# The selection of a primary CT Bible.



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

OK, as most of ya' know I am a King Jimmy Man! BUT, I am going to be doing some Lay Studies (probably through Whitfield) in any event it has been recommended that I chose a good CT translation as my secondary translation at the least. I am "leaning ESV" at the moment. There are some things I still like about the NASBU. Now I have a lot of translations, so you need not give me the old "You need to compare renderings!" Yes. I know. That said there are many reasons to become familiar with a translation or two too the point that you can remember text without the actual Bible being always open. That said:Feedback Time! What say ye?


----------



## Quickened (Feb 2, 2008)

i dont know what "CT" means.

But i do use an ESV and NASB (both wide margin of course!) In my personal opinion the NASB is good for more in-depth study. I use the ESV for casual reading.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 2, 2008)

ESV or HCSB


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 2, 2008)

Quickened said:


> i dont know what "CT" means.
> 
> But i do use an ESV and NASB (both wide margin of course!) In my personal opinion the NASB is good for more in-depth study. I use the ESV for casual reading.



CT = Critical Text, which is the basis for all major modern translations other than the NKJV.


----------



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

Quickened said:


> i dont know what "CT" means.
> 
> But i do use an ESV and NASB (both wide margin of course!) In my personal opinion the NASB is good for more in-depth study. I use the ESV for casual reading.


Critical Text.


----------



## Quickened (Feb 2, 2008)

Thank you gentlemen for your replies. As you can see that is something that i dont know a whole lot about


----------



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> ESV or HCSB


Dennis, I have not looked at the HCSB too much, do you use and like it?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 2, 2008)

etexas said:


> OK, as most of ya' know I am a King Jimmy Man! BUT, I am going to be doing some Lay Studies (probably through Whitfield) in any event it has been recommended that I chose a good CT translation as my secondary translation at the least. I am "leaning ESV" at the moment. There are some things I still like about the NASBU. Now I have a lot of translations, so you need not give me the old "You need to compare renderings!" Yes. I know. That said there are many reasons to become familiar with a translation or two too the point that you can remember text without the actual Bible being always open. That said:Feedback Time! What say ye?



Choose ESV; forget the Yoda Version (NASB).


----------



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > OK, as most of ya' know I am a King Jimmy Man! BUT, I am going to be doing some Lay Studies (probably through Whitfield) in any event it has been recommended that I chose a good CT translation as my secondary translation at the least. I am "leaning ESV" at the moment. There are some things I still like about the NASBU. Now I have a lot of translations, so you need not give me the old "You need to compare renderings!" Yes. I know. That said there are many reasons to become familiar with a translation or two too the point that you can remember text without the actual Bible being always open. That said:Feedback Time! What say ye?
> ...


LOL! I thought Fred would be first in with the Yoda thing!


----------



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

Quickened said:


> Thank you gentlemen for your replies. As you can see that is something that i dont know a whole lot about


No prob! I don't know what 90% of the people here are talking about 90% of the time!


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 2, 2008)

etexas said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > ESV or HCSB
> ...



Al Mohler says that the only Bibles worthy of study (you can tell he is a CT man) are the NASB, HCSB, and ESV. They all attempt to be essentially literal. The HCSB reads more like American English. In direct discourse, for example, you will find contractions. The ESV is VERY much like the NRSV, except without the feminist chip on the shoulder.

So, here is my take . . .

NASB - Yoda-esque. "Happy am I that you asked."
ESV - Stately and elegant (not all that dialectically American)
HCSB - Essentially literal, "Optimal Equivalence" is what they call an attempt to be more "literal" than the NIV and less wooden than the NASB

Actually, (Daniel) you guys are having an impact on me in many areas. After some of the erudite arguments on PB regarding the MT/TR, I have become open to that option for the first time in more than 35 years! Iron sharpens iron and all that, I guess.


----------



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > DMcFadden said:
> ...


OK, Dennis. Given that my primary Bible is the King James, would you say as far as the 3 Bibles you listed, I might overall like the "elegance" of the ESV?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 2, 2008)

> NASB - Yoda-esque. "Happy am I that you asked."


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 2, 2008)

Yes


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 2, 2008)

The bandwagon popularity of the ESV notwithstanding my vote still goes to the NASB, which is the version I cut my teeth on. Some of the "yodaesque" qualities have been lessened with the 1995 update, and despite the hype the ESV has plenty of yodaisms as well, especially in the OT, where I have found passages that are more "wooden" than the NASB. Actually the vast majority of the ESV is identical to the 1972 RSV and thus it is much more similar to that than it is to the NRSV, which is a good thing. The controversial payment to the apostate National Council of Churches for the rights to the RSV text so the ESV committee could revise it has been discussed at length on previous threads. The payment was a tremendous boon to that organization, which was reportedly in dire financial straits prior to that. The ESV folks basically cleaned up some of the more glaring theological problems with the RSV, rebadged it as the ESV and put it out for sale. There was a slight revision in 2007 but to my knowledge they have never issued a list of the changes that were made. 

I like the fact that the NASB is still better for study than the ESV and not as much worse for reading aloud as has been claimed. I like that the practice of italicizing words not in the original but supplied for clarity by the translators have been retained in the NASB and I like the OT quotes being set off in bold. The NKJV has similar features. (I believe the italics started with the Geneva but were abandoned by the RSV.) What the ESV does have going for it is that the publishers have been very internet friendly and they have issued it in a wide number of editions to meet almost any conceivable felt need. 

I actually got rid of my copy of the ESV a few months ago (along with a lot of other books) and unless I change my mind about it and make it my primary version, it will probably be some time before I invest in another one unless some new study bible comes out that I think I have to have and it is only available in the ESV. 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the ESV is a terrible translation. Arguably it is one of the best. I do think it goes without saying that the move of so many from the NIV to the ESV is a move in the right direction, but I prefer the NASB or NKJV and maybe even the KJV. I just think the ESV's popularity is due to its internet campaign, the fact that a lot of big name Reformed and evangelical leaders have endorsed it and the fact that it is "new" even though it is basically a warmed over RSV, something that most evangelicals rejected in the 1950's. The RSV's rejection was not solely due to the fact that it substituted "young woman" for virgin, expiation for propitiation and evinced an antisupernatural bias in many of the messianic passages. (Although arguably if it had not done those things it would likely have been much more widely accepted.) Reading O.T. Allis' negative assessment of the RSV is instructive. Before the full RSV was even published Allis sharply criticized the NT (which If I recall correctly was largely considered unobjectionable theologically other than the aforementioned abandonment of the term propitiation and some issues in John) for abandoning the literal method found in the KJV and ASV, the latter of which it was supposed to be a revision of. That basically the same translation today is hailed as "essentially literal" and a return to the "Tyndale-King James tradition" tells us how far we have gone down the road of dynamic equivalence. 

I haven't checked out the HCSB, probably for two reasons. One is that it has been pigeonholed as a Baptist translation (probably somewhat unfairly--given up the makeup of the cmte it's probably no more a Baptist translation than the NIV was a CRC translation or the KJV an Anglican translation for that matter) and another is that it has been largely ignored because it is not a formal equivalence or "essentially literal" translation.


----------



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Yes


Cool! Anymore thought from the rest of "ya's"?


----------



## Sonoftheday (Feb 2, 2008)

Having Owned and often compared the ESV and the HSCB, I like the ESV much better. There are far less places in it where it takes the liberty of replacing the literal translation with a dynamic one. The ESV does do it on occassion, but at the bottom of nearly every page in the HSCB you will the note saying _Lit._ then whatever it says.


----------



## tellville (Feb 2, 2008)

Sonoftheday said:


> Having Owned and often compared the ESV and the HSCB, I like the ESV much better. There are far less places in it where it takes the liberty of replacing the literal translation with a dynamic one. The ESV does do it on occassion, but at the bottom of nearly every page in the HSCB you will the note saying _Lit._ then whatever it says.



I like that about the HCSB though! Wherever they have to make it more dynamic (based on their translation philosophy) they include a _Lit._ footnote at the bottom given the literal translation of the passage. I also like the setup of the HCSB, the bullet notes, bolding of the OT text in the NT, etc compared to the ESV. 

OP: If you are one of those "majesty of the language" folks, then I think the ESV wins in that department. So if you lean any way towards KJV rendering (which you said you do), you will probably feel most at home with the ESV. Though I think the HCSB is the better translation of the CT.


----------



## larryjf (Feb 2, 2008)

ESV all the way!

This should have been a poll.

Here's what Dr. Vern S. Poythress has to say about it...
About the ESV


----------



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

Thank you for the link Larry, that is a good article. My CT Bible tilt is moving more to the ESV than ever. Any challengers!


----------



## Sonoftheday (Feb 2, 2008)

This is  but I am sure there are people here who can answer so I'll ask. Where can I find a list of the differences between the CT and TR?


----------



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

Sonoftheday said:


> This is  but I am sure there are people here who can answer so I'll ask. Where can I find a list of the differences between the CT and TR?


Check out the Translations and Manuscripts section, there are a number of threads there. Pax.


----------



## tellville (Feb 2, 2008)

This is the fourth time I have tried writing this post . It is now a lot shorter and not in-depth at all, just stating my conclusions. 



etexas said:


> Thank you for the link Larry, that is a good article. My CT Bible tilt is moving more to the ESV than ever. Any challengers!



If you are looking for the best _translation_ of the CT than I would go for the HCSB with footnotes. If you are looking for a translation of the CT that would be _most at home_ with a KJV reader because of how it _sounds_, than I would go for the ESV. 

Here is an interview with Ed Blum general editor of the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Maybe it will answer some of your questions:

Interview with Dr. Ed Blum, General Editor for the HCSB « Anwoth

And here are two reviews of the HCSB one more glowing than the other though both are pretty positive:

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (Top 10 Bible Versions #1) | Faith & Reason | THIS LAMP...and that's all I need

This on by Michael Marlowe is more critical, though he feels that any shortcomings of the HCSB are solved by its many many _Lit._ footnotes at the bottom. 

Holman Christian Standard Bible

Finally, I feel that the HCSB surpasses the ESV in most of the areas where Dr. Poythress says the ESV excels in.


----------



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

tellville said:


> This is the fourth time I have tried writing this post . It is now a lot shorter and not in-depth at all, just stating my conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks. I have now had a chance to look at some evaluations of both, I THINK, what it will come to given that they both have strong points is this: The ESV SOUNDS more familiar to me. This is due to its Tyndale "line". For this reason I would lean still more towards it, that way I will not feel as if I am doing some radical shift.


----------



## tellville (Feb 2, 2008)

etexas said:


> Thanks. I have now had a chance to look at some evaluations of both, I THINK, what it will come to given that they both have strong points is this: The ESV SOUNDS more familiar to me. This is due to its Tyndale "line". For this reason I would lean still more towards it, that way I will not feel as if I am doing some radical shift.



Now that I think about, the ESV is probably your better choice. Given that you probably want to notice the differences between the two texts it is better that they sound the same so that you don't think there is dffierences just because they sound different (which would happen often with the HCSB).

On the other hand, because the HCSB was being translated with the KJV texts as well side by side, and then afterwards in mind, all the differences between the texts are pointed out in the footnotes and in text notes of any standard HCSB. 

Anyway, enjoy your studies!


----------



## etexas (Feb 2, 2008)

tellville said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. I have now had a chance to look at some evaluations of both, I THINK, what it will come to given that they both have strong points is this: The ESV SOUNDS more familiar to me. This is due to its Tyndale "line". For this reason I would lean still more towards it, that way I will not feel as if I am doing some radical shift.
> ...


Thank you. And in fairness, I am not sure the ESV would be the best choice for everyone. I am a King James man, and if I need a CT based secondary Bible, well, might as get something that at least has the same "tune"  if not the same NT Greek texts. I don't know, in fairness if one were NOT as AV exposed as I am the HCSB may very well be better!


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 2, 2008)

etexas said:


> OK, as most of ya' know I am a King Jimmy Man! BUT, I am going to be doing some Lay Studies (probably through Whitfield) in any event it has been recommended that I chose a good CT translation as my secondary translation at the least. I am "leaning ESV" at the moment. There are some things I still like about the NASBU. Now I have a lot of translations, so you need not give me the old "You need to compare renderings!" Yes. I know. That said there are many reasons to become familiar with a translation or two too the point that you can remember text without the actual Bible being always open. That said:Feedback Time! What say ye?



Why would you want to do that? It seems to me that the purpose of study is to build up your knowledge and faith, so I don't understand the impulse that would set up a disparity between the Protestant canonical text against Critical non-canonical texts, because that seems to me like it going to cause you constant confusion. Every question then becomes, not one of doctrine and understanding, but at bottom an a priori disagreement over critical text arguments which is based upon denying the canonicity of the Received Text.


----------



## tellville (Feb 2, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > OK, as most of ya' know I am a King Jimmy Man! BUT, I am going to be doing some Lay Studies (probably through Whitfield) in any event it has been recommended that I chose a good CT translation as my secondary translation at the least. I am "leaning ESV" at the moment. There are some things I still like about the NASBU. Now I have a lot of translations, so you need not give me the old "You need to compare renderings!" Yes. I know. That said there are many reasons to become familiar with a translation or two too the point that you can remember text without the actual Bible being always open. That said:Feedback Time! What say ye?
> ...



Better to address these issues now when he can look into them and get godly answers from godly people than to wait until some guy from the street asks him and he is left without an answer.  

Also, how can one really interact with contemporary scholarship without at least being knowledgeable about textual issues and the CT?


----------



## etexas (Feb 3, 2008)

Thomas2007 said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > OK, as most of ya' know I am a King Jimmy Man! BUT, I am going to be doing some Lay Studies (probably through Whitfield) in any event it has been recommended that I chose a good CT translation as my secondary translation at the least. I am "leaning ESV" at the moment. There are some things I still like about the NASBU. Now I have a lot of translations, so you need not give me the old "You need to compare renderings!" Yes. I know. That said there are many reasons to become familiar with a translation or two too the point that you can remember text without the actual Bible being always open. That said:Feedback Time! What say ye?
> ...


Thomas, I rather made that CLEAR in my first post! Focus.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 3, 2008)

HI etexas, I thought Thomas made some good points. I read your first post to see what i had missed when you said focus. the only thing that I could see was that it was 'recommended' to use a new (CT) translation. ?? is that what you meant by making it clear ?? I was going to chime in and say don't do it. As a lay person, i would say we are smarter than some on the board than some give us credit. I've been asked to change from my trusty KJV many times. (Well, after a couple of times the pastor gave up after he finally asked me why I wouldn't change. It actually became the agreed on wording when we didn't have the greek or hebrew available). I've taught 1st graders, teenagers, middle-aged to old folk. I've never had any trouble like some people have tried to say would happen. Actually I'm currently torn between changing between the Geneva or KJV. I may have missed something in your original post, I'm not the best in the subtle nuances of things people take for granted. anyway my 2 cents. 

"I never give you up my preciousssss, thou the dark lord gives many rings (bible) to men, they will turn into wraiths, i've got my preciousssss. It controls all the otherssss" said the KJgolem


----------



## etexas (Feb 3, 2008)

Grymir said:


> HI etexas, I thought Thomas made some good points. I read your first post to see what i had missed when you said focus. the only thing that I could see was that it was 'recommended' to use a new (CT) translation. ?? is that what you meant by making it clear ?? I was going to chime in and say don't do it. As a lay person, i would say we are smarter than some on the board than some give us credit. I've been asked to change from my trusty KJV many times. (Well, after a couple of times the pastor gave up after he finally asked me why I wouldn't change. It actually became the agreed on wording when we didn't have the greek or hebrew available). I've taught 1st graders, teenagers, middle-aged to old folk. I've never had any trouble like some people have tried to say would happen. Actually I'm currently torn between changing between the Geneva or KJV. I may have missed something in your original post, I'm not the best in the subtle nuances of things people take for granted. anyway my 2 cents.
> 
> "I never give you up my preciousssss, thou the dark lord gives many rings (bible) to men, they will turn into wraiths, i've got my preciousssss. It controls all the otherssss" said the KJgolem


Tim, my reference was I had made clear that I am going to NEED a CT Bible for some Lay-Studies. Not that I was going to abandon my "trusty" AV. I told him to focus since I made this abundantly clear in Post #1. Pax.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 3, 2008)

Oh, ok. the need part didn't come through in your first post. I wouldn't of waxed eloquent otherwise. sorry.


----------



## etexas (Feb 3, 2008)

Grymir said:


> Oh, ok. the need part didn't come through in your first post. I wouldn't of waxed eloquent otherwise. sorry.


It's cool! I need to wax some stuff in my study! It was eloquent by the bye!


----------



## larryjf (Feb 3, 2008)

I get a bit more frustrated when i read the HCSB than the ESV. They both have their quirks...and they both are solid translations, but the HCSB seems to frustrate me a bit more.

For instance...

I think 1 Cor 7:1 is a bit too general of a translation in the HCSB...

ESV: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have *sexual relations* with a woman."

HCSB: About the things you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have *relations *with a woman."

I disagree that Rom 4:8 should end in an exclamation mark as in the HCSB.

1 Sam 20:30 the HCSB translates the Hebrew "amar" as "shouted" instead of "said", which i also disagree with.

In 1 Pet 1:17 the HCSB translates the Greek "phobas" as "reverance" instead of "fear". I feel "fear" is the better translation.

In Eph 2:2 i really don't like the HCSB translation of what should simply be "air"...

ESV: in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the *air*, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—

HCSB: in which you previously walked according to this worldly age, according to the ruler of the *atmospheric domain*, the spirit now working in the disobedient.

I do prefer some of the HCSB translations...such as Mat 16:19.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 3, 2008)

Quickened said:


> ...the NASB is good for more in-depth study. I use the ESV for casual reading.


----------



## JBaldwin (Feb 4, 2008)

From a layman's point of view, I love the ESV. I grew up on KJV and during my Bible training, I was encouraged to find a CT Bible. I settled with the NASB, because it is a great study Bible, but I never felt comfortable just reading it. When the ESV came along, I switched to it. The ESV also has a nice online version where you can compare it side by side with other translations. I use it often when studying rather than dragging out all my versions.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 4, 2008)

If you can find it, the 1901 ASV might be a good choice.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 4, 2008)

py3ak said:


> If you can find it, the 1901 ASV might be a good choice.



That is a great translation; I like the way it uses Jehovah. I managed to find one over here a year ago. Never seen one before, never seen one since.


----------



## etexas (Feb 4, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > If you can find it, the 1901 ASV might be a good choice.
> ...


There is still one publisher in the States that does it. I have an OPC friend who HATES it, he says all the Church of Christ folk use it, I don't know, never been t a CoC so I will take his word!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 4, 2008)

etexas said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



Al Martin used it for years (I think he preaches from the NKJV now).


----------



## PilgrimPastor (Feb 4, 2008)

Quickened said:


> i dont know what "CT" means.
> 
> But i do use an ESV and NASB (both wide margin of course!) In my personal opinion the NASB is good for more in-depth study. I use the ESV for casual reading.



I really enjoy the ESV style and renderings but for sermon preparation and study I use the NASB primarily. One of the reasons is that I find it much more helpful to study from a text which has the verses on separate lines for greater ease of studying each word of the text. The ESV has used a paragraph form which, while it is probably easier to read through chapters, I find difficult to use for study. 

There are presently a real shortage of good study Bibles in the ESV also. The Reformation Study Bible is great, the Scofield Study Bible comes in ESV, and also the recently released Literary Study Bible.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 4, 2008)

The ASV is very nice in some ways. Barring the original RV it's probably more like the AV in its use of language (older pronominal forms, etc): and it seems to be very consistent in the application of its translation philosophy. It is probably not quite as easy to read as the ESV, but since you're not looking to get sucked in by an attractive CT version, this might be a good option for you.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 6, 2008)

Trinitarian Bible Society article on the ESV

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

Of course the TBS is against all CT translations but this article shows how light a revision of the RSV that the ESV is.


----------



## etexas (Feb 6, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Trinitarian Bible Society article on the ESV
> 
> http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A120.pdf
> 
> Of course the TBS is against all CT translations but this article shows how light a revision of the RSV that the ESV is.


There are times when I just feel the ESV may be the best of a bad lot. I have a lot of issues with the CT period. Hence my returns to the AV.


----------

