# ESV a better Reformed translation?



## heartoflesh (Mar 29, 2010)

I use mainly the NASB, but I have a special fondness for the NKJV. I find myself going back and forth between them and memorize verses from each of them. I've tried to get into the ESV but just haven't been able to for some reason. I think a lot of it is just a matter of taste, and a metter of what I am used to. One of my pet peeve verses (that I just can't get used to in the ESV) is 2 Thess. 2:13...

ESV
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you *as the firstfruits to be saved, *through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

compared to what I am used to....

NASB
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you *from the beginning for salvation* through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

NKJV
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God *from the beginning chose you for salvation* through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth

One of the arguments I've heard in favor of the ESV is that it's a better Reformed translation, but I've never really understood why. Now I'm no textual critic and I have absolutely NO IDEA which rendering above should be preferred, but this is a verse I turn to quite often when attempting to explain the doctrines of grace to someone, and the ESV rendering seems to take away that more sovereign element. 

So where is the ESV a better reformed translation?


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 29, 2010)

Actually, the more I use it, the more I prefer the Holman Christian Standard Bible. In my opinion, the ESV has some pretty terrible English. It constantly uses the word "and" to translate the Hebrew "vav" and the Greek "kai." Both words have considerably more semantic range than merely "and." 

As to 2 Thess 2:13, it is indeed a textual issue. Metzger's decision seems rather arbitrary to me, based on stylistic concerns in Paul's letters. ONe could go either way based on the manuscripts, as many have the one and many have the other. It would not be an easy decision to make.


----------



## Curt (Mar 29, 2010)

What's a "Reformed translation"?


----------



## reformedminister (Mar 29, 2010)

I don't know about it being a better "Reformed Translation" but many folks in the reformed camp who use translations other than the KJV prefer it. I will probably always have a heart for the KJV but my favorite new translation of the critical text is the ESV. Maybe it is a matter of preference. I like the NASB but never could keep reading it for a long period of time. The ESV is a good translation of the critical text (in my opinion) and very easy to read.


----------



## rbcbob (Mar 29, 2010)

Do thorough verse comparison between the six or eight most popular English translations and you will see that the ESV lines up with the RSV and against the others many times. It appears to be an overhyped reissue of its predecessor.


----------



## JML (Mar 29, 2010)

*Is the ESV a better Reformed Translation?*

Not when there are words and verses missing. See Acts 8:37, 1 Samuel 13:1.

*Acts 8:36-38*
*36* And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" *38* And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

_Where's verse 37?_

*1 Samuel 13:1*
Saul was . . . years old when he began to reign, and he reigned . . . and two years over Israel.

It's kind of hard to speak of the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture when there are words and verses missing. Plus you have verses in brackets saying they aren't in certain manuscripts. If I were an unbeliever and picked it up, I would wonder why a Christian can trust in the Word of God when the very Bible they read places doubts on whether or not a verse is supposed to be there or not. Also, considering none of the reformers used the critical text, can we really characterize it as "reformed."

P.S. *rbcbob* has done some research on the ESV and can give you a more studious response.


----------



## LawrenceU (Mar 29, 2010)

Try as I might I cannot like the HCSB.


----------



## sdesocio (Mar 29, 2010)

When I was in seminary I moved from the KJV to the NIV to be honest having to translate my personal study into modern english was too much of a burden (I think this is exactly what the WCF is referring to when they speak of the importance of using the vulgar)

But once I got to seminary I found the NIV too difficult to use while translating, too thought for thought. I moved to the NASB, but I found it so wooden that it was barely english. 
I found the ESV to be a solid middle ground, though I do think they get a bit wooden at times.


----------



## Bad Organist (Mar 30, 2010)

Rick,

Since our church went with the ESV a couple of years ago, several people have asked me about this translation, and one in particular told me he had trouble memorizing from the ESV. He went back to the NKJV and KJV. Another person told me she didn't like it, but didn't know why, beyond knowing that the text used was different from the KJV.

On the subject of memorization, it is easier to memorize something when it is musical to the ear. I do not find that the ESV in many places is as musical to the ear as even the NASB, and certainly not like the KJV or even the NKJV. 

As for the ESV being a better reformed translation, I doubt it. Many reformed groups are still using the KJV, others are using the NKJV, some the NASB or ESV. Many in the reformed camp still believe that the reformation text should be used, so automatically that excludes almost all modern versions. I can't see the ESV becoming the standard translation even among those who are Reformed any time soon. 

For awhile the publisher was pushing hard for the ESV to be adopted, and then the ESV Study Bible was pushed for really hard, but the fact remains the ESV is either the 5th or 6th best seller Bible in English. The RSV when it was around was generally despised in Reformed circles. The ESV is really just gentle evangelical messaging of the RSV.

Bad Organist
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 31, 2010)

Curt said:


> What's a "Reformed translation"?


 

That's what I'm trying to figure out. I've heard it talked about as such around here.


----------



## raekwon (Apr 27, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> Not when there are words and verses missing. See Acts 8:37, 1 Samuel 13:1.
> 
> *Acts 8:36-38*
> *36* And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" *38* And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
> ...


 
Maybe the "missing" words and verses are actually _inserted_ words and verses in the other versions.


----------



## JM (Apr 28, 2010)

Maybe they're just missing. (  )


----------



## larryjf (Apr 29, 2010)

To me, a Reformed Translation would be one in which the Translators were Reformed. For instance, the KJV was translated by men who all subscribed to the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church.

Is there a modern translation where all of the translators subscribe to a Reformed Confession? I don't think so.
Interestingly, as our culture puts more emphasis on academics than on confession we can easily find the educational attainments of the contributing translators of the ESV, but the confessional subscription is left out presumably as something unimportant.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 30, 2010)

Rick Larson said:


> I use mainly the NASB, but I have a special fondness for the NKJV. I find myself going back and forth between them and memorize verses from each of them. I've tried to get into the ESV but just haven't been able to for some reason. I think a lot of it is just a matter of taste, and a metter of what I am used to. One of my pet peeve verses (that I just can't get used to in the ESV) is 2 Thess. 2:13...
> 
> ESV
> But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you *as the firstfruits to be saved, *through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.


For the passage in question, the ESV appears to line up with the 2007 update to the NLT:

_As for us, we can’t help but thank God for you, dear brothers and sisters loved by the Lord. We are always thankful that *God chose you to be among the first to experience salvation*—a salvation that came through the Spirit who makes you holy and through your belief in the truth_

AMR


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Apr 30, 2010)

I'm just starting to use the ESV in addition to the KJV. Our church uses the NKJV, and I can see some good reasons why. I just never liked the NKJV as an English translation. It does not have a good cadence for reading aloud. The KJV is far easier to read aloud. The ESV also has a good flowing style from what I can see, so for the moment I am preferring the ESV for general use while still liking the KJV (for example, using it in family worship.)

I had an Arminian New Testament professor, and he often complained about the ESV being "calvinistic" as he would read from it in class. By the way, the ESV study bible is a great resource for grammatico-historical insight.


----------



## Bookmeister (Apr 30, 2010)

raekwon said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> > Not when there are words and verses missing. See Acts 8:37, 1 Samuel 13:1.
> ...


 
They are:

"8:37 omit verse {A}
Ver. 37 is a Western addition, not found in P45, 74 א A B C 33 81 614 vg syrp, h copsa, bo eth, but is read, with many minor variations, by E, many minuscules, itgig, h vgmss syrh with * copG67 arm. There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text. It should be noted too that τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν is not a Lukan expression."

Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 315.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 30, 2010)

Lane, AMEN! I very much enjoy using the HCSB. My problem is that it is highly unlikely to ever make much of a penetration of the market. And, while I praise the Lord for the blessing of multiple translations, particularly for laypeople, they have also been a curse. At the lay level, too many translations has had a pernicious effect on Bible memorization AND has tended to weaken people's confidence in the authority of Scripture in my opinion ("how can I know what the Bible means when the experts cannot even agree on the translation?"). While that last argument is fairly easily dispensed with, it is difficult to argue with the reality of it.

Picking up the old saw . . . 

If Sproul, Piper, MacArthur, Grudem, van Pelt, S.M. Baugh, Bryan chapell, Al Mohler, Francis Chan, Daniel Wallace, Philip Ryken, Tom Schreiner, Joe Stowell, Ravi Zacharias, Joni, James MacDonald, Steve Green, AND Driscoll all say that the ESV is the "best" . . . 
I believe it . . . 
That settles it for me.


----------



## christiana (Apr 30, 2010)

I know I've stated it here before but for me it is a major point in the different versions. The KJV and NKJV state:
Genesis 7:1 And God said to Noah, *Come* into the ark.
In the other versions it states either 'Go' or 'Enter' which totally changes the significance. God was in the ark calling Noah to come into Himself! Rather like Christ declares for 'all you who are weary and heavy laden, Come unto Me.
When the whole meaning and significance is altered by translating I am not pleased and prefer it as stated in the KJV or NKJV. Whos to say that it is not a significant point! If it is to me, then that settles it for me. It is obviously more God honoring as the others are very impersonal. If, as one person in the past said about it, a word that could be translated either way, then why not use the most meaningful word possible for the verse?


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 30, 2010)

I assure you, ALL Bible translations are Reformed!


----------



## Bookmeister (Apr 30, 2010)

christiana said:


> I know I've stated it here before but for me it is a major point in the different versions. The KJV and NKJV state:
> Genesis 7:1 And God said to Noah, *Come* into the ark.
> In the other versions it states either 'Go' or 'Enter' which totally changes the significance. God was in the ark calling Noah to come into Himself! Rather like Christ declares for 'all you who are weary and heavy laden, Come unto Me.
> When the whole meaning and significance is altered by translating I am not pleased and prefer it as stated in the KJV or NKJV. Whos to say that it is not a significant point! If it is to me, then that settles it for me. It is obviously more God honoring as the others are very impersonal. If, as one person in the past said about it, a word that could be translated either way, then why not use the most meaningful word possible for the verse?


 
You must be careful, you are using a subjective criteria to make a passage more "meaningful" to you. That is dangerous when that particular meaning is not in the text. All sorts of errors result from eisegesis, reading into a text, instead of exegesis, reading out of a text.


----------



## Kiffin (Apr 30, 2010)

christiana said:


> I know I've stated it here before but for me it is a major point in the different versions. The KJV and NKJV state:
> Genesis 7:1 And God said to Noah, *Come* into the ark.
> In the other versions it states either 'Go' or 'Enter' which totally changes the significance.



Well, this would be more of an intepretive issue than a translational one. Go and come are the same in Hebrew.


----------



## Kiffin (Apr 30, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> Not when there are words and verses missing. See Acts 8:37, 1 Samuel 13:1.
> 
> *Acts 8:36-38*
> *36* And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" *38* And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
> ...


 
Are you KJVO?


----------



## christiana (Apr 30, 2010)

Thanks Alan and EJ, but please tell me how it could be considered eisigesis if I'm reading 'come' and understanding it to say as stated for Noah to 'Come into the ark'. Thats exactly what is stated so how could it be eisigesis to accept the written word?
Thanks to you both for your comments!


----------



## jambo (Apr 30, 2010)

I am undecided on the ESV. When it came out at first I thought great but as I read it I found the way it has rendered some verses to be a bit odd.


----------



## MarieP (Apr 30, 2010)

Curt said:


> What's a "Reformed translation"?


 
My thoughts too. Shouldn't we prefer the BETTER translation?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 30, 2010)

Curt said:


> What's a "Reformed translation"?


 
The Geneva Bible!


----------



## Bookmeister (Apr 30, 2010)

Nancy,
The Hebrew word can mean 'come,' it can also mean 'enter,' If you choose to read it as 'come,' and then add to the meaning of the text that "God was already in the ark," that is eisegesis. It says nowhere in the text that God was in the ark. That may comfort you but it can not be drawn from the text. I am not trying to argue with you, I hope you understand I want to help you avoid a practice that can result in serious error.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 30, 2010)

austinww said:


> I assure you, ALL Bible translations are Reformed!


 
I beg to disagree...


----------



## MW (Apr 30, 2010)

Bookmeister said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the "missing" words and verses are actually _inserted_ words and verses in the other versions.
> ...


 
According to the Westminster Confession, this is not an inserted verse. WCF 28:4, "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ..." Proof texts: Mark 16:15, 16; Acts 37, 38. A reformed confession surely serves as an historical marker for evaluating what is and what is not a reformed translation.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (May 1, 2010)

> 2 Corinthians 5:17
> 
> HCSB Therefore if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things have come.
> 
> ...



HCSB

What do you think? Sometimes I think the HCSB has more punch and readability to it, but I don't know if some of its differences leads me to understand passages differently. Take for instance 2 Corinthians 5:17, which is the more correct? I read the ESV to study sermons/church Bible study/sunday school things because thats the official bible of my church. I really enjoy daily reading/studying in the HCSB and NKJV/KJV, though. I thank God so much for men who translate/have translated the Bible.


----------



## dudley (May 1, 2010)

larryjf said:


> To me, a Reformed Translation would be one in which the Translators were Reformed. For instance, the KJV was translated by men who all subscribed to the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church.
> 
> Is there a modern translation where all of the translators subscribe to a Reformed Confession? I don't think so.
> Interestingly, as our culture puts more emphasis on academics than on confession we can easily find the educational attainments of the contributing translators of the ESV, but the confessional subscription is left out presumably as something unimportant.


 
I agree with Lary. Since I became a Protestant in 2006 I have been reading mostly the KJV. My Episcapalian friends gave me the KJV when I joined the Episcapal church. I have kept it as my number one bible since. It was translated by the Reformed Protestant thinkers and the language I think is beautiful. As a Presbyterian I value my KJV.


----------



## Kiffin (May 1, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> According to the Westminster Confession, this is not an inserted verse.



I'm sure the WCF writers assumed it wasn't an insertion since they included it in the confession. But because they used it as a prooftext doesn't prove that it wasn't a later _insertion_.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 1, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Bookmeister said:
> 
> 
> > raekwon said:
> ...


 
Are the "proof texts" part of the confession, or an added help to understanding the Confession? Seem to remember reading that the proof texts were not standardized and were added later.


----------



## MW (May 3, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Are the "proof texts" part of the confession, or an added help to understanding the Confession? Seem to remember reading that the proof texts were not standardized and were added later.


 
They are not a "part" of the confession in terms of adoption or subscription, but there are two considerations which show they are a part of the confession in terms of evaluating the reformed tradition. First, in general, the reformed view of "verbum Dei" teaches that what is founded on the word of God is the word of God in a secondary sense. This makes the scriptural basis a fundamental aspect of theological formulation. The Scripture proof process reflects the exegetical tradition and the exegetical tradition is built on the text of Scripture. Secondly, more specifically, the divines of the Westminster Assembly were bound by vow to scriptural authority in all deliberations. The eventual inclusion of the proofs reflects the scriptural authority upon which the Assembly's formulations were based.


----------



## nicnap (May 3, 2010)

Bookmeister said:


> They are:
> 
> "8:37 omit verse {A}
> Ver. 37 is a Western addition, not found in P45, 74 א A B C 33 81 614 vg syrp, h copsa, bo eth, but is read, with many minor variations, by E, many minuscules, itgig, h vgmss syrh with * copG67 arm. There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text. It should be noted too that τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν is not a Lukan expression."
> ...


 

This isn't the place for it, but Metzger often assumes too much, and is merely setting out his presuppositions. He accepts many of his positions without warrant.


----------



## au5t1n (May 3, 2010)

larryjf said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > I assure you, ALL Bible translations are Reformed!
> ...


 
If there is even a remotely reasonable translation inside, I am quite sure it firmly teaches election, covenant theology, the regulative principle, etc., whatever anyone may have intended.  Believe me, I am no fan of "translators" playing games with the words of Scripture either.


----------

