that "in Him" refers to Christ and not the Father. The NASB is slightly wordier near the end to retain the second ἡμᾶς from v. 4. The NASB's "predestined" is arguably a more literal translation of προορίσας than the NRSV's "destined" simply because it retains the presence of a prefix, but is it even possible to be "post-destined" in this context? The NRSV opts to turn the prepositional phrase "to Himself" (a literal translation of εἰς αὐτόν) into a simple possessive "his" in front of "children." Speaking of "children," that raises the question of how to handle the υἱο in υἱοθεσίαν, with the NRSV following the gender-neutral phrasing found in the KJV, and the NASB following the gender-specific wording of the ASV (albeit with "and daughters" added in italics, lest anyone think that God elects only males). Finally, the literal but clunky "praise of the glory of His grace" in the NASB is simplified into "praise of his glorious grace" in the NRSV, lest anyone get lost in the prepositional weeds.

The people that complain about this type of stuff usually don’t read the bible enough to even have to worry about it.

I LIKE NASB. NOW LSB.

I love the NASB. Thanks for explaining why people say it's wooden,because I've never understood it.

Please explain the term “ wooden” . This discussion means nothing to me without “wooden “ defined . I have both the ESV & NASV and understand what your saying , but “Wooden “??

Non-native English speakers learned more literal English.

I love the NASB but I feel it removes that poetic cadence. That's what I think of when I hear the phrase wooden. I love the NKJV because it keeps the cadence of the KJV but updates the English. The ESV Also does a really good job of keeping the cadence without sacrificing a literal interpretation. I just wish that zondervan didn't remove the italicized Old Testament quotes in the NKJV 😢. Thankfully Cabridge and and Schuyler kept that in their NKJV bibles.

The KJV is full of phrases that are not in modern usage, but nobody accuses the KJV of being wooden. What makes the NASB wooden is that it seems to make less effort than other translations at capturing the poetry of the language, choosing words that, while accurate translations, are for whatever reason less evocative, expressive, or inspiration. There is also perhaps less interest in making available punctuation and phrase choices that make the language “flow” more naturally. Look up “wooden” in a dictionary: “2 stiff, ungainly, or awkward: a wooden gait. 3 without spirit, animation, or awareness.”

When I’m reading sometimes I get my words mixed up and jumbled, so reading the KJV, ESV, or NASB comes naturally.

Eph 1:10 does not sound very smooth in the NASB 95

Your phrase "not being high-minded", I think, brings out the best of both worlds. That I believe is something we would say and at the same time it brings out the parallel. "be like-minded, not high-minded."

Haughty? I never nor have ever used or heard that word in anything but the bible. In fact, I related the word to naughty as in, 'superiority complex', "my thoughts are better than... or my thought are founded on better informed references", 'conceited/over-indulgent confidence in my perception'. So yeah, 'stinking thinking'. If I want clarity I go NLT/NIV/literal(NKJV, ESV or now I own a complete LSB) combo. Remember the choose-your-own-adventure books? Now it's a choose-your-own-translation-adventure... still, nothing beats the KJV path to the original languages, as wooden as it may be.

I'm in the middle of this issue , Ironically, after 20+years using the NASB, I thought I needed an easier NIV and to my surprise, found it to be "wooden" and craved the beautiful wording of the NASB, When I write down a verse to memorize, I like the NASB, but when I want to understand what I'm reading, I use the more wooden translations. The KJV poetic style gives the appearance of deeper meaning and beauty, it has its place and so also the wooden style

I don't think it's wooden at all. It's pithy, which is why I like it.

May it never be!!! 😂

It seems that by "wooden" you mean "not dumbed down for the masses." (My biggest criticism of the NASB is the capitalized deity pronouns, which essentially is a recent Evangelical Protestant innovation.)

I love the NASB and have used it for nearly 50 years but am frustrated that it is being offered less in Bibles I would like to purchase. I have started to dabble in the ESV as it is prevalent. I want to be assured that the ESV is faithful and literal rendering of the original texts. What is your opinion? If it is reliable like the NASB I might start to move toward using the ESV as it seems to be available in most types of Bibles currently available.

Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.”

The first time I picked up an NASB and read from it I noticed it's awkwardness. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is definitely there. It's weird.

I downloaded the NASB translation on a bible app with multiple translations. I really didn't care for it and deleted it.