Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | NASB Updated and ESV. | 1 Chr 20:3 | justme | 86339 | ||
Finkywood: Thanks so much for this response. You have in deed helped me. I did go the Lemstone and got some free textual and editors information. I then went to the ESV site and spent a long time looking over their information. Frankly I wonder why so many versions of the scripture are saying they are the most literal. I was required at one seminary to used the NRS and really did not care to much for it. When I read the RSV is in large part of the ESV I pretty well deternined to just stay with the Updated NASB. I suppose my age is showing but it is hard to change. I made the change of primary versions from NIV to the Updated NASB shortly after it came out. That and my pastor uses the NKJV which I don't see much to drastic difference, except the NASB flows easier and seems more natural to read and for me to comprehend. Any way thanks for your nice response. I wish you had a note in the Update User Info. as you sound very intellegent and worth knowing something about. Blessings to you. justme |
||||||
2 | NASB Updated and ESV. | 1 Chr 20:3 | flinkywood | 86342 | ||
Justme, I ain't all that intelligent, believe you me. If my dog Flinky could speak, he'd spout reams of all the dopiness he's seen me do. My wife even says, "This is my husband, I can't help it." Anyway, I go to the ESV for comparison and am not drawn to it in any deeper way. I actually like the lumpy grits style of NASB over the crystaline, studied brevity of the ESV. The NASB95 has punctuation errors (2 Chron 9.8 lacks a comma after "Israel"); is occasionally ungrammatical (James 3.4 desperately needs "they" after "winds" to make it a complete sentence); and can do violence to a good psalm (Psalm 1 is a prime example), but it has a studious, workmanlike earnestness; it tries hard to be what it is, and that appeals to me. Having said all that, I find the NKJV a better read in the OT. I also like its unique way of acknowledging CT texts variants in the margins of the NT, something no other translation does, or might dare to do. It is also "literal". I agree with you about the NRSV. Colin. |
||||||