Is the ESV Bible a good alternative to NASB?

Some people really love the ESV.

This review is telling - because this reviewer really favors word-for-word literal translations with a conservative Christian bias (such as the ESV and NASB), but he is not particularly impressed with the ESV:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html

That reviewer is much more impressed with the NASB (which fits his biases exactly) and even with the RSV (which does not).

My personal opinion is that the HCSB is a better choice than the ESV...but it uses some unconventional wording (namely: "Yahweh" in more than 700 passages). Actually, the unconventional wording is something I consider a positive - but unfortunately often it is not used where it would do most good - in many well-known passages, "the Lord" is retained instead of the much more clear (and much less familiar) "Yahweh".

Anyway: you should at least seriously consider the NASB as a superior option (though perhaps it fails on readability, it does not in comparison to the KJV). You should also consider the HCSB as at least equal to the ESV. The RSV might be the solution for you, despite the fact that it is dated (1950s) - word-for-word literalness, scholarship and readability all rolled into one.

- Jim, http://www.bibleselector.com/

no, it dont make a difference...do you not know what the bible says? that God so loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life...Lets look a few things ok?....Remember that the apostles were Hebrew, and although paul was considered Roman, His father was a pharisee, and paul i think was of the tribe of benjamin...and yet they had to go preach the word unto the rest of the world, the rest of the world being gentiles right? and some other jews in other countries...right? and most of the time, they were in countries with greeks and romans, and along with some asians, ok so since these people were greek and not hebrew, do you think they would have told them that they had to learn the bible in hebrew also and not only greek back then? you can learn all the hebrew and greek texts you like and that is some deep stuff too, if all those greeks had to learn hebrew back then, then im sure theyd have problems... this is why the OT was in hebrew and NT in Greek... and then of course, later on down the road, you get everything translated over to english now mind you, i think and i do believe if i aint mistaking, that there were greeks and jews residing in the same countries maybe outside of judea and around, and maybe some romans residing around with them and they probably would understand each other but still, romans, greeks, jews, etc etc, and asians, etc etc, if they would have to had learned greek and hebrew to understand the bible, nah...

Not really

New King James would be better

very readable

Same very good translation as the KJV just with updated language and syntax

Try the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, easy to read and accurate, as it has replaced God's name in over 7,000 places where other Bibles have removed it. Available free from Jehovah's Witnesses or online at www.JW.org

Stay with the KJV and reject those new age translations. There is only ONE authorized version of the Bible for the English-speaking people: King James.

you would have to be the one to decide that

seriously

what works for one may not work for another

we here like both of these

use them both

No, it's an "improvement" of the NRSV.

you are right

I agree