# Falling in love with the ESV



## GTMOPC

I'm starting this thread to make a confession. I'm not sure if there has been a similar thread by someone in my situation so I'm starting one! 

I've been cheating on King James.  There, I said it.

I've never been a hardcore "KJV Only" but I certainly could be a called devout KJV reader. I have referenced the Geneva often and various other translations in study but I never read anything but the KJV devotionally. 

A few days ago I picked up an ESV Reference Bible because the new church I'm attending seems pretty committed to it, though I'm not sure if it is officially the endorsed translation (does anyone know where the OPC stands on the ESV?). I think the Pastor is preaching from it and several of the members seem to be using it. As an aside, I'm aware the ESV is pretty common in the reformed community, for anyone who feels the need to inform me.

Anyway, I picked it up solely for the purpose of being able to read along in the service and Sunday School. Since I got it though I've read several of my favorite Psalms, John, Part of Matthew, Hebrews, and 2 Peter and I've fallen in love with it. 

I've always been so committed to the KJV that I would never stoop to read a whole section of any other translation with any other motive that an academic one. But the ESV just seems to flow so well. The English is exceptionally readable. The prose is almost poetic (even if that is stretching the term 'poetic' for lack of a better word).

I feel a deep seated anxiety at the thought of giving up on the good ole KJV, but I'm really liking the readability of the ESV. It's not the 'archaic English' in the KJV either, I'm quite comfortable with the KJV language. The ESV just sounds so refreshing for some reason. I'd go so far as to say that it's illuminating in a way that only the Holy Spirit could illuminate. I haven't felt such a deep love for scripture and desire to immerse myself in it since I was converted. Don't get me wrong I've maintained a love for scripture throughout my Christian life but it has waned at times I must confess.

I'll never retire the KJV entirely but I felt a need to express this new love for a modern translation. It's a good thing cheating on translations isn't a sin or I'd be in trouble! Has anyone else had a similar experience with the ESV or any other translation for that matter? Maybe it's just oddly refreshing that I'm not having KJV withdrawals!?


----------



## InevitablyReformed

Welcome to the family.


----------



## Hamalas

Don't fight it, just give in.


----------



## larryjf

It's an excellent version.
As far as the OPC and PCA...the ESV is not their "official" version, but it's their "default" version in some regard.

from Q and A



> New Horizons (the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's denominational magazine) has made the English Standard Version its "default" translation...Great Commission Publications, the publishing house jointly operated by the OPC and the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America), has chosen to quote the ESV in its Sunday School materials.


----------



## Webservant

All of a sudden our pastors up and switched from NIV to ESV. Consequently, we changed the scripture links on our site accordingly.


----------



## rrfranks

As a pastor I use many different translations in my study, the ESV being one of them. I highly recommend it.


----------



## GTMOPC

It is certainly worthy of sober consideration for anyone weary of their current translation. If it wasn't for the PB support and ultimately the church I'm presently attending I'd never have picked it up. Funny how things work out.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

I love it. I've always used the NASB but I haven't been able to put down the ESV since I got it. If you're looking for a good study bible the ESV Study Bible is definitely worth the money.


----------



## GTMOPC

ManleyBeasley said:


> I love it. I've always used the NASB but I haven't been able to put down the ESV since I got it. If you're looking for a good study bible the ESV Study Bible is definitely worth the money.



Oh yea! If it hadn't been the ESV I'd already have bought it. Wish I'd known how much I would like the ESV. It will be my next purchase for sure!


----------



## timmopussycat

ManleyBeasley said:


> I love it. I've always used the NASB but I haven't been able to put down the ESV since I got it. If you're looking for a good study bible the ESV Study Bible is definitely worth the money.


----------



## DMcFadden

Hahahahahahahahahaha . . . and the conspiracy continues. Eventually, we will have all of you Stepford students in the collective.


----------



## Scott1

From all accounts I've seen, the ESV is a very good translation (more faithful to the individual wording of the original) and a very good one among the "readable texts."

It is the trend among "Reformed."

I still use KJV and sometimes compare it with the NIV but more-and-more look to the ESV also.


----------



## Igor

Seems like everybody is switching to the ESV (the whole churches!), but the NIV is still at the top, according to the polls... I ordered myself a copy (even two), of course (and am planning to order the ESV Study Bible), but it does not seem to flow as well as the NIV. Perhaps, it does not matter so much for the English-speaking people.


----------



## APuritansMind

GMcClain20 said:


> The ESV just sounds so refreshing for some reason. I'd go so far as to say that it's illuminating in a way that only the Holy Spirit could illuminate. I haven't felt such a deep love for scripture and desire to immerse myself in it since I was converted. Don't get me wrong I've maintained a love for scripture throughout my Christian life but it has waned at times I must confess.



Travis, I am glad to hear of your deeper love for Scripture. May your worship, devotional, and study time with your ESV continue to be richly blessed.


----------



## CharlieJ

Igor said:


> Seems like everybody is switching to the ESV (the whole churches!), but the NIV is still at the top, according to the polls... I ordered myself a copy (even two), of course (and am planning to order the ESV Study Bible), but it does not seem to flow as well as the NIV. Perhaps, it does not matter so much for the English-speaking people.



Is English your second language? If so, I can certainly understand the preference for the NIV. To many native English speakers, the NIV can sound a little forced sometimes, as if it's talking down to you. The lack of complexity is itself a bit unnatural. I do really like it in the minor prophets, though.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

NKJV, Geneva, or NASB for me.


----------



## wturri78

I probably don't understand what's behind the translation, but the ESV has a few oddly worded passages that seem to sound as if the translators are somehow trying to sound more impressive, or "smarter" or something. For example I was just reading in 1 Samuel, where God calls out to Samuel, and he answers "Here am I." Or in Mary's "magnificat," where she says "the rich he has sent empty away." If they were going for modern English, why the awkward ordering that no modern speaker would ever use? Those kind of hit me between the eyes.

I also use the NASB and NKJV pretty extensively. It's probably due to my age, but I really never spent much time in KJV.


----------



## JM

I've been cheating on the AV and now I'm falling in love with the AV all over again.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

wturri78 said:


> I probably don't understand what's behind the translation, but the ESV has a few oddly worded passages that seem to sound as if the translators are somehow trying to sound more impressive, or "smarter" or something...



Bingo. I have always been trying to figure out what it was about the ESV that was off and you nailed it for me. "Pretentious" is a word that comes to mind. It is almost as if the translators were trying to, on purpose or not, make an "evangelical" version of the NRSV that would be accepted as "scholarly".


----------



## wturri78

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> wturri78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I probably don't understand what's behind the translation, but the ESV has a few oddly worded passages that seem to sound as if the translators are somehow trying to sound more impressive, or "smarter" or something...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo. I have always been trying to figure out what it was about the ESV that was off and you nailed it for me. "Pretentious" is a word that comes to mind. It is almost as if the translators were trying to, on purpose or not, make an "evangelical" version of the NRSV that would be accepted as "scholarly".
Click to expand...


Correct are you! Pretentious are they.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I'll take my Yoda Translation any day.  for the NASB!!!


----------



## jawyman

It was love at first sight for me with the ESV. Here is what zondervan.com has to say about it.

English Standard Version (ESV)

Translation: 

But we will not boast beyond limits, but will boast only with regard to the area of influence God assigned to us, to reach even you.

2 Corinthians 10:13 (ESV)
Reading Level: 8.0


Readbility: 

A literal style, but more readable than the King James Version.
Reference Support Material: Low
Number of Translators: 100+
Translation Philosophy/Format: word-for-word
Endorsements: 
Notes: A literal update of the Revised Standard Version, seeks to produce word-for-word correspondence. 

The ESV Bible is a new, essentially literal Bible translation that combines word-for-word precision and accuracy with literary excellence, beauty, and readability.

The English Standard Version (ESV) is a “word-for-word,” essentially literal translation because every word of the Bible is inspired by God.

Based on this principle, more than sixty of the world’s leading Bible scholars pored over every word and phrase to achieve the unique accuracy, excellence, and beauty of the ESV Bible.

The result is a new Bible translation (published in October 2001). Read ESV for:

*
For personal reading and in-depth study
*
For preaching, teaching, and public worship
*
For family reading and devotions
*
For memorizing and understanding the Word of God


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Propaganda!!!


----------



## GTMOPC

What does "Reading Level 8" mean? 8th grade level?

I haven't encountered any of the so called odd passages you guys have mentioned yet but in any event I don't think I'd go so far as to charge the translators as being 'pretentious'. I think, in my limited exposure, they've done a top notch job. But I won't let that be my final word till I've read it through a few times and compared it with KJV at certain places.

Thanks for all the pro-ESV encouragement and also thanks for the warnings to from the naysayers! All your points are well taken.

It's hard to say no to a translation when it deepens your love for scripture though, and has a good rep for being reliable!


----------



## wturri78

I'm no naysayer--I like the ESV a lot. It just has a few awkward wordings that seem to jump out at me. It isn't the norm--just read the first few chapters of 1 Samuel and the Magnificat, which are what I remembered as being a little...well, odd in word ordering. 

Long live the ESV, otherwise!

And long live KJV--yea, verily!!!


----------



## Galatians220

I'm no textual scholar, as I've said before on threads. And I've no quarrel personally with whatever Bible version anyone else feels led to use. That's nothing for me to address with anyone as I've *no *academic or scholarly "heft" to throw behind my assertions. I'm just _*extremely puzzled*_ by the wholesale abandonment and even constructive repudiation of the AV by Reformed congregations... I would like to find some explanation of this, somewhere. Things have changed so much in just the 14 years that I've been reading the KJV! I was "invited to leave" one Reformed church because of my support of it. In another Reformed church of which I was later a member, the AV was in the pews but virtually everyone was reading the ESV.

Part of my support of the AV comes from what shakes out when one asks questions and then gets answers re: the ESV and other versions vs. the KJV.

For example, for ESV aficionados:

1. Can you show an unbeliever, from the ESV's rendering of Luke 2:33 and 43, that Joseph was not Jesus' biological father?

2. In Luke 4:4, if "man does not live by bread alone," what does he live by? (The ESV gets it right in Matthew 4:4, but if "Scripture interprets Scripture," why was Luke 4:4 changed?)

3. By which means do we have redemption in Christ? (Colossians 1:14.) How did He achieve that for us?

4. According to Philippians 2:6, did Jesus willingly lay His deity aside in humility when He became a man, or did He know that He did not blaspheme in and by His awareness that He was equal (equivalent) to God? Which option more easily leads to the conclusion that He was, indeed, fully God and fully man?

5. Simply compare the renderings of 2 Corinthians 2:17 in the ESV, NASB, NIV, KJV and, if you have access to one, the (Roman Catholic) New American Bible. _Interesting..._ If you're trying to witness to a Catholic and along with that witness, let them know that you're not trying to "shove the Bible down [their] throat," and that "forever (His) word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89; _cf._ Psalm 12:6-7), then how is that done from the implications of just that single verse and its various renderings?

As I said, I seek to make no points or anything; I'm a very simple Christian who's only madly in love with the Gospel, and with God's word, and with Jesus Christ.

Margaret


----------



## GTMOPC

Thanks Bill, I'll check those passages out later.


----------



## baron

I recently purchased The Reformatiom Study Bible ESV to replace my NIV Study Bible I lost. I have seen a lot of remarks about it so I figure I would try it and see for myself. It seems like a good translation. But for some reason I keep falling back to my Thompson Chain KJV. The KJV just seems easier to understand probably due to the fact is I used it fore so many years. It is hard for me to memorize scripture in any other version except KJ. I end up confusing my self. I am not sure about the debates over the scholary aspect of the texts so that is not very important to me. The important aspect for me is what i will read and understand on a daily basis.


----------



## jawyman

GMcClain20 said:


> What does "Reading Level 8" mean? 8th grade level?



The KJV has a reading level of twelve, because of the difficulty of the English used. I ran across this note from a website called, sundayschoolresources.com, and the they state regarding the NASB, KJV, NRSV, and the NKJV:

The difficult reading level of these Bible translations prevents us from recommending these translations for children. While some may consider the NKJV to be written at a Medium Reading Level, we think it is too difficult for children to read. In addition, the KJV and the NKJV are based on the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that were available in 1611. Since that time, manuscripts have been discovered that allow scholars to reconstruct a Hebrew and Greek text that better represents the original text. Thus, the KJV and NKJV are not based on what scholars today believe is the best representation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. While the differences in text have no effect from a doctrinal viewpoint, they may affect the meaning of specific texts. See "How to Read the Bible for all its Worth" by Fee and Stuart for further information.

Please remember this quote is about the translations for children, but we also need to be aware of what translation will allow us to most effectively preach and teach God's Word to everyone sitting in the sanctuary.


----------



## PresbyDane

So basically what you want to do with this thread is to admit that you have been unfaithful to your first-love
You know what the bible says about that, and what is more frightening os that I can read that you a incouraged by some people here to just give in 

No, just kidding as long as you read the Bible you have my blessing, if that is what you were looking fore, with your confession.


----------



## VictorBravo

OK, I'm a curmudgeon and a spoiled sport, but everytime an ESV thread comes up, if I have the energy, I have to point out Hebrews 11:31.

ESV: By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had *given a friendly welcome *to the spies.


AV: By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

The word is εἰρήνης (irenes)--peace, not "friendly." It doesn't matter which Greek text you use, it's the same.

Every other translation uses some variation of "received with peace." Why oh why did the ESV decide to put a Mae West spin on the passage, especially because it purports to be a formal equivalent?

Nit-picky, yes, but I just bugs me to see someone's (dare I say joking or playful?) fingerprints on the text.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Just as a curiosity but do you have any "fingerprints" in mind?


----------



## Galatians220

victorbravo said:


> Why oh why did the ESV decide to put a Mae West spin on the passage, especially because it purports to be a formal equivalent?


 


Margaret


----------



## VictorBravo

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Just as a curiosity but do you have any "fingerprints" in mind?



 Yes, the Heb. 11:31 passage I quoted.


----------



## LawrenceU

victorbravo said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as a curiosity but do you have any "fingerprints" in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Heb. 11:31 passage I quoted.
Click to expand...


I think he is wondering if you want to skewer a particular individual who may have worked on the translation. Just my take. . .


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

But not "skewer" so much...


----------



## Pilgrim

victorbravo said:


> OK, I'm a curmudgeon and a spoiled sport, but everytime an ESV thread comes up, if I have the energy, I have to point out Hebrews 11:31.
> 
> ESV: By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had *given a friendly welcome *to the spies.
> 
> 
> AV: By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
> 
> The word is εἰρήνης (irenes)--peace, not "friendly." It doesn't matter which Greek text you use, it's the same.
> 
> Every other translation uses some variation of "received with peace." Why oh why did the ESV decide to put a Mae West spin on the passage, especially because it purports to be a formal equivalent?
> 
> Nit-picky, yes, but I just bugs me to see someone's (dare I say joking or playful?) fingerprints on the text.



The ESV follows its parent the RSV in this verse. The ESV is, as Piper said, the RSV with the theological problems fixed. I haven't read the ESV a whole lot, but I've found that when it departs significantly from the translations done by evangelicals, it is usually following its liberal parent, the RSV. 

Crossway bought the rights to the last revision of the RSV (Not the NRSV) and then the translators made what are generally light revisions except for the more objectionable passages in the RSV that were the reason that it never gained widespread acceptance among evangelicals and fundamentalists. Most of them had to do with an antisupernatural bias in messianic OT passages like Isa 7:14 and several of the Psalms If I recall correctly but there were some issues in the NT too with the use of expiation instead of propitiation, etc. Some like O.T. Allis, one of the original Westminster Seminary faculty, also objected to the RSV being less literal than the KJV and ASV. (The ASV is a translation of the Critical Text, but it is even more literal in its method than is the KJV, one reason why it and the English RV never really caught on with the general public.) But now the ESV, which overall is barely more literal than the RSV, is now hailed as the new standard for "essentially literal" translation. 

The flood of subsequent modern versions that came after the RSV, specifically the NASB, NIV and NKJV, were due to the problems and the RSV that caused it to be rejected by many. The impetus behind the ESV was a stated desire to have a translation based on the Critical Text that is more literal than the NIV but more readable than the NASB. The gender neutral controversy over what became the TNIV was a factor as well. 

As for defection from the AV, the vast majority of ESV users likely switched from modern versions, predominately the NIV or maybe the NASB or NKJV.


----------



## Whitefield

My first impression of the ESV was that it was a conservative paraphrase of the NRSV. Maybe my first impression was closer than I thought.


----------



## Pilgrim

Whitefield said:


> My first impression of the ESV was that it was a conservative paraphrase of the NRSV. Maybe my first impression was closer than I thought.



It is not a revision of the NRSV of 1990 which is "gender neutral" and less literal, esp. in the NT, but of the RSV of 1971, as is noted in the ESV copyright page. 

The KJV advocates criticized not only the appearance of a new modern translation with the ESV but also decried the payment made to the National Council of Churches for the rights to the old RSV text.


----------



## GTMOPC

Martin Marsh said:


> So basically what you want to do with this thread is to admit that you have been unfaithful to your first-love
> You know what the bible says about that, and what is more frightening os that I can read that you a incouraged by some people here to just give in
> 
> No, just kidding as long as you read the Bible you have my blessing, if that is what you were looking fore, with your confession.




Hmmm....good observations. If I've been unfaithful to my first love *and* some here are encouraging such behavior how come their has been no outright KJV-only rebuke? Perhaps the KJV'ers are secretly wishing they could, themselves, finally admit they love the ESV or another translation. 

The first step is to admit you have a problem. To the KJV'ers it's a problem, but to the ESV'ers it's a blessing. Who then do I concede to? I'll happily defer to the more pleasant feedback!!!

No, really, I was curious if there were many others here on the PB who have had a similar experience with the ESV being previously grounded fully in the KJV. Crossing over can be uncomfortable, scary, and lonely...so I needed to know I was not alone.

Do I want a blessing? Sure. Thanks!

*victorbravo* - I have seen you post this same concern in other ESV threads. It is quiet funny. I'd always wished we could set the bible in the Old West and maybe throw in John Wayne for grit.

*Pilgrim* Based on your comments I'm left wondering if there was a large reformed following with the RSV. I don't see why they 'fixed' it if there wasn't a huge demand from the reformed community when they could have simply fell back on the KJV or made a completely new translation.

Can anyone share a little more insight on the precedent of the translation? Or simply link me to where it's already been covered?


----------



## Whitefield

Pilgrim said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first impression of the ESV was that it was a conservative paraphrase of the NRSV. Maybe my first impression was closer than I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a revision of the NRSV of 1990 which is "gender neutral" and less literal, esp. in the NT, but of the RSV of 1971, as is noted in the ESV copyright page.
> 
> The KJV advocates criticized not only the appearance of a new modern translation with the ESV but also decried the payment made to the National Council of Churches for the rights to the old RSV text.
Click to expand...


You're right. I just read this on the copyright page: 



> The Holy bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.



I wonder with "adapted" and the "all rights reserved" does the NCC receive any form of royalties from the sale of the ESV? Guess you've covered that question too. Thanks.


----------



## Pilgrim

GMcClain20 said:


> Martin Marsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically what you want to do with this thread is to admit that you have been unfaithful to your first-love
> You know what the bible says about that, and what is more frightening os that I can read that you a incouraged by some people here to just give in
> 
> No, just kidding as long as you read the Bible you have my blessing, if that is what you were looking fore, with your confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm....good observations. If I've been unfaithful to my first love *and* some here are encouraging such behavior how come their has been no outright KJV-only rebuke? Perhaps the KJV'ers are secretly wishing they could, themselves, finally admit they love the ESV or another translation.
> 
> The first step is to admit you have a problem. To the KJV'ers it's a problem, but to the ESV'ers it's a blessing. Who then do I concede to? I'll happily defer to the more pleasant feedback!!!
> 
> No, really, I was curious if there were many others here on the PB who have had a similar experience with the ESV being previously grounded fully in the KJV. Crossing over can be uncomfortable, scary, and lonely...so I needed to know I was not alone.
> 
> Do I want a blessing? Sure. Thanks!
> 
> *victorbravo* - I have seen you post this same concern in other ESV threads. It is quiet funny. I'd always wished we could set the bible in the Old West and maybe throw in John Wayne for grit.
> 
> *Pilgrim* Based on your comments I'm left wondering if there was a large reformed following with the RSV. I don't see why they 'fixed' it if there wasn't a huge demand from the reformed community when they could have simply fell back on the KJV or made a completely new translation.
> 
> Can anyone share a little more insight on the precedent of the translation? Or simply link me to where it's already been covered?
Click to expand...


This is an excellent site that has information on all English translations of note. Some will disagree with the owner's strong advocacy for the Critical Text. But the site is the best of its kind that I am aware of. 

I can't remember where I read it, but I remember reading an article where Piper, Grudem, or someone else who was very involved said that he had been a a "closet" RSV reader for years. When it was first issued Grudem's Systematic Theology used the RSV; I don't know if this has been changed to the ESV in subsequent editions or not. Evidently they liked the style of the RSV and the fact that it was more literal than the NIV but of course couldn't uncritically embrace it due to the theological problems. There are a good many interviews with Piper especially on the ESV. He's probably been the most outspoken advocate. There was a lengthy Packer interview early on that was on the ESV site as well. Whether they are still on the ESV site, I don't know. There may be something on the Desiring God site too. 

No attempt was made to hide the fact that it is a revision of the RSV. I think some of the hard core KJV advocates asserted that the National Council of Churches still had the rights to the text i.e. that purchases of the ESV were supporting the NCC financially, but I've seen no credible evidence of that.


----------



## VictorBravo

LawrenceU said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as a curiosity but do you have any "fingerprints" in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Heb. 11:31 passage I quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think he is wondering if you want to skewer a particular individual who may have worked on the translation. Just my take. . .
Click to expand...


Sorry, I didn't get it. 

I have no idea whose fingerprints it might be. Just that it's there.


----------



## Pilgrim

There are probably dozens of posts in the archives where I have posted what I have here about the ESV and noted that I didn't have quite the same enthusiasm for it that others do. The textual issue aside, I think the NKJV and the NASB are both better for study purposes since they italicize words that are not in the original but supplied by the translators for clarity. (The abandonment of this practice by the RSV was another one of Allis' criticisms.) I also like how they set off OT quotations in oblique (NKJV) or bold (NASB). The ESV Classic Reference Bible does have very good cross references however, much better than the NKJV's. 

Some of my not jumping on the bandwagon is that I am a little contrarian by nature. I do think the ESV is overall one of the better translations (be aware that I am a layman with no skill in the original languages) but I am hard pressed to say that it is the best out there. If someone loves it I'm not going to argue over it except to clear up misunderstandings about its origin. 

My three favorites are the NKJV, KJV and the NASB, probably in that order. I cut my teeth on the NASB (admittedly after using the Living Bible quite a bit in the early days) but have been using the NKJV and the KJV more and more recently. I never really got into the NIV, perhaps because none of the churches I attended early on used it.


----------



## Whitefield

This is very good information for me. I was thinking that the ESV was the result of a board of scholars pouring over the Hebrew and Greek. If I understand it correctly, it is the new and improved RSV ... was there any checking of the translation of the RSV to the Hebrew and Greek?


----------



## JBaldwin

I love the ESV, because like Travis, it made me fall in love with the Scriptures all over again. I wander back to the KJV all the time, and I consider myself blessed to be able to have so many translations available to me. Even so, I spend most of my reading time in the ESV because it flows well. For serious study, I use ESV, KJK, NASB, etc.


----------



## Pilgrim

Whitefield said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first impression of the ESV was that it was a conservative paraphrase of the NRSV. Maybe my first impression was closer than I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a revision of the NRSV of 1990 which is "gender neutral" and less literal, esp. in the NT, but of the RSV of 1971, as is noted in the ESV copyright page.
> 
> The KJV advocates criticized not only the appearance of a new modern translation with the ESV but also decried the payment made to the National Council of Churches for the rights to the old RSV text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right. I just read this on the copyright page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Holy bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder with "adapted" and the "all rights reserved" does the NCC receive any form of royalties from the sale of the ESV? Guess you've covered that question too. Thanks.
Click to expand...


All I've seen is some KJV onlyists railing on Sermon Audio but not producing any hard evidence. Theodore Letis had spoken and written about it too prior to his death, but strictly speaking he wasn't quite KJVO. I don't remember if he addressed the royalty issue or not. Crossway has repeatedly stated that they own the rights to the text.


----------



## GTMOPC

Thanks a lot for that information Chris.


----------



## Whitefield

Yes, great information. Thanks again.


----------



## Pilgrim

Whitefield said:


> This is very good information for me. I was thinking that the ESV was the result of a board of scholars pouring over the Hebrew and Greek. If I understand it correctly, it is the new and improved RSV ... was there any checking of the translation of the RSV to the Hebrew and Greek?



They checked it against the original languages, but much of it evidently was found to be unobjectionable. There was a slight revision in 2007, but I don't know if they ever released a list of the changes they made. Newer copies will say "2007 Text Edition."


----------



## jawyman

Here is a passage I struggle with in the AV. It is only my opinion, but I believe the word _orphaned_ give a greater emphasis than does comfortless. Please have a look too at the fact that the Greek uses the word _orphaned_ whereas the KJV does not. I am looking for some guidance as to which in this case would be the superior translation using the better Greek text.

ESV John 14:18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

KJV John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

NIV John 14:18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

BGT John 14:18 Ouvk avfh,sw u`ma/j ovrfanou,j( e;rcomai pro.j u`ma/jÅ

BNT John 14:18 Ouvk avfh,sw u`ma/j ovrfanou,j( e;rcomai pro.j u`ma/jÅ

Thanks and Happy New Year.


----------



## Zeno333

The ESV and all of the modern translations get Matthew 24:30 wrong.

For a great explanation as to the inner-workings of how that verse should be translated and read, see J. Marcellus Kik's book "An Eschatology of Victory." P and R Publishing. 1971

Here is a caption from Kik's book regarding Matthew 24:30...

""This clause has been thought to relate definitely to the second, visible, and personal coming of the Lord. But in the light of well-defined biblical language, the reference is rather to a coming in terms of the events of his providence in judgment against his enemies and in deliverance of his people.. Many commentators have taken it for granted that the expression "coming in the clouds" refers to a visible coming of Christ. A careful study of the Scriptures, however, reveals that that is not a necessary interpretation." (An Eschatology of Victory, p, 140-141, cf. 142-143)

"The judgment upon Jerusalem was the sign of the fact that the Son of man was reigning in heaven. There has been misunderstanding due to the reading of this verse, as some have thought it to be ‘a sign in heaven.’ But this is not what the verse says; it says the sign of the son of Man in heaven. The phrase ‘in heaven’ defines the locality of the Son of Man and not of the sign. A sign was not to appear in the heavens, but the destruction of Jerusalem was to indicate the rule of the Son of Man in heaven."

"The apostle Paul states in the eleventh chapter of Romans that the fall of the Jews was a blessing to the rest of the world. He speaks of it as the enriching of the Gentiles and the reconciling of the world. The catastrophe of Jerusalem really signalized the beginning of a new and world-wide kingdom, marking the full separation of the Christian Church from legalistic Judaism. The whole system of worship, so closely associated with Jerusalem and the Temple, received, as it were, a death blow from God himself. God was now through with the Old Covenant made at Sinai: holding full sway was the sign of the New Covenant." (ibid., pp. 137-138)""

What Kik describes as an incorrect "reading" of the verse, is in fact now the actually translation of the verse in all of the current modern translations that are out there.


----------



## GTMOPC

.


----------



## larryjf

jawyman said:


> Here is a passage I struggle with in the AV. It is only my opinion, but I believe the word _orphaned_ give a greater emphasis than does comfortless. Please have a look too at the fact that the Greek uses the word _orphaned_ whereas the KJV does not. I am looking for some guidance as to which in this case would be the superior translation using the better Greek text.
> 
> ESV John 14:18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
> 
> KJV John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
> 
> NIV John 14:18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
> 
> BGT John 14:18 Ouvk avfh,sw u`ma/j ovrfanou,j( e;rcomai pro.j u`ma/jÅ
> 
> BNT John 14:18 Ouvk avfh,sw u`ma/j ovrfanou,j( e;rcomai pro.j u`ma/jÅ
> 
> Thanks and Happy New Year.



The word "orphanos" certainly can mean to be an orphan...without parents or without a father. But it can also mean to be bereft of a leader or teacher.


----------



## discipulo

It has been great to follow your posts!
One particular Bible verse that the Authorized Version or KJV 
and NKJV deeply disappoint me for its theological implications is Hosea 6:7

_But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me_ KJV (=NKJV)

_But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. _ ESV

_But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant. There they have dealt treacherously against Me _ NASB

I have a NASB, a NKJV, and a NIV (the NIV I don't really use, too paraphrased in my opinion)

Thank you so much for all your helpful insights. So I will look forward to buy an ESV.
(in spite of the Mae West detail, quite hilarious!)


----------



## GTMOPC

discipulo said:


> It has been great to follow your posts!
> One particular Bible verse that the Authorized Version or KJV
> and NKJV deeply disappoint me for its theological implications is Hosea 6:7
> 
> _But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me_ KJV (=NKJV)
> 
> _But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. _ ESV
> 
> _But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant. There they have dealt treacherously against Me _ NASB
> 
> I have a NASB, a NKJV, and a NIV (the NIV I don't really use, too paraphrased in my opinion)
> 
> Thank you so much for all your helpful insights. So I will look forward to buy an ESV.
> (in spite of the Mae West detail, quite hilarious!)



I don't think you'll be disappointed. I hope you enjoy it as much as I have!


----------



## Okinawamama

You know you're a newbie when it takes you awhile to realize AV does not stand for Amplified Version.


----------



## APuritansMind

It happens to most of us every once in a while.


----------



## GTMOPC

Okinawamama said:


> You know you're a newbie when it takes you awhile to realize AV does not stand for Amplified Version.





Don't feel bad. There was a time I didn't realize what AV meant either. Providence would have it that I bought a Cambridge copy of the KJV Apocrypha (the red copy) and it was titled "Authorized (King James) Version". Upon seeing the title I made the connection...A.V.


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

jawyman said:


> GMcClain20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does "Reading Level 8" mean? 8th grade level?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KJV has a reading level of twelve, because of the difficulty of the English used. I ran across this note from a website called, sundayschoolresources.com, and the they state regarding the NASB, KJV, NRSV, and the NKJV:
> 
> The difficult reading level of these Bible translations prevents us from recommending these translations for children. While some may consider the NKJV to be written at a Medium Reading Level, we think it is too difficult for children to read...
Click to expand...


Forgive me, but that is hogwash! 

I was memorizing the NKJV at age 7 (in AWANA, but we won't go there).

I do agree that the KJV is difficult to memorize, but children *did* memorize it at one time.


----------



## GTMOPC

I thought most people _liked_ the KJV for its easily memorized verse!? At least that is my opinion. The language kind of sticks in your head, even if you don't quite understand it as a kid. Although I haven't attempted memorizing any other version.


----------



## jawyman

GMcClain20 said:


> I thought most people _liked_ the KJV for its easily memorized verse!? At least that is my opinion. The language kind of sticks in your head, even if you don't quite understand it as a kid. Although I haven't attempted memorizing any other version.



I guess I would ask what the point would be to memorise something that you don't understand. It is like asking someone, Sprechen Sie Deutsch, yet you don't speak German yourself.


----------



## Hamalas

I'm really enjoying this thread! I'm just struck by God's grace in blessing us with so many essentially literal translations. The very fact that we can discuss which one of our _many_ Bibles is the best is truly blessing. Especially in light of our many Brothers and Sisters that do not even have access to a _bad_ translation. Praise be to God!


----------



## GTMOPC

My point wasn't that it was just beneficial to be able to memorize it and that understanding was irrelevant. Rather that the language and style added a dimension that that wasn't purely conceptual. Like a catchy song. You don't have to be conscious of the meaning of the song in order to recite it. I memorized some of the harder Pauline passages before I understood fully what he was saying. It helped to be able to call the verse to mind as I studied what it meant.


----------



## tellville

I love The Message. It's inerrant translation, it's majestic beauty, it's brilliant prose, it's memorizing cadence, it's flawless textual tradition. It makes the more formal translations seem like cheap copies. I hear that The Message even corrects the original Greek and Hebrew. Even John Calvin foretold of a great translation which would enter the English tongue and that it would be called "The Message". I am in tears right now at how precious The Message really is.

Why read the ESV when one can be enveloped by the comforting and awesome force of The Message?


----------



## Honor

ummm ok.
I got an ESV Study Bible for Christmas and it's GREAT!!! I LOVE it!!! glad you like it too.


----------



## Grymir

Ahh, but the KJV reads like a Shakespearian play in it's grand style!

I have to be a voice for the KJV here. I'm still hooked on it. I was a total loser when I picked it up and read it cover to cover. And it converted me. And if an idiot liberal like me could understand it...well... When I pick up another version to read it, they read like a Dick and Jane book. (I'm not an idiot liberal anymore, but that's another story)

There's something about the KJV that no other translation has. I even got the Geneva Bible. It's siren song of it's translation and history lured me, but it's not the King Jimmy. So I stuck with my first love. Using the KJV is like wielding Stormbringer. The others, like a wooden katana.

But I recently got the Reformation ESV from Ligonier during their special. It's not bad. I have compaired it to my KJV. The structure seems similar. So, if you are going to leave your first love, you could do worse. Much worse.


----------



## GTMOPC

The KJV still has a warm place in my heart. But I have become something of a translation polygamist. One translation just isn't enough.


----------



## Grymir

GMcClain20 said:


> I have become something of a translation polygamist.


----------



## satz

Grymir said:


> Using the KJV is like wielding Stormbringer. The others, like a wooden katana.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

wturri78 said:


> I probably don't understand what's behind the translation, but the ESV has a few oddly worded passages that seem to sound as if the translators are somehow trying to sound more impressive, or "smarter" or something. For example I was just reading in 1 Samuel, where God calls out to Samuel, and he answers "Here am I." Or in Mary's "magnificat," where she says "the rich he has sent empty away." If they were going for modern English, why the awkward ordering that no modern speaker would ever use? Those kind of hit me between the eyes.
> 
> I also use the NASB and NKJV pretty extensively. It's probably due to my age, but I really never spent much time in KJV.


Thus must be what them smart people call "poetic" or "worshipful" or "beautiful" language. They must have had an English professor on the committee. Some people have this notion that God should be approached with awe or "fear" or something. I don't know why, but they seem to think it's wrong for the Bible to sound like a TV commercial.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I started out with the KJV in my teen years, then switched to the NIV for a few years. About a year after I became Reformed, I switched to the NKJV and kept that for about 10 years. In seminary I switched to the ESV, largely because of it's style. But I also compared it and the NKJV in my language studies in seminary and just found the ESV to be more consistent. It really does a good job trying to translate word for word in a way that isn't forced or awkard but more natural. It's certainly not perfect, as shown by some passages noted above. But overall I have enjoyed it.


----------



## Okinawamama

Honor said:


> I got an ESV Study Bible for Christmas and it's GREAT!!! I LOVE it!!! glad you like it too.



I got one too, and I agree, it's great!


----------



## Igor

Okinawamama said:


> Honor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got an ESV Study Bible for Christmas and it's GREAT!!! I LOVE it!!! glad you like it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got one too, and I agree, it's great!
Click to expand...

I ordered the same just yesterday, but will be able to enjoy it next month only - it takes a while to get where I live...


----------



## matthew11v25

Peter H said:


> wturri78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I probably don't understand what's behind the translation, but the ESV has a few oddly worded passages that seem to sound as if the translators are somehow trying to sound more impressive, or "smarter" or something. For example I was just reading in 1 Samuel, where God calls out to Samuel, and he answers "Here am I." Or in Mary's "magnificat," where she says "the rich he has sent empty away." If they were going for modern English, why the awkward ordering that no modern speaker would ever use? Those kind of hit me between the eyes.
> 
> I also use the NASB and NKJV pretty extensively. It's probably due to my age, but I really never spent much time in KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus must be what them smart people call "poetic" or "worshipful" or "beautiful" language. They must have had an English professor on the committee. Some people have this notion that God should be approached with awe or "fear" or something. I don't know why, but they seem to think it's wrong for the Bible to sound like a TV commercial.
Click to expand...


Strong arguments can be made on both sides. Many English buffs I know would not side with the ESV on a lot of its renderings...the argument partially comes down to what makes "good english" and is "worshipful language" really what we think it is?

Not coming from a KJV background, I found the NKJV and NASB a much smoother read than the ESV. Although the ESV has been my main translation since I came into the faith. Since then I have also used the HCSB, NIV, etc.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Peter H said:


> wturri78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I probably don't understand what's behind the translation, but the ESV has a few oddly worded passages that seem to sound as if the translators are somehow trying to sound more impressive, or "smarter" or something. For example I was just reading in 1 Samuel, where God calls out to Samuel, and he answers "Here am I." Or in Mary's "magnificat," where she says "the rich he has sent empty away." If they were going for modern English, why the awkward ordering that no modern speaker would ever use? Those kind of hit me between the eyes.
> 
> I also use the NASB and NKJV pretty extensively. It's probably due to my age, but I really never spent much time in KJV.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus must be what them smart people call "poetic" or "worshipful" or "beautiful" language. They must have had an English professor on the committee. Some people have this notion that God should be approached with awe or "fear" or something. I don't know why, but they seem to think it's wrong for the Bible to sound like a TV commercial.
Click to expand...


Apparently Yoda helped in some of the translation.


----------



## Zenas

I don't understand having an attachment to a translation, especially to the KJV.

On a related note, I have even less understanding for attempting to PRAY in KJV English. Why is there a need to say "and Thy glory, and glorify Thee" as opposed to "and Your glory, and glorify You."???? A few people I know do it, and I'm almost certain they use the pronouns incorrectly.


----------



## mvdm

Okinawamama said:


> Honor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got an ESV Study Bible for Christmas and it's GREAT!!! I LOVE it!!! glad you like it too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got one too, and I agree, it's great!
Click to expand...



I received it as a gift as well, and yes, it is wonderful.


----------



## PresbyDane

Okay I confess!
Hello! My name is Martin, I also have been using the ESV

Please do not think less of me


----------



## GTMOPC

That's the first step Martin. The truth shall set you free. Now you will, as I did, begin to see the grass _is_ greener on the other side. That is, the ESV side!


----------



## PresbyDane

Thanks it just feels better getting it of your chest.
Now I do not have to carry it around in a brown paper-bag.
And only read it in badly lit backrooms to churches.
Now I can be proud of my new love, since I am no longer alone.
Thanks for your strength and showing me the way


----------



## Hamalas

tellville said:


> I love The Message. It's inerrant translation, it's majestic beauty, it's brilliant prose, it's memorizing cadence, it's flawless textual tradition. It makes the more formal translations seem like cheap copies. I hear that The Message even corrects the original Greek and Hebrew. Even John Calvin foretold of a great translation which would enter the English tongue and that it would be called "The Message". I am in tears right now at how precious The Message really is.
> 
> Why read the ESV when one can be enveloped by the comforting and awesome force of The Message?



 Wait....you were joking right?


----------



## GTMOPC

Martin Marsh said:


> Thanks it just feels better getting it of your chest.
> Now I do not have to carry it around in a brown paper-bag.
> And only read it in badly lit backrooms to churches.
> Now I can be proud of my new love, since I am no longer alone.
> Thanks for your strength and showing me the way



You are most welcome.

Embrace the dark side young Skywalker!

-----Added 1/2/2009 at 12:49:53 EST-----



Hamalas said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love The Message. It's inerrant translation, it's majestic beauty, it's brilliant prose, it's memorizing cadence, it's flawless textual tradition. It makes the more formal translations seem like cheap copies. I hear that The Message even corrects the original Greek and Hebrew. Even John Calvin foretold of a great translation which would enter the English tongue and that it would be called "The Message". I am in tears right now at how precious The Message really is.
> 
> Why read the ESV when one can be enveloped by the comforting and awesome force of The Message?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....you were joking right?
Click to expand...


I hope so!?!


----------



## he beholds

victorbravo said:


> OK, I'm a curmudgeon and a spoiled sport, but everytime an ESV thread comes up, if I have the energy, I have to point out Hebrews 11:31.
> 
> ESV: By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had *given a friendly welcome *to the spies.
> 
> 
> AV: By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
> 
> The word is εἰρήνης (irenes)--peace, not "friendly." It doesn't matter which Greek text you use, it's the same.
> 
> Every other translation uses some variation of "received with peace." Why oh why did the ESV decide to put a Mae West spin on the passage, especially because it purports to be a formal equivalent?
> 
> Nit-picky, yes, but I just bugs me to see someone's (dare I say joking or playful?) fingerprints on the text.




I personally prefer the word "peace, but I can see a little bit why they may have chosen "friendly welcome."

I think the bigger question is were those that perished people who "believed not," or people who were "disobedient?" 
*
Maybe* in both word changes _peace/friendly_ and _believed not/disobedient_ the meanings are the same.


----------



## Zenas

I'm anxiously awaiting the "l33t sp33k" translation. 

(If you think I'm kidding about that translation existing, I'm not. I am kidding about waiting for it though.)


----------



## Pilgrim

Calvinist Cowboy said:


> jawyman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GMcClain20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does "Reading Level 8" mean? 8th grade level?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KJV has a reading level of twelve, because of the difficulty of the English used. I ran across this note from a website called, sundayschoolresources.com, and the they state regarding the NASB, KJV, NRSV, and the NKJV:
> 
> The difficult reading level of these Bible translations prevents us from recommending these translations for children. While some may consider the NKJV to be written at a Medium Reading Level, we think it is too difficult for children to read...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forgive me, but that is hogwash!
> 
> I was memorizing the NKJV at age 7 (in AWANA, but we won't go there).
> 
> I do agree that the KJV is difficult to memorize, but children *did* memorize it at one time.
Click to expand...


The KJV may be hard for children to *understand*, but it is probably easier to memorize. And as has been pointed out AWANA uses the NKJV. I think that Michael Marlowe makes a good point here: 



> The concept of propitiation is made more difficult to teach because there is not a _word_ for it in the NIV. And aside from such inconveniences to theological exposition, the idiomatic style seemed to make the sacred text less impressive and less memorable than most conservatives would prefer. As Professor Wallace said, "It is so readable that it has no memorable expressions, nothing that lingers in the mind. This is a serious problem for the NIV that is not always acknowledged."


----------



## tellville

Hamalas said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love The Message. It's inerrant translation, it's majestic beauty, it's brilliant prose, it's memorizing cadence, it's flawless textual tradition. It makes the more formal translations seem like cheap copies. I hear that The Message even corrects the original Greek and Hebrew. Even John Calvin foretold of a great translation which would enter the English tongue and that it would be called "The Message". I am in tears right now at how precious The Message really is.
> 
> Why read the ESV when one can be enveloped by the comforting and awesome force of The Message?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....you were joking right?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I don't know what brought it on  I've read so many of these "I love the ESV" "I love the NKJV" "I want the KJV to have my children" type threads (I might have even written one way back some time, though I'm not sure) I thought I would rebel and write one about The Message. 

I'm not against dynamic translations but I think The Message fails even by its own standards of a paraphrase. Because the English is so "today" (early 90s) it is already becoming out of date even more than the KJV is! (well, maybe not that much, but you get my point). 

Anyway, it was just meant as humour and not against anyone or anything.


----------



## GTMOPC

tellville said:


> "I want the KJV to have my children"




 I think that encapsulates my ESV sentiment perfectly! Thank you for putting it into words.


----------



## Igor

tellville said:


> Because the English is so "today" (early 90s) it is already becoming out of date even more than the KJV is! (well, maybe not that much, but you get my point).


Exactly. I wonder how long will it take for any translation in "today's" English to become out of date and fall into disuse, especially if another "more today" translation is out? My favorite NIV, for example - will it last for another ten or twenty years?
Perhaps that is the true reason why many still prefer to memorize from the old good KJV: nobody wants to re-memorize his favorite passages after a while...


----------



## GTMOPC

As long as one remains reformed, God willing, he will most likely see the ESV for years to come. The great influence it has had in such a short span of time is unparalleled as far as I know. I think it's to ingrained in reformed culture to die quickly like other translations. That's my prediction anyhow, and it wasn't even a 'word from the Lord'!


----------



## Stomata leontôn

Zenas said:


> I don't understand having an attachment to a translation, especially to the KJV.
> 
> On a related note, I have even less understanding for attempting to PRAY in KJV English. Why is there a need to say "and Thy glory, and glorify Thee" as opposed to "and Your glory, and glorify You."???? A few people I know do it, and I'm almost certain they use the pronouns incorrectly.


I see this as an issue of how we take salvation. Does God come down to us and leave us there, or does he come down to us and bring us up? Put a few other ways, does our commitment to Christ stop there, or does the Holy Ghost sanctify? Did the Lord come down to the dirty fisherman and preach only, or did he also bring them to heaven? Is the Lord's purely incarnational or is it also resurrecting? 

So when I read the Bible, it is not just for intellectual information but also an act of worship. I think that's why we all here read our Bibles everyday; we already know what it says, but each time something new hits us, and that is worship. That's why knuckleheads like me still think the KJV is best; the language gets me to think in God-focussed ways, the language uplifts my soul, and sets it on higher things. Language can play music when rightly tuned. We get prose everyday, but poetry, such as the KJV's language, is something transcendent. It sets apart, it is sacred, and the glory cloud draweth nigh.

On the other hand, of course I ordered a copy of the ESV study Bible from Ligonier, he he!


----------



## kvanlaan

> Originally Posted by tellville
> I love The Message. It's inerrant translation, it's majestic beauty, it's brilliant prose, it's memorizing cadence, it's flawless textual tradition. It makes the more formal translations seem like cheap copies. I hear that The Message even corrects the original Greek and Hebrew. Even John Calvin foretold of a great translation which would enter the English tongue and that it would be called "The Message". I am in tears right now at how precious The Message really is.
> 
> Why read the ESV when one can be enveloped by the comforting and awesome force of The Message?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....you were joking right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't know what brought it on I've read so many of these "I love the ESV" "I love the NKJV" "I want the KJV to have my children" type threads (I might have even written one way back some time, though I'm not sure) I thought I would rebel and write one about The Message.
> 
> I'm not against dynamic translations but I think The Message fails even by its own standards of a paraphrase. Because the English is so "today" (early 90s) it is already becoming out of date even more than the KJV is! (well, maybe not that much, but you get my point).
> 
> Anyway, it was just meant as humour and not against anyone or anything.
Click to expand...


Such a shame; I was already gathering firewood...


----------



## GTMOPC

Peter H said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand having an attachment to a translation, especially to the KJV.
> 
> On a related note, I have even less understanding for attempting to PRAY in KJV English. Why is there a need to say "and Thy glory, and glorify Thee" as opposed to "and Your glory, and glorify You."???? A few people I know do it, and I'm almost certain they use the pronouns incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> I see this as an issue of how we take salvation. Does God come down to us and leave us there, or does he come down to us and bring us up? Put a few other ways, does our commitment to Christ stop there, or does the Holy Ghost sanctify? Did the Lord come down to the dirty fisherman and preach only, or did he also bring them to heaven? Is the Lord's purely incarnational or is it also resurrecting?
> 
> So when I read the Bible, it is not just for intellectual information but also an act of worship. I think that's why we all here read our Bibles everyday; we already know what it says, but each time something new hits us, and that is worship. That's why knuckleheads like me still think the KJV is best; the language gets me to think in God-focussed ways, the language uplifts my soul, and sets it on higher things. Language can play music when rightly tuned. We get prose everyday, but poetry, such as the KJV's language, is something transcendent. It sets apart, it is sacred, and the glory cloud draweth nigh.
> 
> On the other hand, of course I ordered a copy of the ESV study Bible from Ligonier, he he!
Click to expand...


Reading your comments got me to thinking. I know this has been covered elsewhere probably more than once but I believe it is relevant based on the topic of this thread. At what point do we stop worshipping the Christ of the Bible and start worshipping the Bible...or worse our favorite translation? Jesus Christ being the Logos, the Eternal Word certainly ties in here but I won't venture to theologize. What of it? Is it idolatry to read a particular version because makes us feel good? Because it stirs our soul?


----------



## Rangerus

I have been "faithful" to the New King James Version for several years now. To me it is just like the KJV, but without the ye, thee, and thou's. 

I find it helps to study other translations for a different perspective. To me the English language tends to be somewhat prohibitive in availability of word choices and some authors interpret word meanings differently. 

That is why we have smiley faces.


----------



## Hamalas

kvanlaan said:


> Wait....you were joking right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't know what brought it on I've read so many of these "I love the ESV" "I love the NKJV" "I want the KJV to have my children" type threads (I might have even written one way back some time, though I'm not sure) I thought I would rebel and write one about The Message.
> 
> I'm not against dynamic translations but I think The Message fails even by its own standards of a paraphrase. Because the English is so "today" (early 90s) it is already becoming out of date even more than the KJV is! (well, maybe not that much, but you get my point).
> 
> Anyway, it was just meant as humour and not against anyone or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such a shame; I was already gathering firewood...
Click to expand...


----------



## Whitefield

GMcClain20 said:


> As long as one remains reformed, God willing, he will most likely see the ESV for years to come. The great influence it has had in such a short span of time is unparalleled as far as I know. I think it's to ingrained in reformed culture to die quickly like other translations. That's my prediction anyhow, and it wasn't even a 'word from the Lord'!



I await the ESV Only movement.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

GMcClain20 said:


> Peter H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand having an attachment to a translation, especially to the KJV.
> 
> On a related note, I have even less understanding for attempting to PRAY in KJV English. Why is there a need to say "and Thy glory, and glorify Thee" as opposed to "and Your glory, and glorify You."???? A few people I know do it, and I'm almost certain they use the pronouns incorrectly.
> 
> 
> 
> I see this as an issue of how we take salvation. Does God come down to us and leave us there, or does he come down to us and bring us up? Put a few other ways, does our commitment to Christ stop there, or does the Holy Ghost sanctify? Did the Lord come down to the dirty fisherman and preach only, or did he also bring them to heaven? Is the Lord's purely incarnational or is it also resurrecting?
> 
> So when I read the Bible, it is not just for intellectual information but also an act of worship. I think that's why we all here read our Bibles everyday; we already know what it says, but each time something new hits us, and that is worship. That's why knuckleheads like me still think the KJV is best; the language gets me to think in God-focussed ways, the language uplifts my soul, and sets it on higher things. Language can play music when rightly tuned. We get prose everyday, but poetry, such as the KJV's language, is something transcendent. It sets apart, it is sacred, and the glory cloud draweth nigh.
> 
> On the other hand, of course I ordered a copy of the ESV study Bible from Ligonier, he he!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading your comments got me to thinking. I know this has been covered elsewhere probably more than once but I believe it is relevant based on the topic of this thread. At what point do we stop worshipping the Christ of the Bible and start worshipping the Bible...or worse our favorite translation? Jesus Christ being the Logos, the Eternal Word certainly ties in here but I won't venture to theologize. What of it? Is it idolatry to read a particular version because makes us feel good? Because it stirs our soul?
Click to expand...


Which version gets you to focus more on God? Which gets you to be more worshipful of Him?


----------



## DMcFadden

I knew an ABC (Baptist) pastor for youth who only preached out of the KJV because he said that it got him a higher rate of "decisions." 

[Actually that is a TRUE story. The man's widow lives in my retirement community]

This has been talked to death on the PB in many threads. But, here is my "cut to the chase" version.

If you want a Critical Text, then go along with Al Mohler and stick to the ESV, NASB, or HCSB.

If you want a Majority Text translation, go with the KJV or the NKJV (or Geneva).

Yes, the ESV is a "revision" of the RSV, but not a cosmetic one where you put the lipstick on the proverbial pig. The RSV was afflicted by a plethora of scholarly guesses and second guessing as to the "original" word in a text (i.e., "conjectural emmendations"). It was also translated by some with a rather liberal bias. The ESV cleans up the mess while following the RSV tradition of updating the language of the KJV while maintaining the dignity and cadances of the lyric poetry in it.

Last month Mohler reviewed Bibles prior to Chirstmas. In the Study Bible category, he recommended the following: ESV Study Bible (newest and the bestest of the bestest), NASB MacArthur Study Bible, or the HCSB Apologetics Study Bible.

My personal preferences for CT based translations run as follows:

1. ESV Study Bible
2. Reformation Study Bible (ESV)
3. Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (even though it is NIV)
4. Apologetics Study Bible (HCSB)

Despite the fact that "methinks he doth protest too much" and probably is a secret "Good News for Modern Man," "Living Bible," "Celebrate Recovery Bible," "Maxwell Leadership Bible," or "Self Help Bible" (NLT) devotee, our Grymir (aka Timothy) (who probably reads Barth by flashlight under the covers) earns my respect for his KJV/NKJV devotion.

Bottom line: ANY Bible is better than NO Bible. But, among the many good English translations, we are blessed to have the ESV, NASB, and HCSB among the Critical Text types, and the KJV, NKJV, and Geneva among the Majority Text types.

With the ESV and Reformation Study Bibles on the market, we are amazingly blessed!


----------



## Grymir

Thanks, but I read Barth by candlelight, it's more spooky that way.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Zenas said:


> I'm anxiously awaiting the "l33t sp33k" translation.
> 
> (If you think I'm kidding about that translation existing, I'm not. I am kidding about waiting for it though.)



O noez!


----------



## Grymir

Oh yes, and here it is. A link to the "l33t sp33k" translation, in case anybody wants to read about the ceiling cat!

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project


----------



## discipulo

Grymir said:


> Oh yes, and here it is. A link to the "l33t sp33k" translation, in case anybody wants to read about the ceiling cat!
> 
> Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project



If wouldn’t see for myself….....I just hope that those dudes from ceiling cat or whatever it is, after all that stupid work, by God’s Grace may tremble at His True Word and convert.

There is here in Lisbon a man, who when he was a Catholic, copied an entire Bible in his Handwriting, when he finished, somehow God lead him to a Conservative Baptist Church and converted him.

sorry clearly off topic above

so I just add a couple of sites with resources on the Bible and Translations that eventually will be helpful.

http://www.ccel.org/olb/tolbss/components/commentaries/com-ofc.html Geneva Bible Footnotes and several Commentaries

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1&version=47 Bible Versions

http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm Bible Versions

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0001417 Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words


----------



## GTMOPC

Grymir said:


> Oh yes, and here it is. A link to the "l33t sp33k" translation, in case anybody wants to read about the ceiling cat!
> 
> Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project



Grymir - I meant to quote you but I accidentally thanked you!!! I read through some of Genesis and all I can say is...."I twat I saw a poody tat."

Are you serious? Does this guy just have nothing constructive to do with his time?


----------



## tellville

Grymir said:


> Oh yes, and here it is. A link to the "l33t sp33k" translation, in case anybody wants to read about the ceiling cat!
> 
> Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project



I talk to my youth all the time on MSN. Thus, I am fluent in lolspeak. That is exactly how many of them talk on MSN  Lolspeak is even begining to enter everyday conversation with some of the youth. I wouldn't be surpised if a 100 years from now it was a lot more common to talk that way. Of course, that's assuming the QWERTY keyboard stays the standard way to communicate over the internet.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

My reservations concerning the RSV/ESV are not primarily textual (though I have issues there as well), but whether or not it is the perorgative of a publishing company to produce a Bible.

The Scriptures are the particular treasure of the Church. Consequently, to place the translation of the Scriptures into a para-church organization, a publishing company, or a Bible Society is contrary to the Church's mission to be the pillar and ground of the truth. It is the responsibility of the Church to translate the Scriptures, and to abrogate that responsibility and turn it over to an organization outside of the church is irresponsible to say the least.

The RSV translation a brief history:

The International Council of Religious Education (ICRE) used the 17th edition of Nestle-Aland for its Greek Text. There are about 8,000 differences between Nestle-Aland and the Textus Receptus. For its Hebrew text ICRE used the standard Masoretic text supplemented by readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The ICRE would later merge with another group to form the National Council of Churches of Christ.

The RSV was accepted among liberal scholars as an excellent translation. It was almost universally rejected by conservatives and far right wing "KJO" radicals as corrupt. Because far right wing radicals were so pugnacious and vociferous in their condemnations legitimate criticisms of the RSV were essentially rebuffed.

In comparing the RSV to the Greek and Hebrew there is little doubt that the translators were on a liberalizing trend. The original RSV left out the last verses in Mark, John 7:53-8:11, and Luke 22:19b-20. These were the major redactions from the Greek text. What stirred conservatives and the radicals even more was an apparent trend on the part of the RSV to deny the Virgin Birth of Christ. Passages such as Genesis 22:18, Psalm 16:10, and, especially, Isaiah 7:14 were weakened by the RSV translators as support texts for the Virgin Birth. In 1971 the translation committee restored most of these verses, but they took out Luke 22:43,44 and placed it in a footnote.

The damage had been done, however, and the RSV is generally looked upon as a liberal translation. Among liberals it is considered "scholarly," and it is often referred to in such a manner. As far as the translation goes the RSV tends more towards Formal Equivalance than to the Dynamic theory. In many places it tends to be more literal than the KJV.

The NRSV was an attempt to satisfy the critics of the RSV, but it never really made much of an impact. The hyper-literal translation showed the inadequacies of Nestle-Aland Greek text in too stark a fashion.

The English Standard Version:

The ESV is a revision of the RSV - it is not directly derived from the Hebrew and Greek. The revision was done on a deeper level, and on more conservative grounds, than what was done before. Essentially, Crossway Books purchased the rights to the RSV from the NCCC for about $625,000. They then turned the text over to some conservative scholars in order to "fix" obvious errors in the text. Here is a section from the ESV website:



> The Historic Legacy of the ESV
> The ESV stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression.
> 
> The words and phrases of the ESV grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for the ESV text. Archaic language was brought to current usage and significant corrections were made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, the translators’ goal was to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries. From KJV to ESV: A Historical Legacy


This is not entirely true. The Nestle-Aland Greek text does not stand within the mainstream of Greek texts in the English translations of the Bible. Tyndale certainly would never have recognized it, and the King James translators never used it either. However, this first paragraph makes you feel nice and warm and cozy does it not?

They then tell you that the words and phrases of the ESV grew "out of the Tyndale-King James legacy." What they then say is that "archaic words" such as "thou" and "thee" were taken out. They did do this, but it makes their translation less specific to the Greek text. In Greek there is a second person singular as the object of the verb or preposition which is correctly translated into English as "thee." For example, "We beseech thee O Lord." The difference between using "thee" and "you" is admittedly slight, but there is a difference. "Thou" is also used in reference to the singular subject of a verb, and is specific in Greek.

To be less obtuse: "thee" and "thou" are in the singular, and are used in Early Modern English in the singular "Thou hast said so." The word "you" was understood in the plural, and would be correctly translated today in the Southern accent as "You all" or "Y'all"  Thus, if the author was using the singular it would be correctly translated as "thou" or "thee," and the plural would be "you." To now translate all the instances of the singular into "you" is to step away slightly from the Greek. The magnitude of the implications of this difference between the KJV and the ESV I leave in your hands. To me it is mild at best. However, I think we should be aware that there is a difference here, and that difference does not recommend the RV/ESV as being completely accurate.

As far as Letis is concerned - here are his comments on SermonAudio:

SermonAudio.com - The So-called English Standard Version

Personally, I find it very disturbing that Crossway Books purchased from the National Council of Churches of Christ the rights to the RV. The NCC is the most liberal Protestant group in the United States. They support the NSTA in promoting the teaching of Evolution in public schools, and the suppression of Creationism. They are openly committed to Gay rights. They are in the forefront of the Ecumenical movement. They promote feminism in its wrong application of "egalitarianism" and actively support female pastors. They are in the politically left, and refuse to criticize communist countries especially when such countries violate their own code of civil rights!

In everything the NCC teaches and promotes that which is contrary to the Scriptures in society today. I cannot in good conscience support such an organization, even indirectly, by purchasing the ESV. Here is a pro-NCC article describing the fact that Crossway Books actually helped the NCC to stay solvent:

New funds boost NCC | Christian Century | Find Articles at BNET

We do not need the ESV - there are better translations out there.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## matthew11v25

I think the Spirit Of The Reformation Study Bible is by far the best SB available on the market. Mainly for the fact that it includes the confessions, etc. And the size is still manageable. The ESV SB in my opinion is TOO big...I keep it on my desk and that as far as it goes.


----------



## GTMOPC

Rob - I hear what you are saying and I agree that some of the things you have said are troubling. But there are others who have countered these arguments to some degree I think. I don't have the authority or knowledge to judge your arguments, nor the opposing arguments. So with that said I'm not going to call my side on the issue.

You seem to have given this some serious thought and research. Based on that assumption, why do _you_ feel the ESV has been so well received in the reformed community? I've asked this question already within this thread but I'd like to hear what you have to say. With the concerns you have raised it seems odd that the ESV has been so warmly embraced. If there is warrant in what you argue I don't see how we can chock it up to great marketing. The reformed community surely is one of the least susceptible people groups when it comes to advertising. I qualify this last statement by limiting it to matters of faith and academics. I'd like to think we reformed folk usually see the error coming and rarely get surprised by such things as sub par translations or shoddy theology.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Call me contrarian or paranoid or conspiratorial but I think some in the evangelical and Reformed world have a lot _personally_ invested in the "success" of the ESV and act accordingly.


----------



## Galatians220

Rob, thank you. *A thousand thank-yous.*

I was thinking earlier today that it's really too bad about poor schlubs like Owen, Edwards, Dabney, Bunyan, Spurgeon, M'Cheyne, Bonar, _et alia._ They only had flawed, badly written Bibles like the Old Geneva and the 1611 KJ to read and to preach from. Unfortunate, misguided, unprofitable souls.

We've also discovered that God did *not* preserve His every word, as He promised. For 2,000 years, He left His church without a reliable, readable text - until 1881, when the RV came out, and then God did a new and blessed work in 2001, when the ESV was copyrighted and published.

I can't help but notice the remarkable reformation of western civilization that's happened since 1881. What gigantic moral leaps our culture has taken since then! What astounding revival there's been! Especially since 1978 (the NIV). And since 2001 - what frank and beautiful exaltation of Christ has occurred in this country, in the U.K., and in all of Christianity! And we have the NCCC to thank for all of this.

I'm overwhelmed.

I feel (an operative word) now that as long as I'm reading the same Bible that anyone born after 1930 reads/has edited, I'm cool. So words have been changed... It's how they sound or read that matters, not what they say. Words don't mean things and we can get _whatever_ meaning we want out of _whatever _words. (Hence the disposition of my earlier post on this thread into the discursive hopper.)

Bottom line: there is way too much money to be made by tweaking the Bible (*which* Bible?!) to get a new copyright and in having certain organizations throw their weight and marketing potential behind such tweaking.

I've said enough.

Blessings to all,

Margaret


----------



## GTMOPC

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Call me contrarian or paranoid or conspiratorial but I think some in the evangelical and Reformed world have a lot _personally_ invested in the "success" of the ESV and act accordingly.





You are not insinuating that it's "all bout the Benjamin's" are you?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

to Margaret.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 10:52:01 EST-----



GMcClain20 said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call me contrarian or paranoid or conspiratorial but I think some in the evangelical and Reformed world have a lot _personally_ invested in the "success" of the ESV and act accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not insinuating that it's "all bout the Benjamin's" are you?
Click to expand...


They certainly play a part.


----------



## Grymir




----------



## GTMOPC

Grymir said:


>



Grymir - You must be dieing to add something here. Shall you sit idly by when you could so easily insert a KJV plug?

------

For the record, as I mentioned earlier, I still love the KJV. I just have come to find a place for the ESV to. I agree that if the Geneva, KJV, etc were good enough for the puritans then they ought to serve us just as well. But does that necessarily command that we be KJV only's (or whatever trans. we prefer)? Or put in another way is historicity the best argument?


----------



## Galatians220

When "historicity" has the Holy Spirit and centuries of God's church on earth being blessed to back it up, yes, it is part and parcel of "the best" argument.

If there's anything I've learned over the years, it's that anything that my rank generation (Baby Boomers) and those that followed us do is suspect in almost all aspects as compared to anything (especially Bible translations) that our truly Christian forebears accomplished. 

Margaret


----------



## kvanlaan

> I can't help but notice the remarkable reformation of western civilization that's happened since 1881. What gigantic moral leaps our culture has taken since then! What astounding revival there's been! Especially since 1978 (the NIV). And since 2001 - what frank and beautiful exaltation of Christ has occurred in this country, in the U.K., and in all of Christianity! And we have the NCCC to thank for all of this.



This comment seems a parallel to the general trend in Christianity/'spirituality of a Christian nature'. It used to be that such movements would take pains to distance themselves from the true visible church. But now it seems much more expedient to muddy the waters with every Tom, Dick, and Harry that starts a spiritual community as a 'church' with some tenuous link to Christ (ie Joel Osteen). Today we have a lot more people (for example, the Emergents) saying "well, I'm Christian too, and I think that the bible says lots of good things about a committed homosexual relationship". "Well, I'm Christian too (insert heresy/heterodox statment here)" is a lot harder to weed out than Richard Dawkins or Islam commenting on Christian doctrine.

Same with the myriad translations coming out (Living Bible, NLT, etc. is what I am thinking here). It is much more effective to obfuscate (even in a tiny way - think tiny tugboat pushing a supertanker) and confuse than it is to outrightly suppress the truth. 

Sorry, a little 

Also:


> (who probably reads Barth by flashlight under the covers)


 just about killed me!


----------



## DMcFadden

> My reservations concerning the RSV/ESV are not primarily textual (though I have issues there as well), but whether or not it is the perorgative of a publishing company to produce a Bible.



Interesting point. However, regardless of the merits of the case, publishing houses (e.g., Zondervan, Crossway, et. al.) publish our Bibles today. As far as translations, even the ones done under quasi ecclesiastical auspices seem to be done by para-church organizations. Hmmmm. 



> The RSV translation a brief history:
> The International Council of Religious Education (ICRE) used the 17th edition of Nestle-Aland for its Greek Text. There are about 8,000 differences between Nestle-Aland and the Textus Receptus.



I thought your concerns were not primarily textual??? For the benefit of those on the PB who have not taken Greek and Hebrew, the *same* argument about the differences from the Textus Receptus could be made against the NIV, NASB, and virtually EVERY English translation other than the KJV, NKJV, and any "majority text" English translation. So, unless you want to turn this into a KJVO or TR superiority thread, the 8,000 differences between the Nestle-Aland (the text behind virtually ALL of the English translations on the market OTHER than the KJV and NKJV) are irrelevant to the "brief history" of the RSV.



> The RSV was accepted among liberal scholars as an excellent translation. It was almost universally rejected by conservatives and far right wing "KJO" radicals as corrupt. Because far right wing radicals were so pugnacious and vociferous in their condemnations legitimate criticisms of the RSV were essentially rebuffed.



Again, it depends on how you define conservatives. People like Grudem and Piper used the RSV often. They did NOT approve of the liberalizing tendencies nor the proclivity for willy-nilly conjectural emmandations. Hence, the ESV.



> In comparing the RSV to the Greek and Hebrew there is little doubt that the translators were on a liberalizing trend. The original RSV left out the last verses in Mark, John 7:53-8:11, and Luke 22:19b-20. These were the major redactions from the Greek text.



Again, you can only call this "liberalizing" if you apply it to almost all modern English translations OTHER than the NKJV. Regardless of the liberalism in the NCC (which I fully agree with you about), how can we blame them for doing with the Marcan ending what the "conservative" translations also do? If would be like suggesting that eating steak is a liberalizing trend since people in the NCC also eat steak. 



> As far as the translation goes the RSV tends more towards Formal Equivalance than to the Dynamic theory. In many places it tends to be more literal than the KJV.



Exactly! That is why Packer, Grudem, and Piper got so excited about the ESV project and why Mohler cites it as one of his three trusted translations (ESV, NASB, and HCSB). It took the traditional beauty of the KJV, carried out the task according to the opinion by the vast majority of textual critics of both liberal and conservative stripe that the Nestle-Aland Greek text was an improvement over the Textus Receptus, and removed the liberal bias that "corrupted" the RSV.



> The NRSV was an attempt to satisfy the critics of the RSV, but it never really made much of an impact. The hyper-literal translation showed the inadequacies of Nestle-Aland Greek text in too stark a fashion.



The NRSV never made much of an impact for different reasons. 1. The market was full of conservative Bibles that appealed to the people who actually buy Bibles these days (i.e., "believers" not apostates); 2. The primary purpose of the NRSV was to create a gender neutral "update" to the RSV. 



> The ESV is a revision of the RSV - it is not directly derived from the Hebrew and Greek. The revision was done on a deeper level, and on more conservative grounds, than what was done before.



Yes, but . . . 
The RSV *was* a careful, albeit somewhat tendentious, rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek. The ESV was aimed at cleaning up the places where liberal bias corrupted the translation, updating it in terms of scholarship done since the original translation work, and casting the whole into language both traditional and contemporary (e.g., during the decades since the RSV, certain words can no longer be used in English without creating misunderstandings, for example try using "gay" today with the meaning of happy as it was in my youth).



> Essentially, Crossway Books purchased the rights to the RSV from the NCCC for about $625,000. They then turned the text over to some conservative scholars in order to "fix" obvious errors in the text.


Much of the RSV was a VERY good work indeed. However, it needed "fixing." As much as I hate to pay a penny to the heretics and apostates in the NCCC, purchasing the rights to what they legally owned was an honorable and legally necessary thing to do. My guess is that the ESV was produced for a far smaller outlay of money because of it and in a MUCH timlier fashion.

The fact is, the RSV was not the God honoring translation that the ESV is. Praise the Lord that we have such a fine formal correspondance translation on the market that is blessing God's people. Talk about "spoiling the Egyptians." Here is a Bible that languished in the clutches of the mainline until orthodox (mainly Reformed) folks rescued it and fixed it for us all.


----------



## bookslover

CalvinandHodges said:


> The ESV is a revision of the RSV...



Just to pick one little nit: the ESV is a revision of the 1971 revision of the RSV.


----------



## DMcFadden

Galatians220 said:


> Rob, thank you. *A thousand thank-yous.*
> 
> I was thinking earlier today that it's really too bad about poor schlubs like Owen, Edwards, Dabney, Bunyan, Spurgeon, M'Cheyne, Bonar, _et alia._ They only had flawed, badly written Bibles like the Old Geneva and the 1611 KJ to read and to preach from. Unfortunate, misguided, unprofitable souls.



Yikes, Margaret! One could just as easily apply your logic and say that "it's really too bad about poor schlubs like" Augustine, Boethius, Benedict, Boniface, Bede, Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas, Luther (he quoted from the Vulgate throughout his life and ministry) that had to content themselves with "flawed, badly written Bibles" like the Vulgate to "read and to preach from. Unfortunate, misguided, unprofitable souls."

I'll bet you can even find people genuinely converted to Christianity who used the Living Bible! Since when did an imperfect translation keep God from acting in a sovereign manner?

That is no excuse for not continuing to work as hard as possible to produce the best Bible translation possible. Those who hold to the CT view sincerely believe that they are doing just that. Just as the KJV was (in your view) evidently an improvement over the Vulgate and even the Geneva Bible, isn't it possible that the ESV is an improvement (at least in our generation) over the KJV? And, might we have an even more faithful translation in decades to come than any of them produced so far?

Frankly, I find the arguments for the majority text more powerful than they taught me in college and seminary (thank you Jerusalem Blade for confusing me so good!). So, my 1599 Leather Bound Geneva Bible (Calvin Legacy Edition) sits comfortably between my ESV Study Bible and UBS Greek New Testament on my desk. And, a framed leaf out of an original 1599 Geneva Bible adorns the wall behind my desk next to the Synod of Dort poster.


----------



## GTMOPC

Dennis - Thanks for leveling the playing field of this exchange. I've obviously stepped off into the deep end with out swimming lessons. I have hardly begun to study the original texts or the controversy behind them. 

To all who are contributing to this thread, thanks for useful information and viewpoints you are sharing!


----------



## Grymir

GMcClain20 said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grymir - You must be dieing to add something here. Shall you sit idly by when you could so easily insert a KJV plug?
Click to expand...


Hail and Well Met GMcClain20!

I don't want to run afoul of the TR/CT ban. 

But my usage of the KJV and experience is different than most. I get to meet alot of liberal/barthians who are college trained and higher-ups in the church. Alot of the discussions usually degrade to them/someone saying something to the effect of "Well, what does it say in the original Greek/Hebrew". I used to look up the words, but now I usually make them look them up. It almost always agrees with the KJV. That gives the version dependability. Especially when I make them tell me what it means. (They know Greek/Hebrew too, and usually don't have to look it up. They just sigh and say what it says.) With it's more 'technical' wordage, it hasn't let me down or made me look like an idiot. Which is what the libs/barthians look like because their theology isn't supported by the Bible, and I don't want people in my church to be fooled by their 'apparent' niceness.

No, historicity isn't the best argument. Like I said above about the siren's song of the Geneva, but it's not the KJV. I need something that is dependable. It's like when Elric of Melnibone draws Stormbringer. When I use/teach from the King Jimmy, people listen better and argue less about what the 'original Greek/Hebrew say' I'm a lay-person, but something about using the KJV gives my stuff more authority. Hence my Stormbringer comparison. It makes libs run for cover and the cultists are amazed that I use it.

I could wax eloquent about my love of the KJV all day, but I'm also not of the KJV only camp. I like to call myself a 'Real KJV User'. It's not 100% perfect, no translation is. But it's 99.999999% perfect. I mean, in all the squabbling, there are so few verses that are maybe possibly slightly questionable, that it would fill 1/4th of one page. And getting what the Bible says out is more important. If a person isn't going to take the time to learn how to read the KJV for all it's worth, I'd rather they stuck to a plainer version. But even with those, they still need to spend time learning how to read and interpret the Bible. Just look at all the hacks and liberals. And when I weld my trusty KJV, I (A lowly lay-person) am able to confound them 

Any translation has it pluses and minuses. Knowing them is important. I just think (and know) that my KJV has more pluses and fewer minuses than any other.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## tellville

GMcClain20 said:


> For the record, as I mentioned earlier, I still love the KJV. I just have come to find a place for the ESV to. I agree that if the Geneva, KJV, etc were good enough for the puritans then they ought to serve us just as well. But does that necessarily command that we be KJV only's (or whatever trans. we prefer)? Or put in another way is historicity the best argument?



I miss the good ol' Latin Vulgate only days.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Thank you Pastor McFadden for those useful thoughts. I would suggest that the very problem with modern translations has to do with the fact that the Church has abrogated its responsibility as the depository of truth, and has given this responsibility over to organizations that are not under the direct authority of the Church. You seem to think that because this practice is in existence that it is the right thing to do? I cannot make out exactly what you meant when you wrote:



> Interesting point. However, regardless of the merits of the case, publishing houses (e.g., Zondervan, Crossway, et. al.) publish our Bibles today. As far as translations, even the ones done under quasi ecclesiastical auspices seem to be done by para-church organizations.


Just because Zondervan/Crossway and others publish our Bibles does not necessarily mean that they *should* translate or publish them.

You then wrote:



> I thought your concerns were not primarily textual??? For the benefit of those on the PB who have not taken Greek and Hebrew, the *same* argument about the differences from the Textus Receptus could be made against the NIV, NASB, and virtually EVERY English translation other than the KJV, NKJV, and any "majority text" English translation. So, unless you want to turn this into a KJVO or TR superiority thread, the 8,000 differences between the Nestle-Aland (the text behind virtually ALL of the English translations on the market OTHER than the KJV and NKJV) are irrelevant to the "brief history" of the RSV.


I do not wish to make this thread over into a TR vs. CT debate. Thus, I only noted it in passing, and mentioned that my primary interest is not in the Greek texts at this time. I am also aware of the TR/CT ban, and I did not wish to break it. The differences in the Greek text are not irrelevant - because these differences show up in the translations in the RSV and KJV. However, because of the ban I did not wish to pursue this subject any further.

You wrote:



> Again, it depends on how you define conservatives. People like Grudem and Piper used the RSV often. They did NOT approve of the liberalizing tendencies nor the proclivity for willy-nilly conjectural emmandations. Hence, the ESV.


Sure, it depends upon how you define "conservatives." Since the subject concerns Bible translations, then one would define a "conservative" as one who upholds the Traditional text in Greek/English. Consequently, some whom we might label as "liberal" in other categories of Theology may show up as "conservatives" here. Others who may show up as "conservatives" in other categories of Theology may show up as "liberals" here.

You mentioned Grudem and Piper as "conservatives" who "used the RSV often" but if we are counting heads, then here is a short list of "conservatives" who used the KJV or Geneva Bible:

John Owen, John Bunyan, Richard Sibbes, Thomas Goodwin, Samuel Rutherford, William Gurnall, John Flavel, Thomas Boston, James Ussher, George Gillespie, William Twisse, Cornelius Burgess, William Gouge, Robert Harris, Thomas Gattaker, Edward Reynolds, John Arrowsmith, Philip Nye, Jeremiah Burroughs, John Lightfoot, Edmund Calamy,William Greenhill, Joseph caryl, John Dury, Thomas Hill, Dr Edmond Staunton, Anthomny Burges, Alexander Henderson, Robert Baillie, John Wallis, John Brown of Haddington, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Isaac Watts, John Newton, John Howe, Thomas Chalmers, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Robert Lewis Dabney, John Gill, and C.H.Spurgeon

I could go on for pages listing all the "conservative" scholars who used/endorsed the KJV/TR. C. H. Spurgeon is most notable, because the "downgrade" controversy had much to do with the Westcott-Hort principles of textual criticism.

However, I am not moved by the opinion of men - nor should you be either.

Next,



> Again, you can only call this "liberalizing" if you apply it to almost all modern English translations OTHER than the NKJV. Regardless of the liberalism in the NCC (which I fully agree with you about), how can we blame them for doing with the Marcan ending what the "conservative" translations also do? If would be like suggesting that eating steak is a liberalizing trend since people in the NCC also eat steak.


I call it "liberalizing" because all of the modern translations are based off of a Greek text that follows liberal principles. It may be a shock to you but the NIV, RSV, NRSV, and the NASV all follow the "liberalizing" tendencies of the Westcott-Hort principles of textual criticism. 

More importantly, however, none of these translations were authorized by the True Church, and none of them were translated under the authority of the True Church. The NCC is not a church. The International Bible Society is not a church. The Lockman foundation is not a church. Zondervan and Crossway Books are not churches. Nor are any of these organizations answerable to the True Church - but simply to their own selves.

Next,



> Exactly! That is why Packer, Grudem, and Piper got so excited about the ESV project and why Mohler cites it as one of his three trusted translations (ESV, NASB, and HCSB). It took the traditional beauty of the KJV, carried out the task according to the opinion by the vast majority of textual critics of both liberal and conservative stripe that the Nestle-Aland Greek text was an improvement over the Textus Receptus, and removed the liberal bias that "corrupted" the RSV.


I will not be drawn into a TR/CT discussion. The Critical Text was not an attempt to "improve" the Textus Receptus, but to do away with the TR altogether and replace it with the CT. It is impossible to eliminate the liberal bias of the RSV because the liberal bias is founded within the Greek text which they used to translate: NA17. The ESV translators did nothing different when they used Nestle-Aland 26 to "correct" the RSV. Packer, Grudem, and Mohler all had a hand in the translation of the ESV in one way or another.

Here is an article concerning the ESV that I think all should read:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A120.pdf

I think the article addresses well the rest of your post. Before I respond again to a post of yours I would like for you to certify that you have read it in full. Otherwise, I will simply be cutting and pasting from the article, and you will save me (and yourself) a lot of time by first reading it.

Thanks again for the thoughts,

Rob

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 03:30:15 EST-----



tellville said:


> GMcClain20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, as I mentioned earlier, I still love the KJV. I just have come to find a place for the ESV to. I agree that if the Geneva, KJV, etc were good enough for the puritans then they ought to serve us just as well. But does that necessarily command that we be KJV only's (or whatever trans. we prefer)? Or put in another way is historicity the best argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I miss the good ol' Latin Vulgate only days.
Click to expand...


----------



## Galatians220

DMcFadden said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, thank you. *A thousand thank-yous.*
> 
> I was thinking earlier today that it's really too bad about poor schlubs like Owen, Edwards, Dabney, Bunyan, Spurgeon, M'Cheyne, Bonar, _et alia._ They only had flawed, badly written Bibles like the Old Geneva and the 1611 KJ to read and to preach from. Unfortunate, misguided, unprofitable souls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes, Margaret! One could just as easily apply your logic and say that "it's really too bad about poor schlubs like" Augustine, Boethius, Benedict, Boniface, Bede, Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas, Luther (he quoted from the Vulgate throughout his life and ministry) that had to content themselves with "flawed, badly written Bibles" like the Vulgate to "read and to preach from. Unfortunate, misguided, unprofitable souls."
> 
> I'll bet you can even find people genuinely converted to Christianity who used the Living Bible! Since when did an imperfect translation keep God from acting in a sovereign manner?
> 
> That is no excuse for not continuing to work as hard as possible to produce the best Bible translation possible. Those who hold to the CT view sincerely believe that they are doing just that. Just as the KJV was (in your view) evidently an improvement over the Vulgate and even the Geneva Bible, isn't it possible that the ESV is an improvement (at least in our generation) over the KJV? And, might we have an even more faithful translation in decades to come than any of them produced so far?
> 
> Frankly, I find the arguments for the majority text more powerful than they taught me in college and seminary (thank you Jerusalem Blade for confusing me so good!). So, my 1599 Leather Bound Geneva Bible (Calvin Legacy Edition) sits comfortably between my ESV Study Bible and UBS Greek New Testament on my desk. And, a framed leaf out of an original 1599 Geneva Bible adorns the wall behind my desk next to the Synod of Dort poster.
Click to expand...

 
Dennis, you know how much I've enjoyed your posts and your tremendous sense of humor. *You are one of a kind in that area!* (Well, you and Bawb...)  But I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I don't think there's any reason under the sun to "work as hard as possible on (producing)" any more Bible translations.  What kind of towering hubris drives these efforts? Why would anyone get up in the morning and think, _today I'm going to start revising God's word?_

That appalls me. It always has and it always will.

I was converted while reading the NIV; I know God can work sovereignly as to that. But as I dug ever deeper and wanted to know Him better, I gradually and eventually embraced TR versions, in my case, the KJV and the 1599 Geneva.

Thanks to all of these Bible versions, we have a Tower of Babel instead of being able to say definitively, "Thus saith the Lord..." I'll be going to a women's Bible study tonight at which the ladies will have 6 different Bible versions and time will be spent saying, "Carrie, what does the NIV say?" and "Jennifer, how about the New King James Version?" One woman besides me will have a KJV, but we *won't* be asked what it says.  Whatever, dudes.

Who was the first one who sought to "reinterpret" what God said? Back in Genesis it happened, I think. 

I could go on, but I have to get to work.

Dear brother in Christ, thank you for all of the wonderful things I've learned from you and all the laughs, and I hope this all continues. But we're going to have to just leave this one alone and be "happy polar opposites.."  



Blessings to you always,

Margaret


----------



## CalvinandHodges

GMcClain20 said:


> Rob - I hear what you are saying and I agree that some of the things you have said are troubling. But there are others who have countered these arguments to some degree I think. I don't have the authority or knowledge to judge your arguments, nor the opposing arguments. So with that said I'm not going to call my side on the issue.
> 
> You seem to have given this some serious thought and research. Based on that assumption, why do _you_ feel the ESV has been so well received in the reformed community? I've asked this question already within this thread but I'd like to hear what you have to say. With the concerns you have raised it seems odd that the ESV has been so warmly embraced. If there is warrant in what you argue I don't see how we can chock it up to great marketing. The reformed community surely is one of the least susceptible people groups when it comes to advertising. I qualify this last statement by limiting it to matters of faith and academics. I'd like to think we reformed folk usually see the error coming and rarely get surprised by such things as sub par translations or shoddy theology.



Hi:

I appreciate your thoughtful and careful attitude. I think I answered some of this in the above. However, I think your questions need more of an answer.

I think that there are many people in conservative circles who will uncritically follow the recommendations of those who have "big names" within conservative Christianity. Thus, "If J.I. Packer says so, then it must be true," is a problematic mentality within the Church in general. I believe that this is why the Bible often refers to us as "sheep," because we have a strong tendency to follow the recommendations of our Pastors/Shepherds. When it comes to men with strong "conservative" reputations, then I believe such tendencies tend to multiply exponentally.

When the Pastors/Teachers/Shepherds are solid there is little trouble - the Bible extols such as shining like the stars forever.

When the Pastors/Teachers/Shepherds are mixed: conservative in some areas liberal in others, then there is much confusion. Consider the church in Corinth or in Galatia as examples of such.

When the Pastors/Teachers/Shepherds are liberal, then there is much concern for the Church in general. False teachers who outwardly look good, but inwardly are ravenous wolves are everywhere cautioned about in Scripture.

Paul, whose example of Pastoral Piety is only exceeded by our Lord Jesus Christ, extolled the Bereans because they sought to examine everything Paul said according to the Scriptures. The Apostle John encourages the Church to examine every spirit to see whether they are from God.

Thus, I would encourage you to examine why "conservative" scholars would recommend the ESV. I would encourage you to seek out both the "pros" and "cons" of the translation, and make an informed decision for your own self. I would definately not recommend that you go by your feelings alone on this subject, because feelings can be deceiving. If your "feelings" are not flowing from sound Orthodox doctrine derived from the Scriptures, then I would suggest that your feelings on that particular subject do not come from the Spirit of God.

Hope this helps,

Rob


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Excellent Post Rob.


----------



## DMcFadden

Rob,

Thanks for the irenic and thoughtful reply. Here are some elaborations on my thinking . . .



> You seem to think that because this practice is in existence that it is the right thing to do?



No! I was trying to say that insofar as the church has seemed to wholesale abandon publishing (even the KJV is produced under secular publishing auspices), the point is rather moot. If all translations (incuding the KJV) are physically produced by non ecclesiastical agencies and companies, why pick on any one of them? Chances are that your copy of the KJV was printed by a secular company.



> I o not wish to make this thread over into a TR vs. CT debate. Thus, I only noted it in passing, and mentioned that my primary interest is not in the Greek texts at this time. I am also aware of the TR/CT ban, and I did not wish to break it. The differences in the Greek text are not irrelevant - because these differences show up in the translations in the RSV and KJV. However, because of the ban I did not wish to pursue this subject any further.



Rob, I have great respect for the majority text arguments and have struggled in this area myself. A 1599 Geneva Bible sits on my desk next to an ESV study Bible. My point was that if your "primary" concern was NOT the TR vs. CT debate, then pointing out at length that RSV differs from the TR is irrelevant -- so does virtually every other Bible used by evangelical and Reformed churches other than the KJV and NKJV. It would only be a point for your argument if the RSV differed from the other modern translations in underlying text, which it does not.



> I could go on for pages listing all the "conservative" scholars who used/endorsed the KJV/TR. C. H. Spurgeon is most notable, because the "downgrade" controversy had much to do with the Westcott-Hort principles of textual criticism.
> 
> However, I am not moved by the opinion of men - nor should you be either.



We are evidently equivocating on our use of the terms "conservative" and "liberal." If using a CT translation makes one a liberal, then the list of "conservatives" could fit in a good sized national park visitor's center. 

Frankly, when we define our words so stringently as to exclude almost everyone, then the terms lose some of their validity as descriptors. Calling MacArthur, Grudem, Piper, et. al. "liberals" just does not seem to make any sense to me. 

I AM moved by the opinion of men, otherwise, I would not read ANYone. Why bother with any theologians if we don't expect to be challenged to interact with the text more seriously and to come away more faithful to the Lord and to his word?

I do have great sympathy with your underlying argument about the perniciousness of WH presuppositions and their corrupting influence upon Bible translation, hence my concessive comments about the arguments. But one could just as easily argue about some of Erasmus' presuppositions which were also suspect. And, why is the KJV any more sacrasanct than the Geneva which was actually used by numbers of the English Reformers before the KJV achieved acceptance. Prior to the ban on publishing the Geneva in 1644, it was the de facto Bible of Reformation Christianity in English. 



> It is impossible to eliminate the liberal bias of the RSV because the liberal bias is founded within the Greek text which they used to translate: NA17. The ESV translators did nothing different when they used Nestle-Aland 26 to "correct" the RSV. Packer, Grudem, and Mohler all had a hand in the translation of the ESV in one way or another.



Since you define "liberal" as any CT translation, your statement stands and I have nothing to say in response.



> Before I respond again to a post of yours I would like for you to certify that you have read it in full. Otherwise, I will simply be cutting and pasting from the article, and you will save me (and yourself) a lot of time by first reading it.


That's OK, Rob. I have read a number of resources from the Trinitarian Bible Society and will not be devoting any time to it in the near future (VERY full day at work) so I am happy letting our interaction stand as it is. You expressed yourself fully and well, identifying and defending your point of view. I simply disagree with your central point.


----------



## fredtgreco

I don't want to get into a textual debate, and I am not really a modern translation kind of guy, but I would just caution against using the "liberalizing tendencies" of moderns who use the ____ (NASB, NIV, ESV, etc).

That argument cuts both ways. For virtually every hyper-dispensational, ultra-separatist, seminary hating nut job out there uses the KJV. And defends it as the "only Bible." Does that make the KJV a nut job translation? Obviously not! Same principle goes for other translations.


----------



## TimV

> However, I am not moved by the opinion of men - nor should you be either.


I sure am, otherwise I'd be living under a bridge. I just had to make a decision whether to cut down a 5000 dollar palm tree or to treat it with chemicals, so I called a lady who owns a palm nursery and followed her advice.

And that's the thing that bugs me most about the issue we're skirting. I can personally contact three top scholars who say something the Edersheim wrote is simply wrong. I could contact the top 1000 people in the field and they'd all say the same thing, and STILL someone out there would defend one statement Edersheim made that was sloppy. It's just not reasonable.

And let's be straight up about this. There is no where in the Bible where you can claim to speak for God on the issue of ESV vs. KJV. And no large denomination of Reformed or (I think) even broadly evangelical churches take your position on these things, which should give you pause for thought.



> I don't think there's any reason under the sun to "work as hard as possible on (producing)" any more Bible translations. What kind of towering hubris drives these efforts? Why would anyone get up in the morning and think, today I'm going to start revising God's word?
> 
> That appalls me. It always has and it always will


For one, the guy who put a couple texts together and made something different than any of the texts he had to work with. After several dozen changes and decades later it came to be called the TR


> "You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."


----------



## CalvinandHodges

TimV said:


> However, I am not moved by the opinion of men - nor should you be either.
> 
> 
> 
> I sure am, otherwise I'd be living under a bridge. I just had to make a decision whether to cut down a 5000 dollar palm tree or to treat it with chemicals, so I called a lady who owns a palm nursery and followed her advice.
> 
> And that's the thing that bugs me most about the issue we're skirting. I can personally contact three top scholars who say something the Edersheim wrote is simply wrong. I could contact the top 1000 people in the field and they'd all say the same thing, and STILL someone out there would defend one statement Edersheim made that was sloppy. It's just not reasonable.
> 
> And let's be straight up about this. There is no where in the Bible where you can claim to speak for God on the issue of ESV vs. KJV. And no large denomination of Reformed or (I think) even broadly evangelical churches take your position on these things, which should give you pause for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there's any reason under the sun to "work as hard as possible on (producing)" any more Bible translations. What kind of towering hubris drives these efforts? Why would anyone get up in the morning and think, today I'm going to start revising God's word?
> 
> That appalls me. It always has and it always will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For one, the guy who put a couple texts together and made something different than any of the texts he had to work with. After several dozen changes and decades later it came to be called the TR
> 
> 
> 
> "You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hi Tim:

I am sorry that we did not get a chance to finish our discussion on the other thread on Rev. 22:19. 

I might want to mention to you that there is a difference between taking and examining advice given, and slavishly following the statements of another. I think your example of the Palm tree bears out such a distinction.

Insofar as your Edersheim example: People have a right to think as they like. There were 1000's of theologians who opposed Martin Luther at the beginning of the Reformation - did that deter him from posting the 95 thesis, or, attending the Diet of Worms?

God created us reasonable creatures - what is so wrong with encouraging people to use their own minds, and come to conclusions based on the facts and evidence given? You may come to different conclusions than I, and that is perfectly fine with me. If the whole world thought as I did, then I would suspect that there is something wrong with the world! 

From the way you presented the history of the TR I seriously suspect that you know very little about it.

Pastor Greco:

You have given me a very good reminder, and I thank you for it. I think that there are some caveats here that need some light of day.

First, the KJV has been around for centuries. The nuts that you mention have only popped up in the last several decades. To draw a distinct line between the KJV and these nuts is not as obvious as the history may allow.

Second, One can draw a line between the translators of the RSV and the Greek text used in its translation as a "liberalizing trend." I was not impunging the character of those who *use *the RSV, NASB, NIV, or ESV, but I am questioning the wisdom of those who took the RSV and sought to make it more conservative in the ESV translation.

Third, the point I made concerning the lack of Church authority in the modern translations is a very real and important truth.

Finally, we should be consistent with our views of Biblical Christianity as they are embodied in our Subordinate Standards. I have sought to evaluate the ESV along these lines, and I am very disturbed by what I have found.

Blessings to you and yours this New Year,

Rob


----------



## TimV

> Insofar as your Edersheim example: People have a right to think as they like.


They can, but take certain risks.


> There were 1000's of theologians who opposed Martin Luther at the beginning of the Reformation - did that deter him from posting the 95 thesis, or, attending the Diet of Worms?


Interesting comparison between the OPC, PCA, ARPC etc.. and 16th century Catholicism. Both oppose/opposed a true minority opinion because of holding great error?



> God created us reasonable creatures - what is so wrong with encouraging people to use their own minds, and come to conclusions based on the facts and evidence given?


It shows a lack of respect for others who know more and a special kind of arrogance all too often in cases like we're discussing.



> First, the KJV has been around for centuries. The nuts that you mention have only popped up in the last several decades. To draw a distinct line between the KJV and these nuts is not as obvious as the history may allow


.
The Munster Rebellion took place 10 years after Germans got the first version of AV in their own language. Cause and effect? Or something more complicated? Blaming a Bible translation on mega trends in the church...Hmmm...


----------



## Stomata leontôn

I use the KJV daily. For notes I use the MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV. My pastor, whom I respect very much, preaches out of the NASB, but occasionally I try to promote the TR & MT with him. Looking for more consistently Reformed notes, I have consulted the New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV. I have compared that with the recent New Geneva Study Bible, ESV. I note that the ESV takes an approach in translation midway between the literalness of the NASB and the jocularity of the NIV, which is useful.

But I noticed something significant in the ESV that I am surprised no one else brought up here. From what I can tell, the ESV is the first version to *delete *those verses of the Bible not found in the UBS/N-A. Not even the NIV did that.

Furthermore, the notes contradict head-on the notes in the NGSB-NKJV. Whereas the notes in the latter take the traditional Reformed position that those passages contained in all but a few original manuscripts are inspired, the NGSB-ESV, says all those manuscripts are wrong. This means that a small-book-sized chunk of Scripture would be (I did not check everywhere) missing from the ESV (not just the _tiny _Johannine Comma ).

Did anybody else notice about the reversal in the notes and the chunk of missing Scripture? Thoughts?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Very interesting Peter


----------



## greenbaggins

Peter H said:


> I use the KJV daily. For notes I use the MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV. My pastor, whom I respect very much, preaches out of the NASB, but occasionally I try to promote the TR & MT with him. Looking for more consistently Reformed notes, I have consulted the New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV. I have compared that with the recent New Geneva Study Bible, ESV. I note that the ESV takes an approach in translation midway between the literalness of the NASB and the jocularity of the NIV, which is useful.
> 
> But I noticed something significant in the ESV that I am surprised no one else brought up here. From what I can tell, the ESV is the first version to *delete *those verses of the Bible not found in the UBS/N-A. Not even the NIV did that.
> 
> Furthermore, the notes contradict head-on the notes in the NGSB-NKJV. Whereas the notes in the latter take the traditional Reformed position that those passages contained in all but a few original manuscripts are inspired, the NGSB-ESV, says all those manuscripts are wrong. This means that a small-book-sized chunk of Scripture would be (I did not check everywhere) missing from the ESV (not just the _tiny _Johannine Comma ).
> 
> Did anybody else notice about the reversal in the notes and the chunk of missing Scripture? Thoughts?



Peter, which version of the ESV are you using? My ESV has the same format with the ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery that the NIV has. It is printed with double square brackets around it. The Comma Johanneum is the only place where the text does not even appear. Certainly, it does not amount to a book length "omission." And furthermore, from the ESV's point of view, the other parts are "additions." Do not prejudge the question by assuming that it is an "omission."


----------



## Stomata leontôn

greenbaggins said:


> Peter H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use the KJV daily. For notes I use the MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV. My pastor, whom I respect very much, preaches out of the NASB, but occasionally I try to promote the TR & MT with him. Looking for more consistently Reformed notes, I have consulted the New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV. I have compared that with the recent New Geneva Study Bible, ESV. I note that the ESV takes an approach in translation midway between the literalness of the NASB and the jocularity of the NIV, which is useful.
> 
> But I noticed something significant in the ESV that I am surprised no one else brought up here. From what I can tell, the ESV is the first version to *delete *those verses of the Bible not found in the UBS/N-A. Not even the NIV did that.
> 
> Furthermore, the notes contradict head-on the notes in the NGSB-NKJV. Whereas the notes in the latter take the traditional Reformed position that those passages contained in all but a few original manuscripts are inspired, the NGSB-ESV, says all those manuscripts are wrong. This means that a small-book-sized chunk of Scripture would be (I did not check everywhere) missing from the ESV (not just the _tiny _Johannine Comma ).
> 
> Did anybody else notice about the reversal in the notes and the chunk of missing Scripture? Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter, which version of the ESV are you using? My ESV has the same format with the ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery that the NIV has. It is printed with double square brackets around it. The Comma Johanneum is the only place where the text does not even appear. Certainly, it does not amount to a book length "omission." And furthermore, from the ESV's point of view, the other parts are "additions." Do not prejudge the question by assuming that it is an "omission."
Click to expand...


So there are more than one editions of the ESV? Interesting. Somebody must have complained about the omissions already, which were then emended, and that would explain why no one mentioned them here.

The edition I checked was a copy in the library. If any one is very interested, I can go back and check which edition it was. But I think the answer to my question must be that there are more than one edition of the text.

If that be the case, then the text behind the current ESV would be much the same as the TR, since the missing pieces will have been supplied from it.

Thanks.


----------



## greenbaggins

Peter H said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use the KJV daily. For notes I use the MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV. My pastor, whom I respect very much, preaches out of the NASB, but occasionally I try to promote the TR & MT with him. Looking for more consistently Reformed notes, I have consulted the New Geneva Study Bible, NKJV. I have compared that with the recent New Geneva Study Bible, ESV. I note that the ESV takes an approach in translation midway between the literalness of the NASB and the jocularity of the NIV, which is useful.
> 
> But I noticed something significant in the ESV that I am surprised no one else brought up here. From what I can tell, the ESV is the first version to *delete *those verses of the Bible not found in the UBS/N-A. Not even the NIV did that.
> 
> Furthermore, the notes contradict head-on the notes in the NGSB-NKJV. Whereas the notes in the latter take the traditional Reformed position that those passages contained in all but a few original manuscripts are inspired, the NGSB-ESV, says all those manuscripts are wrong. This means that a small-book-sized chunk of Scripture would be (I did not check everywhere) missing from the ESV (not just the _tiny _Johannine Comma ).
> 
> Did anybody else notice about the reversal in the notes and the chunk of missing Scripture? Thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter, which version of the ESV are you using? My ESV has the same format with the ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery that the NIV has. It is printed with double square brackets around it. The Comma Johanneum is the only place where the text does not even appear. Certainly, it does not amount to a book length "omission." And furthermore, from the ESV's point of view, the other parts are "additions." Do not prejudge the question by assuming that it is an "omission."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are more than one editions of the ESV? Interesting. Somebody must have complained about the omissions already, which were then emended, and that would explain why no one mentioned them here.
> 
> The edition I checked was a copy in the library. If any one is very interested, I can go back and check which edition it was. But I think the answer to my question must be that there are more than one edition of the text.
> 
> If that be the case, then the text behind the current ESV would be much the same as the TR, since the missing pieces will have been supplied from it.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


Not quite. By printing it in double-square brackets, the ESV means to indicate that it does not believe them to be part of the original manuscripts. Nevertheless, because of the church tradition, it prints those texts. The text behind the ESV is an eclectic text.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

greenbaggins said:


> Not quite. By printing it in double-square brackets, the ESV means to indicate that it does not believe them to be part of the original manuscripts. Nevertheless, because of the church tradition, it prints those texts. The text behind the ESV is an eclectic text.


Yes, but the biggest differences between the Majority Text (or "Original Text" after Wilbur Pickering) and the latest eclectic text are those missing passages, since they are considerable.

My point is that I am quite happy to see that later editions of the ESV no longer delete the passages. What do the notes in your edition say about them? (You don't have to check all of them; that on Mark's Epilogue will do.)

Thank you very much!


----------



## greenbaggins

Peter H said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. By printing it in double-square brackets, the ESV means to indicate that it does not believe them to be part of the original manuscripts. Nevertheless, because of the church tradition, it prints those texts. The text behind the ESV is an eclectic text.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the biggest differences between the Majority Text (or "Original Text" after Wilbur Pickering) and the latest eclectic text are those missing passages, since they are considerable.
> 
> My point is that I am quite happy to see that later editions of the ESV no longer delete the passages. What do the notes in your edition say about them? (You don't have to check all of them; that on Mark's Epilogue will do.)
> 
> Thank you very much!
Click to expand...


The Eclectic Text itself prints these texts in the critical apparatus, and in the case of the ending of Mark, in double square brackets, just like the ESV does. That's what an apparatus does: it lists all the variants along with all the manuscripts that contain said variant so that the person reading it can make an informed decision on what he believes the original text to be. 

The ESV says this: Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20, regarding the conclusion to Mark's Gospel.


----------



## Stomata leontôn

greenbaggins said:


> Peter H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. By printing it in double-square brackets, the ESV means to indicate that it does not believe them to be part of the original manuscripts. Nevertheless, because of the church tradition, it prints those texts. The text behind the ESV is an eclectic text.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the biggest differences between the Majority Text (or "Original Text" after Wilbur Pickering) and the latest eclectic text are those missing passages, since they are considerable.
> 
> My point is that I am quite happy to see that later editions of the ESV no longer delete the passages. What do the notes in your edition say about them? (You don't have to check all of them; that on Mark's Epilogue will do.)
> 
> Thank you very much!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Eclectic Text itself prints these texts in the critical apparatus, and in the case of the ending of Mark, in double square brackets, just like the ESV does. That's what an apparatus does: it lists all the variants along with all the manuscripts that contain said variant so that the person reading it can make an informed decision on what he believes the original text to be.
> 
> The ESV says this: Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20, regarding the conclusion to Mark's Gospel.
Click to expand...

That's a milder note than the one in the earlier NGSB-ESV that deleted it. (The note in the original NGSB (NKJV) supports Mark's Epilogue as original and inspired.) Thanks.


----------



## GTMOPC

This thread was about falling in love with the ESV. How far have we strayed from the original topic dear brothers?

I said earlier I am not an authority on the topics of translation, Hebrew/Greek, or anything in a related scholarly nature. In that spirit I heartily concede all discussion of said topics to those qualified.

I can however say the following with no reservations. The KJV can not be questioned or abrogated by the ESV or any other translation. It has been blessed by God and it has stood the test of time and faith. We are the better for having the KJV, no question about it.

The ESV is here to stay and there is nothing we can do to change that fact. Does that make it acceptable? Of course not. But it does say something about it's validity. It has been embraced by a large percentage of the reformed community whether that is due to marketing schemes or personal interest in its success. It has been profitable to the Church or I don't believe it would still be in use. 

Whether you agree with the above comments I've made is left up to you. But we should realize that neither translation is going to cancel out the other. (Will the ESV die with a loss of popularity? I won't offer any prediction on that matter, who knows?) Therefore I think that it is expedient that we lay down our arms and return to the topic at hand. It's not that I think we have become uncharitable with one another. It's just that I feel you will agree with me that this war will not end in this thread. 

At any rate I've profited from everyone's input. And if the above is not enough warrant to return to the original topic then I'll just say you guys went above my head!


----------



## Grymir

Hi again. I noticed you are going to Moody. These kind of discussions will train you for the real world. This is nicey-nice. People here have to play nice because of the rules of The Puritan Board. When you are surrounded by the forces of darkness on all sides in the world, where they don't play nice, just keep on doing what you are doing and you will be victorious. Jesus will deliver you, and you find his word in your Bible. Depend on it and use it well. It's not called the Sword of the Spirit for nothing.


----------



## GTMOPC

Tim - Thanks very much for the encouragement! I've been greatly edified by the 'nicey-nice' talk on the PB. For me the PB has been both a tool and a blessing. I'm not sure if you were insinuating that my going to Moody puts me in a position where people don't play nice or not. But if you were you are right. For the most part the staff has been very sympathetic to my reformed standing. However many of the students don't even know the word 'propitiation' is in the Bible and the slightest mention of sovereign election starts a war (that has no rules!). I maintain that they are reformed in their doctrine of salvation (at least) even though they use Ryrie extensively! Also, if it hadn't been for the PB'ers alerting me to who he was and what he taught who knows where I may have ended up! I might have bought the Ryrie Study Bible or something! YIKES!

Oh and by the way, my last post wasn't motivated by a desire to end the conversation just to stay on topic. All the viewpoints I've heard here will definitely influence my study this spring in my Bible Intro class where the history of the Bible will be addressed in-depth.

Thanks again to everyone!


----------



## Grymir

Oh no, When I saw the Moody line, I figured you would be training for the ministry. That's when you'll go through what I said. But I didn't know how Moody was. When I went to school it was like that, but it's great training.


----------



## GTMOPC

Oh I see. You are surely right about that. One must look ahead in anticipation! Opportunity beckons.


----------

