The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Message

How does the ESV compare to the NASB which is also supposed to be word-for-word faithful to the original languages?

The ESV sacrifices some literality for easy flow of language. It's basically a revision of the NASB to make it a bit easier to read.

I thought I read someplace that the ESV compares mostly with the RSV with the omitions of the RSV liberal bent with some wording.

Well, it's also been said that the NASB is an NRSV omitting the liberal bent, so . . .

I have not heard that. I take it as meaning the RSV, not the NRSV.

I will not use the message. I work at Lifeway Christian Books and I'm amazed at how many message bibles we sell. I am also amazed at who buys them. It's not your younger people all the time, but rather older more mature readers.

Every once in a while I'll break out my wifes NLT for another input on a difficult text. But at the same time, I'm also going to my commentaries also.

For example, John 3:13 in the NASB reads: No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

The NLT reads: For only I, the Son of Man, have come to earth and will return to heaven again.


Commentary notes from William Hendriksen:

Now, in order to have first-hand information about those heavenly
things one must have been present in God’s Throne-room when the decisions were
made. But no one has gone up into heaven. Hence, God’s decree concerning the
redemption of his people lies completely outside of the range of man’s knowledge
until it is revealed to him. Was there actually no one present with the Father when the
plan was made which centers in the decree to send the Son into the world in order to
bear the curse and set man free? Yes, there was One, the One who descended from
heaven namely, the Son of man.



So by using the NLT, it gives me a little better understanding of what this verse means. Along with using the New Testament Commentaries by Hendriksen, I am better able to understand my NASB.

But, for reading and studying, I use my NASB. I don't find it difficult to read at all. Some people say that it is "woody" but I don't see that. I like the way the NASB reads very much, better then the NKJV. I don't use the KJV because of the old english. It makes it too difficult for comfortable reading.

But I am in the same camp as some of the others here. I believe that an english translation should be just that, a translation not an interpretation.

Do I use the NASB when reading too my 8 year old daughter. No I don't, I use her NIRV. But when she is old enough to understand better, I'll switch over to the NASB.

My wife though, uses the NLT when she goes to her bible study. Our pew bible is the NASB and when my wife and I read together, we read from my NASB, but when she is by herself, she prefers the easier to understand NLT.

She is still new to her faith though, so I will recommend the NLT to people in the bookstore, but always with the recommendation that they should also pick up a more literal translation as well, using both.

Soli Deo Gloria

Kalled said:

Yep that's a big problem with the Message right there. The Message is from just ONE man's interpretation alone. My understanding is that Eugene Petersen did not work with a committee or any other people in putting it together. That was a big red flag when I started hearing things about the Message.
Then I ran into it at my church. Oh I've probably told you this story somewhere, can't remember, but a couple of years ago at my church they had Psalm 8 up on the screen that the congregation was to read together out loud. This is what we were to read from the Message:


Here it is in the NASB

That was my first introduction to the Message. I emailed the pastor about it and I have never seen or heard the Message used again up front, so that was good.

The sad thing is that this might be "entertaining" like you say to someone like us who knows the difference, but there are too many out there I'm afraid who don't see the differences at all.

I've pretty much used NIV for most of my Christian life. In InterVarsity I was told NIV was the best translation.
I didn't understand about dynamic equivalence until coming here to this site. How come they didn't tell me that or anyone else?? That really has been eye-opening to me.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" /> (my 6 year son likes these and wanted to put them in my post) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wow1.gif" alt="" />

What strikes me about this comparison, Janean, is that the NASB's rendition of the psalm is not only more beautiful, it is also much easier to understand.

So much for the stated goal of "dynamic equivalence"!

But when doing Bible study and sermon preparation, and we look at commentaries, isn't that exactly what we're doing? Getting one person's interpretation of the Bible? I am not saying that we use it as a preaching text, or even with any authority, but I do see some benefit with using it as a commentary sometimes.

I have not read the Message so I cannot comment as to the theology of the writer (I hesitate to use the word translation).

However, such a paraphrase CAN be valuable - however, it is more of a commentary rather than a translation. Provided the reader understands this and does not use this in lieu of a REAL Bible translation, it is fine (a paraphrase properly done is fine, that is).

There is nothing wrong with any man "interpreting" the Bible... it's given to men to do just that; interpret and apply, but rightly. However, there is a chasmic difference between writing a commentary on the Bible's teachings and peddling it as THE Bible. Those who claim that their "interpretation" is a "translation" are guilty of 1) denigrating, diminishing or even denying divine inspiration and/or 2) deceit. All too often in the contemporary "church" the distinction between preaching/teaching the Word and translating the Word is transgressed. It is not the translators responsibility to manipulate the inspired text so as to make it more "readable", but rather to be faithful to the text. Let Pastors, Elders, Bible teachers, etc., start with a faithful rendering of the original languages and expound upon it to others.

Notice the reverence and sobriety which the people of old gave to the Word of the Living God and compare that to how it is viewed by the masses today; even those who profess to be Christians:

Nehemiah 8:1-8 (ASV) "And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the broad place that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which Jehovah had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the broad place that was before the water gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women, and of those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were [attentive] unto the book of the law. And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Uriah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchijah, and Hashum, and Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, [and] Meshullam. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up: and Ezra blessed Jehovah, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with the lifting up of their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped Jehovah with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people [stood] in their place. And they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading."

In His grace,

I agree fully here. The Message is simply how he interprets the Bible for the modern culture. From my understanding in the introduction of The Message, it makes no bones about being a paraphrase. It's the silly marketers and the uneducated who claim it to be an actual Bible. That only means that "Pastors, Elders, Bible teachers, etc." need to start explaining to their congregations and students what The Message really is.

I don't know that this makes The Message unusable, though. I think it is useful, when the proper attitude is held toward it.