# Esv



## A5pointer (May 11, 2009)

I am partial to using the NASB but have been asked to use the ESV when teaching as it is the standard translation at my church. I know nothing about it. Any thoughts? What should I expect and watch out for? Thank you.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 11, 2009)

It has the same textual basis as the NASB. I haven't read it extensively, but my first reaction is that it lies midway between the NASB and the NIV. It would like to be as literal as the NASB, but finds itself often using dynamic equivalence to satisfy some perceived readability notions.


----------



## A5pointer (May 11, 2009)

Gomarus said:


> It has the same textual basis as the NASB. I haven't read it extensively, but my first reaction is that it lies midway between the NASB and the NIV. It would like to be as literal as the NASB, but finds itself often using dynamic equivalence to satisfy some perceived readability notions.



Thank you, I have noticed that it does seem to be a combination when it is read as I read my NASB. The order of words is sometimes different.


----------



## larryjf (May 11, 2009)

The ESV is a very good translation of the Critical Text.
I was also asked to read from it since it's our church's official version in the pews.

The only thing to watch out for would be 1 Sam 13:1 - if you start reading the passage without knowing what you're in for it can really lead to an uncomfortable moment...
[bible]1 Sam 13:1[/bible]
I would suggest starting at verse 2 if you need to read from the passage and just drop verse 1...reading verse 1 as its written is just too problematic.


----------



## Skyler (May 11, 2009)

larryjf said:


> The ESV is a very good translation of the Critical Text.
> I was also asked to read from it since it's our church's official version in the pews.
> 
> The only thing to watch out for would be 1 Sam 13:1 - if you start reading the passage without knowing what you're in for it can really lead to an uncomfortable moment...
> ...



I can see that. Are there any other such passages in the ESV?


----------



## tgoerz (May 11, 2009)

I have the Reformation Study Bible in ESV as well as the new ESV Study Bible.

Would be hard pressed to use another version.


----------



## Athaleyah (May 11, 2009)

larryjf said:


> The ESV is a very good translation of the Critical Text.
> I was also asked to read from it since it's our church's official version in the pews.
> 
> The only thing to watch out for would be 1 Sam 13:1 - if you start reading the passage without knowing what you're in for it can really lead to an uncomfortable moment...
> ...



I agree this is really odd. I was looking at commentaries on this verse and noticed that Gill mentioned that the ellipses were a possible way to translate it.

Gill on 1 Sam 13:1:



> 1Sa 13:1 Saul reigned one year,.... "Or the son of a year in his reigning" (s); various are the senses given of these words: some interpret them, Saul had a son of a year old when he began to reign, Ishbosheth, and who was forty years of age when his father died, 2Sa_2:10, *others, who understand the words of Saul himself, think there is an "ellipsis" or defect of the number, *and that it may be supplied, that Saul was the son of thirty or forty years, or whatsoever age he may be supposed to be at when he began his reign;


----------



## Wannabee (May 11, 2009)

The ESV is an excellent translation. I find the OT to be less clear and accurate than the NKJV, which is arguably the best OT translation. But it is good. The NT is based on the Alexandrian text and the translators did an excellent job. However, they are not clear on translation decisions, leaving the uneducated reader with the impressions that it is simply accurate. Added words are not in italics and few other words are noted as offering different translations. While this may not be necessary, it does offer the careful reader the opportunity to dig more deeply to assess where they stand on a particular translation decision. 
The NASB is faithful in providing such notes, but focuses on the Alexandrian text. This is why I prefer the NKJV, for it shows the MT and NU variants, as well as added words in italics and possible variants in translations in column notes. But that may be a philosophical issue I have, as well as a textual one. 
Overall, again, the ESV is a great translation though, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it or hand it out, if it's what is available.


----------



## Grace Alone (May 11, 2009)

I just have to "yay!" that a PCUSA church is using the ESV at all!


----------



## DMcFadden (May 11, 2009)

I agree with Joe on the preference for the NKJV.

From a stylistic point of view, I object to the awkwardness of the some of the readings in the ESV (not as bad as the NAS, however!).

From a translational perspective, the KJV, NKJV (Byzantine texts) AND the NAS, ESV, and HCSB (Critical Text) are ALL essentially LITERAL translations. Each one has their own in-house vocabularly to describe their approach to being "literal," but literal they are. 

One can be literal and ungainly: NAS.

One can be literal and colloquial: HCSB (e.g., use of contractions in direct discourse are just as literal but give a different "feel" and texture to the style of translation; use of "Messiah" for "_Christos_" at places in the NT is similarly "as literal" but different from the NAS). The expression "let us go" and "let's go" are equivalent from the standpoint of being literal. However, in direct discourse, the second one sounds more natural and conversational. The first one introduces an element of staid formality that may misrepresent the tone of the original.

One can be literal and literary: KJV, NKJV, ESV. Of the three, the ESV is the most tongue-tieingly awkward (in my opinion).

However, the ESV is a SOLID and FINE conservative translation. I would not hesitate to recommend it or to use it. And, for that matter, the ESV Study Bible is quite simply the finest study Bible available in the English language. 

For my own study, I use a leather NKJV Reformation Study Bible, a leather ESV Study Bible, and a leather HCSB.


----------



## Wannabee (May 11, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> For my own study, I use a leather NKJV Reformation Study Bible, a leather ESV Study Bible, and a leather HCSB.



That's a lot of cows. When we do our family devotions we use various study Bibles, but not my ESV. I just got it a couple months ago and haven't really looked at it much yet. Pam uses the MacArthur, I have a simple Nelson and our son uses the Reformation, all in NKJV. It's great to discuss it and share perspectives we get from the different study notes. But ours are bonded... 

Sorry,


----------



## Bad Organist (May 11, 2009)

*the ESV*

Hi, 

I am a new poster to this forum.

Our church recently went from the NKJV to the ESV. We were never told why, just happened.

I have spent the last 6 months doing comparisons between about 10 versions. That means the English language has at least 9 too many. Anyhow, the result is I am now more confused than ever about what God actually said in His Word.

The ESV, strikes me as a text book, a scholarly work. It may be relatively accurate as far as I can tell ( I don't read the original languages), but to me it doesn't have that devotional quality of the KJV or the NKJV. Also, I don't know why they couldn't have translated the word "servant" properly as "bond-servant" if that is what it means. Instead it is foot-noted over 70 times, covering over 200 verses. Also the word "brothers", why couldn't that have been left as "brethren". Instead it is foot-noted over 100 times with an explanation. The use of italics would have been helpful to show supplied words. The text setup in the printed page is preferred in the KJV or NKJV, with the verse number to the left of the text. Much easier to find which verse you are looking for. Many other peculiar things about the ESV have already been noted on this forum. 

At the end of the day, I'm not really sure why the ESV needed to be produced. It doesn't improve on what is already out there. If they really want to be taken seriously as a KJV type Bible, they should have stayed closer to the KJV version in many places. As it is, I just view it as a revision of the RSV. 

Personally, I think I will stick with the NKJV, until I am convinced of the superiority of another version. 

Arie V
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 12, 2009)

I say you start here:
Table of Comparisons

Ignore the editorializations at this site and just use the tables provided to compare the verses and judge for yourself where you may run into trouble with this or that translation. (Note: the tables at the link above do not include the ESV translation).

AMR


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 12, 2009)

I would watch out for falling in love. That was my problem with it!


----------



## LawrenceU (May 12, 2009)

> But ours are bonded...



Man, Joe, you bailed out your bibles?! What had they done to get arrested? When are their court dates? Maybe you should get in contact with Fred, Evie, and Andrew and put together a stellar defense team.


----------



## Wannabee (May 12, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> > But ours are bonded...
> 
> 
> 
> Man, Joe, you bailed out your bibles?! What had they done to get arrested? When are their court dates? Maybe you should get in contact with Fred, Evie, and Andrew and put together a stellar defense team.



groan...


----------



## reformedminister (May 12, 2009)

I have read and preached from a lot of differen't translations through the years. I always go back to my KJV. I do really like the ESV, and stay with it in my personal study, longer than the other new translations. I do believe that it is a great literal translation of the critical text, and very readable. It is not as "wooden" as the NASB. I can't stand the NIV at all. You may have to preach from it, but that does not mean that it has to be your main study Bible. Even, when I was preaching from the ESV mostly, I still used the KJV in my personal study. If you prefer to study with the NASB, just compare the two closely before preaching your sermons.


----------



## LawrenceU (May 12, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > > But ours are bonded...
> ...




Sorry. I couldn't resist.


----------



## jawyman (May 12, 2009)

Grace Alone said:


> I just have to "yay!" that a PCUSA church is using the ESV at all!



I would not consider this a ring endorsement of the ESV, but at least the PCUSA is showing some faithfulness. BTW, this is my  worth.


----------



## Robert Truelove (May 12, 2009)

The ESV is the standard translation for the church where I pastor. 

One additional thing to keep in mind regarding the style of this translation is that it is the only modern version in which the translators put much effort into not only the readability of a 'formal equivalent' (the old term for what is now being called 'essentially literal') translation, but also the beauty and the majesty of the text as heard when read aloud. Much attention was given to this by the KJV translators and it has not been major consideration in any subsequent translation until the ESV (while some credit must be given here to the RSV, the ESV translators upped it several notches).


----------



## A5pointer (May 12, 2009)

Grace Alone said:


> I just have to "yay!" that a PCUSA church is using the ESV at all!



Easy now big guy, we are not all bad  Thank you all for the input.


----------



## Bad Organist (May 12, 2009)

Robert Truelove said:


> The ESV is the standard translation for the church where I pastor.
> 
> One additional thing to keep in mind regarding the style of this translation is that it is the only modern version in which the translators put much effort into not only the readability of a 'formal equivalent' (the old term for what is now being called 'essentially literal') translation, but also the beauty and the majesty of the text as heard when read aloud. Much attention was given to this by the KJV translators and it has not been major consideration in any subsequent translation until the ESV (while some credit must be given here to the RSV, the ESV translators upped it several notches).



Hi,

In my church, I don't hear any improvement in the public reading of ESV text, over the NKJV. 
I'm not sure where your assertion comes from that only the ESV scholars paid attention to how the text sounds when read aloud. The NKJV version in their preface make mention of the graceful, musical and poetical style of their renderings, that I would assume is an emphasis on the vocalization of the text. Even the CEV has a blurb in their preface on how their translation is based on when it is read aloud.

One thing I find very telling even in today's world, when scripture is quoted from memory, it is, or sounds like it is from the KJV. When those who promote the new versions, they tend to paraphrase. Our church has now used the ESV for about 8 months, I have yet to hear a quotation from memory using that version. 

And maybe that is one of the downsides to having all these versions. The Word of God is somehow devalued, and not laid up in the hearts and minds of Christian folk. Quite often the renderings of the new versions, while smooth and up to date, are not memorable or quotable.

Arie V
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------



## ClayPot (May 12, 2009)

Bad Organist said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> > The ESV is the standard translation for the church where I pastor.
> ...



I agree with Arie. I think the "readability" of the ESV is vastly overstated. My wife and I read our Bible aloud together quite a bit and I usually stumbled over the ESV more than the NASB because of its awkwardness.

In addition, people don't often realize that the ESV is really just a revision of the RSV. The ESV old testament is very, very similar to the old testament RSV. The new testament is better, but still retains much of the archaic language ("would that", e.g.) They took out a lot of the liberal bias, but otherwise the ESV is pretty similar to the RSV. I actually like the ESV but I think it has become overhyped in reformed circles.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 12, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I say you start here:
> Table of Comparisons



Don Carson's book is more insightful. It shows that the modern versions are often more clear on the diety of Christ than the KJV.

I would argue that table of comparisons are not helpful because they miss the big issue - the issue is what text type would be used; the translation follows from that.


----------



## Wannabee (May 12, 2009)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I would argue that table of comparisons are not helpful because they miss the big issue - the issue is what text type would be used; the translation follows from that.



I'm gonna disagree with this statement for the same reasons I gave above. Translation philosophy has everything to do with what we end up with. For instance, if one is CT then they don't like the NKJV, but the NIV is eclectic so it would stand to reason they'd prefer it. But it's not nearly as accurate, even in the Alexandrian tradition, as the NKJV, though the NKJV follows the TR - not even the MT. Furthermore, I can learn more about the NU from the NKJV than I can from the ESV because the notes in the NKJV reveal textual differences and translation decisions. This, along with their translation method, reveals their translation philosophy. It is a humble effort to inform people of what they've done and cue them in on possible differences. So, text type is a consideration, but the bigger issue is the integrity, humility, accuracy and readability of the translation, according to their method. This is backed up by their philosophy, which involves all of the above as well.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 12, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that table of comparisons are not helpful because they miss the big issue - the issue is what text type would be used; the translation follows from that.
> ...



Joe, your argument was a little muddled to me, but I think we are fairly close in our arguments. The translation philosophy is important - literal vs esentially literal vs DE etc. Robert Thomas' books on bible translation (from the Masters Seminary) is helpful here. The text type is also an issue, as is obviously the footnotes.

The thing i was objecting to is the KJV only lists that say the "modern versions" deny certain doctrinal truths, and do so without reference to text type or philosophy of translation.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 13, 2009)

In terms of "readability," I tilt toward the HCSB for a critical text Bible and the NKJV for a Byzantine text Bible. Both of these are AMAZINGLY good (for different reasons). 

The HCSB is smooth as silk while being literal (mostly) in translation philosophy.

The NKJV is easy on the ears and also quite literal in translation philosophy.

But, one must be a realist. The ESV has a TREMENDOUS advantage over the other translations in Reformed circles. All of my carping about text/footnotes (NKJV) or translational fluidity (HCSB) don't obviate that signal advantage the ESV has among Reformed folks.


----------



## Wannabee (May 13, 2009)

Thanks Stephen. Yes, Dr. Thomas' writing on this is good, though I disagree with his take on prophesy in the NT.



DMcFadden said:


> But, one must be a realist. The ESV has a TREMENDOUS advantage over the other translations in Reformed circles. All of my carping about text/footnotes (NKJV) or translational fluidity (HCSB) don't obviate that signal advantage the ESV has among Reformed folks.



I do wish someone would simply provide a good MT translation though. The NKJV is unapologetically TR, with few exceptions.

Dennis, are you referring to the study notes, or is there a reason inherent in the ESV translation that gives it an advantage? Other than the fact that it's promoted by so many, I wasn't aware of it being preferred for the reformed.


----------



## LawrenceU (May 13, 2009)

Not to speak for Dennis, but I think he means the overwhelming usage of the text of the ESV among reformed folks. I rarely run into anyone who doesn't use it.


----------



## Bad Organist (May 13, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Not to speak for Dennis, but I think he means the overwhelming usage of the text of the ESV among reformed folks. I rarely run into anyone who doesn't use it.



I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "reformed folk", but I know that there are still whole denominations who use KJV. There are still congregations using NKJV. There are some groups, who call themselves reformed who use the NIV. If the ESV is the so-called "reformed bible", it is only very recently so.

My guess is that the reason for the growing acceptance is more from slick "madison ave." marketing, and getting heavy hitters like R.C. Sproul and John Piper and others to go to bat for it, than for any native excellence it is said to possess, or that it has God's blessing on it. 

When our church switched to the ESV, about the biggest reason stated, was that the ESV Study bible was about to be released. Odd isn't it. 

"of the making of many Bibles, there is no end"

Arie V
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------



## JML (May 15, 2009)

Deliberately avoiding a TR, CT discussion, two of many issues I would have with the ESV would be this:

1. Its tendency as a commentary instead of a translation. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:25-38 in the ESV contains the word “betrothed.” If you look at the footnote, it says “Greek – virgin.” There is quite a difference between the two words. Betrothed means to be “engaged to be married.” A virgin could be engaged to be married but would not necessarily be so. This seems more like a commentary of what the translators think this verse is talking about rather than a translation.

2. The inclusion in the text before John 7:53 of, “[The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11.].” I find it hard to speak to someone about the inerrancy of Scripture when my Bible has this in the text.


----------



## rbcbob (May 15, 2009)

See SermonAudio.com - A Critique of the ESV & Leland Ryken's Book


----------



## SolaGratia (May 15, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> See SermonAudio.com - A Critique of the ESV & Leland Ryken's Book



Thanks, Very Very Helpful!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 15, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that table of comparisons are not helpful because they miss the big issue - the issue is what text type would be used; the translation follows from that.
> ...





This is one of the many reasons I really like my awesome Thompson-Chain Reference NKJV. It is very helpful in my studies to know the differences between the texts.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 16, 2009)

Bad Organist said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Not to speak for Dennis, but I think he means the overwhelming usage of the text of the ESV among reformed folks. I rarely run into anyone who doesn't use it.
> ...



Arie,* that *was my only point. Since it only appeared in this decade, it would be fair to say that it has only "recently" become a defacto "Reformed Bible" in SOME circles. Hey, I would rather use the NKJV for the reasons that Wannabe and Backwoods identify. Despite the arguments of some to the contrary, I just do not find the ESV to be all that easy to read out loud. As I have noted before, every other day (when it is my turn to do the reading of the day in devotions with my wife), the awkwardness of it jumps out at me as my blurry-eyed morning-tied tongue continually stumbles over the phrasing. The HCSB is a smooth as silk CT Bible to read; the NKJV is a wonderfully literate Byzantine text Bible.

However, with Piper and others making it sound as if it is the best thing since chocolate fudge sundaes, what can I say? Realism compels me to admit the seeming inevitable. 

[BTW, the HCSB tends to show more respect for Byzantine readings than the ESV too]


----------



## Damon Rambo (May 19, 2009)

The ESV's primary shining feature, is it's accurate portrayal of the various Greek tenses, voices, etc. I am continually amazed at other translations failure to capture what the Greek is actually saying, and equally amazed at the ESV's proper renderings.

Some of the people here have stated that the ESV is clunky, poetically speaking. This is understandable: the ESV is not designed to be an "easy reader" Bible: it is designed to be accurate to the Greek/Hebrew, and their various forms. 

And it does this, In my humble opinion, without equal. There is no better translation, in terms of accuracy, than the ESV. At least, that is the way I see it.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 19, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> The ESV's primary shining feature, is it's accurate portrayal of the various Greek tenses, voices, etc. I am continually amazed at other translations failure to capture what the Greek is actually saying, and equally amazed at the ESV's proper renderings.
> 
> Some of the people here have stated that the ESV is clunky, poetically speaking. This is understandable: the ESV is not designed to be an "easy reader" Bible: it is designed to be accurate to the Greek/Hebrew, and their various forms.
> 
> And it does this, In my humble opinion, without equal. There is no better translation, in terms of accuracy, than the ESV. At least, that is the way I see it.



So, you basically see the ESV as a kind of . . . 







The ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, and NAS are ALL very good at rendering the Greek and Hebrew with a high degree of accuracy. I like them ALL because of their being MORE literal which, the older I get, makes more and more sense to me.


----------



## Damon Rambo (May 20, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > The ESV's primary shining feature, is it's accurate portrayal of the various Greek tenses, voices, etc. I am continually amazed at other translations failure to capture what the Greek is actually saying, and equally amazed at the ESV's proper renderings.
> ...



I agree that these are all good translations (Although, as a literalist, I am not too fond of the NASB, which takes too much liberty with the numbering of the days in Genesis).

However, the KJV, and NKJV in particular, do not do as good of a job, in my opinion, of accurately conveying the Perfect, pluperfect, and Present Greek tenses. The ESV (and the HCSB does a pretty good job as well, although it has a "pre mill" slant to some passages) just conveys the continuing/completed sense of these forms, much more accurately.


----------



## Bad Organist (May 20, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Damon Rambo said:
> ...



Damon,

Can you furnish examples of what you are saying here?

Arie V
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------



## rbcbob (May 20, 2009)

I recently suggested to someone in a post regarding their question about the ESV. They were encouraged by a lesson that I taught which included principles of translation. In that lesson I highly recommended a book by Leland Ryken called "The Word of God in English". If you would like to listen to the lesson you can do so at
SermonAudio.com - A Critique of the ESV & Leland Ryken's Book

Bob
__________________


----------

