# Is there an ESV problem I don't know about?



## etexas (Aug 3, 2008)

Firstly, as a King James Dude I have not read the ESV "Genesis to Maps", but as far as what I HAVE read it seems OK (for a CT Bible), so guess my question is to the PB Seminarian and Pastors (though anyone can chime in) QUESTION: All these people I see who have endorsed the ESV or worked on a commitee, Sproul, Packer, Riddlebarger just to name a few people who have "plugged" the translation. I have noticed something, as many of you know I was in Alaska with RC, in the seminars he used his old "standby" the NKJV, (the ESV not once), I was listening to Riddlebarger on podcast, he despite being an early proponent of the ESV, used the NIV, Packer, I read something of his not long ago, he used a combination of the KJV and the NIV. These three men are just off the top of my head, I could think of more, but my question is this: Is the ESV weaker than it was promoted as being in Oct 2001? Love any feedback.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 3, 2008)

*ESV Problems*

The ESV is based on the NRSV, which is based on the RSV, which is based on the RV. Here is a good book dealing with the problems in the RV, many of which are included in its children: Internet Archive: Details: Notes on the amended English Bible, with special reference to certain texts in the revised version of the Old and New Testaments bearing upon the principles of Unitarian Christianity (Use the flip book for searching the book)

The book is written by a Unitarian supporting changes in the RV because many of those changes support Unitarianism. This shouldn't be a surprise as G. Vance Smith worked on the RV translation just as Thayer, another unitarian, worked on the ASV. I use Ierson's book to check every modern version. 

You might also read the following article put out by the Trinitarian Bible Society dealing with the ESV: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A120.pdf

Here's a link to the list of translators on the RV1881 and the ASV1901: History of the English Revised Version (1881)


----------



## Grymir (Aug 3, 2008)

Hi Etexas! You said anybody, so here I am. I can't speak for Sproul, Riddlebarger, or Packer, but I have an insight. JohnGill's post above hits the technical stuff on the head, but let me give some anecdotal evidence that I have discovered. When I teach using the KJV and read it, it seems as if I'm speaking as one with authority. The people listen attentively, and it seems as if God is speaking through me. (That's why we call it the Word of God, I know) But that authority is lacking when I read modern translations. I tried early on in my teaching because people (mostly my Pastor at the time) said, nobody will understand because I'm using the KJV, but it turns out that they liked me using the KJV and we were all more comfortable and enlightened because I did. It made more sense to the people.

Anything less would be uncivilized!


----------



## TimV (Aug 3, 2008)

> but it turns out that they liked me using the KJV and we were all more comfortable and enlightened because I did. It made more sense to the people.



Did their reins verily rejoice?


----------



## Grymir (Aug 3, 2008)

TimV said:


> > but it turns out that they liked me using the KJV and we were all more comfortable and enlightened because I did. It made more sense to the people.
> 
> 
> 
> Did their reins verily rejoice?




Verily, Verily they did. Their bowels waxed with gladness.  I didn't know it when I started, but I got the educated crowd. But the effect I noticed continued since then, even when I taught children.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 3, 2008)

As far as I know, there has been no lapse of support for the ESV. I know lots of congregations who have switched over, and John Piper is supporting the ESV. I was reading some 2006-7 articles with James White where he uses the ESV, although he also likes the NASB. I think Leland Ryken is still using it, but my books by him are a few years old.

You have to remember that R.C. and J.I are some old guys. Just because they support the ESV doesn't mean they're going to throw away their old translations. They're probably encouraging the younger crowd to consider that version for their ministries.

That Trinitarian Bible Society website didn't really say anything other than "the ESV uses different underlying texts," which we knew already.


----------



## Grace Alone (Aug 3, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> The ESV is based on the NRSV, which is based on the RSV, which is based on the RV. Here is a good book dealing with the problems in the RV, many of which are included in its children: Internet Archive: Details: Notes on the amended English Bible, with special reference to certain texts in the revised version of the Old and New Testaments bearing upon the principles of Unitarian Christianity (Use the flip book for searching the book)
> 
> The book is written by a Unitarian supporting changes in the RV because many of those changes support Unitarianism. This shouldn't be a surprise as G. Vance Smith worked on the RV translation just as Thayer, another unitarian, worked on the ASV. I use Ierson's book to check every modern version.
> 
> ...



Chris, I believe that this is not correct. They started with the 1971 Revised Standard version, not the more liberal NRSV.

"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."

From KJV to ESV: A Historical Legacy


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 3, 2008)

*Index for TSB Article*



CharlieJ said:


> That Trinitarian Bible Society website didn't really say anything other than "the ESV uses different underlying texts," which we knew already.



That's not entirely accurate. Here is an index for the article:

Origins of the ESV - 1 (4 of 19)
Principles of Translation - 3 (6 of 19)
Changes made to the RSV text - 5
The Greek New Testament Text - 6
Textual Problems in the Old Testament - 8
Language Addressing God - 9
Gender Issues - 11
Other Problems in Translation - 12
Market for the ESV - 13
Conclusion - 14
Footnotes - 15

The underlying Greek Text only covers two pages.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Aug 3, 2008)

I find this discussion interesting. It was my impression that the ESV was picking up steam, but I may be wrong.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 3, 2008)

Grace Alone said:


> Chris, I believe that this is not correct. They started with the 1971 Revised Standard version, not the more liberal NRSV.
> 
> "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."
> 
> From KJV to ESV: A Historical Legacy



Thanks for pointing that out. I realized that after I reread the article from the TBS. I blame my lack of coffee and posting early in the morning.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 3, 2008)

I find the ESV too "literary". I get the feeling when I read it that it was written to a certain demographic or something. It just does not "sing" the way the KJV, NKJV, or even the NASB does to me. These are all subjective but it is one of several reasons I do not use the ESV.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 3, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I find the ESV too "literary". I get the feeling when I read it that it was written to a certain demographic or something. It just does not "sing" the way the KJV, NKJV, or even the NASB does to me. These are all subjective but it is one of several reasons I do not use the ESV.



I've never heard anyone say that the NASB sings! 

I find merit in all translations for various uses. I like the ESV but I doubt that I ever use it to preach from again (I have a few times in the past). I "compromise" a bit by using the NKJV, although my church "fears" I may start preaching from the King James. Although every translation has it's problems I still feel that the King James in the best one, with the NKJV a fairly close second.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Aug 3, 2008)

To me the ESV sounds closer in phrasing and style to the KJV than any other modern CT version.


----------



## Grace Alone (Aug 3, 2008)

matthew11v25 said:


> To me the ESV sounds closer in phrasing and style to the KJV than any other modern CT version.



I like it, too, Matthew. For example, I was having my daughter memorize the 23rd Psalm from the ESV, and it was not hard at all for me to adjust to since it is so similar to the KJV.

It may not be perfect, but right now the ESV seems to be the most readable yet close to literal translation in modern language. Incidentally, they did do an update in 2007 that corrected some errors and made some other changes. I cannot find the changes on the ESV site at the moment, although I have seen them there before. I'll attach a link to a pastor's blog that gives the comparison of the original version to the 2007 version (I am not endorsing this whole blog as I have not read it). And I am fine with the footnotes about the verses that the KJV contains that were not in the manuscripts used by the ESV translators. That makes it clear that the verses exist in some manuscripts and not in others.

2007 ESV Changes: Genesis - Deuteronomy | Faith & Reason | THIS LAMP...and that's all I need


----------



## etexas (Aug 3, 2008)

matthew11v25 said:


> I find this discussion interesting. It was my impression that the ESV was picking up steam, but I may be wrong.


Well, it seem (if you look at sales data from CBA and such) the ESV sort of peaked, with the Holman gaining some ground (they came out around the same time), and GAINS in some "older" translations like the NKJV, NIV, and AV. Given that a number of Churches (including the PCA I attend) have made it the Pew Bible, one would expect stronger sales, however, in our Sunday school classes you see fewer ESV Bibles than NASB, NKJV, and some old school people like myself using the AV, what is interesting is that this is across all age ranges. The ESV has done good marketing, and has some good people endorse it (Piper as someone noted), I find it odd that it seem to rise and then flatten out. (why I started the thread, I thought maybe someone knew something I did not.)


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 3, 2008)

I think one of the secrets to the ESV's success is their really cool cover designs and Christian college marketing. My church has about 400 college students and most use the ESV. My church changed to ESV after realizing that's what most of the members were already using.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 3, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> My church changed to ESV after realizing that's what most of the members were already using.



Isn't that the tail waging the dog? I'm no ESV hater. It's a fine translation, as modern translations go. However, I don't care if every one of the members of my church was using the ESV, I'm not going to preach from it.


----------



## etexas (Aug 3, 2008)

Ivan said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > My church changed to ESV after realizing that's what most of the members were already using.
> ...


EXACTLY. I felt the same way when everyone was getting The Message. I am NOT comparing the ESV to The Mess. But I am (as Ivan noted, questioning motive.)


----------



## Grymir (Aug 3, 2008)

etexas said:


> I find it odd that it seem to rise and then flatten out. (why I started the thread, I thought maybe someone knew something I did not.)



Sorry man, I left my super-secret batsproul phone at church, so I couldn't call him up and ask him. But I know he'd tell me that he wants to use the KJV, but pressure from outside sources prevents him from doing so.


----------



## etexas (Aug 3, 2008)

Grymir said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > I find it odd that it seem to rise and then flatten out. (why I started the thread, I thought maybe someone knew something I did not.)
> ...


Yep! Due to his publishing contract he can use only the NKJV or ESV.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 3, 2008)

Ivan said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > My church changed to ESV after realizing that's what most of the members were already using.
> ...



Well, I think some of the elders had been recommending it for some time, and the pastoral staff was looking to change to a modern version. We have 3 PhDs in our congregation who teach NT & Greek as well as a systematic theology professor, so the elders discussed it for a while and came to the conclusion that the ESV would be the best choice. It helped that there was already such a strong support base in the congregation.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 3, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > CharlieJ said:
> ...



May God bless their choice!


----------



## larryjf (Aug 3, 2008)

For a critical text translation i find the ESV to be a very good Bible with no more weaknesses than other translations have.

When i preach from it i don't see any authoritative problems or issues. Actually i find that the literary style gives a more authoritative tenor than the NIV (because of its too common style) and the NASB (because of its fairly strict literal translation).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 3, 2008)

Ivan said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > I find the ESV too "literary". I get the feeling when I read it that it was written to a certain demographic or something. It just does not "sing" the way the KJV, NKJV, or even the NASB does to me. These are all subjective but it is one of several reasons I do not use the ESV.
> ...



It sings to me!!! 

I just find something "icky" that I cannot rightly explain about the ESV.


----------



## Grymir (Aug 3, 2008)

I think that singing is a great choice of words!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Aug 3, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> That Trinitarian Bible Society website didn't really say anything other than "the ESV uses different underlying texts," which we knew already.



What more do we need to know?

Aye, there's the rub...


----------



## bookslover (Aug 3, 2008)

I don't think there's any mystery as to while sales are flattening now. With the initial marketing push starting with its release in September, 2001, there were skyrocketing sales because people were curious. Now it's several years later, and the novelty has worn off, and sales are returning to a more "normal" level. The translation is just taking its place, saleswise, among the rest.


----------



## etexas (Aug 3, 2008)

bookslover said:


> I don't think there's any mystery as to while sales are flattening now. With the initial marketing push starting with its release in September, 2001, there were skyrocketing sales because people were curious. Now it's several years later, and the novelty has worn off, and sales are returning to a more "normal" level. The translation is just taking its place, saleswise, among the rest.


Indeed. This is what I think. I think it (after the initial reception) had inertia as a "cleaned up" RSV, has now peaked, I think we WILL see it in the top 10 in sales, but I doubt it will surpass what have been the "Big Three" in sales, the KJV,NIV, and NKJV.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 3, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



I'm glad it does sing for you. Praise God! I don't know about an "icky" thing with ESV. That's interesting too. 

But I'm an old guy and I stick with the older translations. I have used almost all of them at one time or another, but I keep coming back to the AV, while using the NKJV in the pulpit.

Whatever translation we use, let's be faithful to our LORD. Let us point our poeple to Jesus...always.


----------



## etexas (Aug 3, 2008)

Ivan said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...


Amen!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 3, 2008)

Ivan said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...



I cannot rationally explain the "ickyness" factor of the ESV for me. It just feels weird.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 3, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



We all have our tastes. Not a problem. I understand. Britney Spears makes me feel....icky!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 3, 2008)

Ivan said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...



I have always been an underdog in practically everything so maybe the ESV's marketing and "hipness" soured it on me. Who knows...


----------



## etexas (Aug 3, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...


Firstly, icky IS a funny word! (I am still a kid at heart) but I have an OPC Pastor friend who said "Man, I just CAN"T get myself to like this translation. He went back to the NASB, guess it's what you get used to.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 3, 2008)

etexas said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...



That OPC Pastor friend and I are kindred spirits. I was/am the same way.


----------



## etexas (Aug 3, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...


You DON'T want to be his kindred spirit! Just KIDDING Mark if you read this! (Mark is a PB reader, I have not been able to get him to join.)


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Aug 4, 2008)

Interesting to note that Concordia is moving from the NIV to the ESV for the next edition of their study Bible which is due out next year.


----------



## etexas (Aug 4, 2008)

pilgrim3970 said:


> Interesting to note that Concordia is moving from the NIV to the ESV for the next edition of their study Bible which is due out next year.


Yes, they are! Thank you for that, it will be interesting to see if that helps overall sales.


----------



## MMasztal (Aug 4, 2008)

If I'm correct, the OPC adopted the ESV as their version a few years ago. My ARP church has also adopted the ESV as the version we use.


----------



## etexas (Aug 4, 2008)

MMasztal said:


> If I'm correct, the OPC adopted the ESV as their version a few years ago. My ARP church has also adopted the ESV as the version we use.


Most PCA and OPC Churches HAVE made the ESV the Pew Bible as well as using it in the respective publications, HOWEVER, it does not seem to have changed sales that much.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Aug 4, 2008)

As a strong supporter of the ESV there two things with it. (I hardly use the NKJV and NASB anymore.) There is a difference between the 2001 and 2007 Text ESV editions. I do not know the technicalities of the issues, but one is able to contact Crossway for their answer, or look it up via google. The second is the complementarian emphasis. (dont get me wrong I am a man and I celebrate my masculinity... i despise gender neutrality). But at times the ESV translate the word man into mankind or humanity. (things like that).


----------



## Galatians220 (Aug 4, 2008)

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> But at times the ESV translate the word man into mankind or humanity. (things like that).


 
And that's where the "icky meter" starts running. At least for many of us.  

Margaret


----------



## larryjf (Aug 4, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> Robbie Schmidtberger said:
> 
> 
> > But at times the ESV translate the word man into mankind or humanity. (things like that).
> ...


That doesn't make it icky to me. After all, that's a good translation of the word "anthropos"


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 4, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> > Robbie Schmidtberger said:
> ...



For those with a Greek-English Lexicon, 3rd Ed. BDAG the entry for anthropos is on page 81.


----------



## Grace Alone (Aug 4, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Galatians220 said:
> 
> 
> > Robbie Schmidtberger said:
> ...



My understanding was that when the word was clearly male, they translated it male. If it was not, they would use words such as "mankind", etc. I think they did the right thing to make it MORE accurate.


----------



## Galatians220 (Aug 4, 2008)

I concede I have no expertise in Greek or Hebrew translation; I rely upon others whose doctrine I respect for that. So -- if this is one instance in which the ESV translates a word more accurately, I stand corrected.

To the extent that gender neutrality, however, is advanced, promulgated, championed, propounded or otherwise invoked as a nod to the feminist agenda, and not necessarily to make a verse rendering more accurate, I would say that an "ick factor" is present. And I'm not accusing the ESV of being an offender; other "translations" would be more culpable, I'm sure, in that area.

I also admit that my only acquaintance with the ESV has been online. I don't own one. It's the only conservative-friendly Bible version that I don't own. 

If I've made a mistake due to lack of knowledge, I apologize.

Margaret


----------



## Grace Alone (Aug 4, 2008)

Okay, here is the explanation directly from the company:

Gender Issues 

"In the area of gender language, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original.

For example, “anyone” replaces “any man” where there is no word corresponding to “man” in the original languages, and “people” rather than “men” is regularly used where the original languages refer to both men and women. But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew.

Similarly, the English word “brothers” (translating the Greek word adelphoi) is retained as an important familial form of address between fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians in the first century. A recurring note is included to indicate that the term “brothers” (adelphoi) was often used in Greek to refer to both men and women, and to indicate the specific instances in the text where this is the case.

In addition, the English word “sons” (translating the Greek word huioi) is retained in specific instances because of its meaning as a legal term in the adoption and inheritance laws of first-century Rome. As used by the apostle Paul, this term refers to the status of all Christians, both men and women, who, having been adopted into God’s family, now enjoy all the privileges, obligations, and inheritance rights of God’s children.

The inclusive use of the generic “he” has also regularly been retained, because this is consistent with similar usage in the original languages and because an essentially literal translation would be impossible without it.

Similarly, where God and man are compared or contrasted in the original, the ESV retains the generic use of “man” as the clearest way to express the contrast within the framework of essentially literal translation.

In each case the objective has been transparency to the original text, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture."

In addition, here is some more information about the ESV.

ESV Information


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 4, 2008)

Folks, there are several expressions of personal taste and preference (e.g., "icky") mixed in with some misstatements (e.g., the gender thing) in this thread.

The ESV is supported by Piper and Grudem BECAUSE it treats the words of Scripture with integrity and does not wash out the original in some sea of P.C. correctness. Both Piper and Grudem have "written the book" on complementarianism (e.g., Grudem is somethings called the "father" of the modern complementarian movement). They made sure that UNLIKE the liberal translations, they were scrupulously accurate in rendering the Greek and Hebrew.

As for the concern that it is "based" upon the RSV, that is both a helpful AND misleading observation. Yes, the translators of the RSV had a preference for textual emendations. But, it also preserved much of the stately beauty of the old KJV. In my opinion, the evangelical translators of the ESV corrected the places where RSV translators erred.

I use the ESV primarily when I want my Reformation Study Bible and the NIV (yech!) when employing the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (wish it came out in the ESV!). However, when my wife and I do our Bible reading and prayer time in the morning, my groggy eyes and halting tongue keeps tripping over the words more frequently than some other translations.


----------



## Jared (Aug 5, 2008)

I am thinking about switching to the ESV from the NIV. I have the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (NIV) and I use it for devotions. I am looking forward to buying one of the new ESV study Bibles that's coming out in October. There are notes by Wayne Grudem, J. I. Packer, and a whole lot of other people that I can't recall right now. I have been wanting to do the fighter verse system with Bethlehem Baptist Church, but I have reluctant to do that since I read the NIV. Also, most of the preachers that I listen to use the ESV. I did have an ESV Bible, but I gave it to someone who was struggling with their faith. I am glad that I did that, but I would like to get another ESV.


----------



## pilgrim3970 (Aug 5, 2008)

etexas said:


> pilgrim3970 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting to note that Concordia is moving from the NIV to the ESV for the next edition of their study Bible which is due out next year.
> ...



That's kind of what I wondered. 

I'm kind of looking forward to it myself. Unlike the current version which is, as I understand it, a modified version of the NIV Study Bible, this one is being done from the ground up. I emailed Concordia about this awhile back and recieved this response: 



> Concordia Publishing House will release The Lutheran Study Bible in October 2009
> 
> -- the first study Bible in English to be developed from the ground up with
> notes that are exclusively Lutheran.
> ...


----------



## raekwon (Aug 6, 2008)

Robbie Schmidtberger said:


> As a strong supporter of the ESV there two things with it. (I hardly use the NKJV and NASB anymore.) There is a difference between the 2001 and 2007 Text ESV editions. I do not know the technicalities of the issues, but one is able to contact Crossway for their answer, or look it up via google. The second is the complementarian emphasis. (dont get me wrong I am a man and I celebrate my masculinity... i despise gender neutrality). But at times the ESV translate the word man into mankind or humanity. (things like that).



Changes made in the 2007 edition of the English Standard Version


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 9, 2008)

MMasztal said:


> If I'm correct, the OPC adopted the ESV as their version a few years ago. My ARP church has also adopted the ESV as the version we use.



The OPC adopted it for use in their magazine "New Horizons" and I think it has been adopted by Great Commission Publications as well. But the OPC has no "official" translation.


----------



## TimV (Aug 9, 2008)

> And that's where the "icky meter" starts running. At least for many of us.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> That doesn't make it icky to me. After all, that's a good translation of the word "anthropos"



I'm with Margaret, although Grace Alone is right to point out the technical issue, and Pastor McFaddon is insightful as always with his point about personal taste. It's something that has changed meaning over the last couple years, like when the original Star Trek came out saying "Where no *man* has gone before" was immediately understood as what _anthropos_ meant, but the Next Gen people were probably right to change it to "Where no *one* has gone before".

I guess you've got to save your ammo for battles that you can win


----------



## larryjf (Aug 9, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> MMasztal said:
> 
> 
> > If I'm correct, the OPC adopted the ESV as their version a few years ago. My ARP church has also adopted the ESV as the version we use.
> ...



Exactly...the OPC explains it in further detail here...
Q and A


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 9, 2008)

TimV said:


> > And that's where the "icky meter" starts running. At least for many of us.
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> ...



Thanks, Tim. Re-reading my earlier post, it was not as clear as it should have been. ESV was produced by inerrantist conservatives who thought the NIV was too loose in its dynamic-equivalent style and that modern translations were jumping on the feminist egalitarian bandwagon. 

They wanted a Bible that was "more literal" than the NIV in translation philosophy, more stately in language than most modern translations to read aloud in church, and to affirm the conservative view of the differences between male and female.

The translators/editors were generally among the ones most OPPOSED to the creep of the feminist agenda in the church. Grudem, for example, is one of the strongest voices against the ordination of women. His books (e.g., _Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?_) are clear and univocal in opposition to feminism. When they translate "anthropos" as denoting humanity, not a male (andros or aner), it is to take a club away from the feminists who use it to complain of "male bias" in translations. By being MORE "accurate" with those things, yet unyielding on the areas where modern translations tip the hand to feminism, they stake out their position rather strongly in my opinion. The ESV (whether you like it or hate it), is a traditional, evangelical, conservative, CT translation that stands opposed to liberalizing works such as the TNIV and NRSV. That is what has given it such currency in Reformed circles.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 9, 2008)

Here is what the CBA says about Bible says at March of this year:

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - Based on Unit Sales
1 New International Version
2 New King James Version
3 King James Version
4 New Living Translation
5 *English Standard Version*
6 Holman Christian Standard Bible
7 The Message
8 New American Standard Bible update
9 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)
10 Today’s New International Version

How the NIV keeps its position is a mystery to me. My favs are the ESV and the HCSB for CT modern translations.

The TNIV bugs me to no end!


----------



## larryjf (Aug 9, 2008)

August 2008 has the unit sales listed as:
1 New International Version
2 New Living Translation
3 New King James Version
4 King James Version
5 English Standard Version
6 Holman Christian Standard Bible
7 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)
8 The Message Eugene Peterson
9 New American Standard Bible update
10 International Children’s Bible


----------



## Grace Alone (Aug 9, 2008)

Considering the fact that reformed churches are the primary group that has embraced the ESV, I am amazed that the ESV is even #5. It's pretty sad to see NLT ahead of ESV, though.


----------



## Galatians220 (Aug 9, 2008)

If the King James and the 1599 Geneva Bibles were at the very bottom of any Bible bestsellers list, it wouldn't surprise me nor would it change my mind...

Can I just suggest some verse comparisons, ESV _et al._ to KJV and 1599 Geneva? With Proverbs 30:6, and the doctrines we prize so very much, in mind? Just a short list (it could be much, much longer, but I restrain myself):

Luke 2:33; 43
Colossians 1:14
Genesis 15:1
Luke 4:4
John 3:36 (works!)
John 1:12
Matthew 5:22
II Corinthians 2:17

Please just compare them and as/if you notice any differences, consider what is being affected. As an example, in Matthew 5:22, the KJV's "without a cause" is omitted in the CT versions. *But* - didn't Jesus get angry occasionally? Did this put Him "in danger of the judgment?" Was He not a perfect Savior? Why omit _those three words_ when they served the church well for almost 2,000 years, and give us a wonderful picture of our Savior's character, as well as letting us know that there is indeed such a thing as righteous anger? 

The "new versions," in their presumed desire to make the word of God more accessible to readers of all levels of ability, draft off of the text that served the church for over 1,800 years, in my opinion and presume a lot. People today take for granted that just because some words are changed "here and there," we'll always have intact Christian doctrine to teach our children and to edify, build up and comfort us - and with which to give God the glory and honor. However, the prevalence of correct Christian doctrine is diminishing by the day as more and more committees take up the unholy work of "modifying" God's word at the whim of one publishing house or another, or to "meet the demands" of one demographic or another.

BTW, I've been "eliminated" from three Reformed churches for ever so gently espousing the above opinion. So be it.

I'll just retreat now... Sorry...

Margaret


----------



## Grace Alone (Aug 9, 2008)

Margaret, honestly, I read a good bit on this topic before I bought the ESV. There are people who believe that KJV has errors and that the ESV is MORE accurate due to the availability of more manuscripts. When I read strong endorsements by people like John Piper and R C Sproul, I was comfortable changing to ESV. Both my previous pastor and current pastor preach from it. I think the language is lovely in the KJV, but I cannot comprehend it as well as I can the ESV. The ESV is written in my language and the KJV is not. 

I cannot imagine any reformed church "eliminating" someone due to expressing a preference for a different Bible version! We have people using probably 5 different versions at least! It's certainly the choice of the individual which they prefer to read. I just know for the forseeable future, I will be using the ESV because I think it is the most accurate and readable English translation available today.

Here's Piper's review (although his main emphasis is to prove why it is superior to the NIV which is the #1 seller):

Good English With Minimal Translation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 9, 2008)

Piper is right.

Margaret, the issues you pick with the ESV are ones of text more than translation. If you use a CT Bible, you end up dropping some words and adding others because the GREEK text of the CT does. A fairer comparison would be comparing the ESV with other CT Bibles (e.g., NIV, NLT, NASB, HCSB, etc.). Since they all presuppose the same underlying text, you have the opportunity to see how much paraphrase, how much skew, and how much spin gets brought into the translation. Among CT Bibles, the ESV is essentially literal and more fluid than the very literal and hard-to-read NASB.


----------



## Zenas (Aug 9, 2008)

CharlieJ said:


> I was reading some 2006-7 articles with James White where he uses the ESV, although he also likes the NASB.



Try to query an ESV text from Gutenburg in his chat channel and see what happens.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 9, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Here is what the CBA says about Bible says at March of this year:
> 
> BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - Based on Unit Sales
> 1 New International Version
> ...



Sad that the Message is so high,,,,


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 9, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Piper is right.
> 
> Margaret, the issues you pick with the ESV are ones of text more than translation. If you use a CT Bible, you end up dropping some words and adding others because the GREEK text of the CT does. A fairer comparison would be comparing the ESV with other CT Bibles (e.g., NIV, NLT, NASB, HCSB, etc.). Since they all presuppose the same underlying text, you have the opportunity to see how much paraphrase, how much skew, and how much spin gets brought into the translation. Among CT Bibles, the ESV is essentially literal and more fluid than the very literal and hard-to-read NASB.



Am I the only one who does not find the NASB hard to read? I find it quite easy and simple to read.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 9, 2008)

And reading it, he was saying to them: "I have been finding it to replicate the exact forms of the underlying Greek. Therefore, having found the Greek to be rich in participial forms, it is more than a little difficult reading it aloud for the average English speaker."


----------



## Galatians220 (Aug 10, 2008)

The substantive points I set forth above remain unaddressed.

I'm not led by Piper or Sproul. They don't have the kind of clout that the Holy Spirit has. Nor is either of these admittedly worthy men my pastor. I value Piper quite a lot for his opinions on the "remarriage after divorce" issue, for few construe that as biblically as he does. For awhile, I was in a thrall of admiration of R. C. Sproul. I met him several years ago at a conference in Chicago, was impressed by his affability and his messages and was a long-time subscriber to Tabletalk, but I've kind of moved on.

If anyone wants details (but not identifying ones) as to how one gets eliminated from Reformed churches for voicing her preference for the KJV, I will provide them in a PM. I am not lying about that. It happened. There is *little* Christian love in Reformed circles these days, and *little* tolerance for those who prefer the KJV.

If we stay in prayer and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and that of solid preaching under which the Lord has placed us, not only that of men who may be more or less sanctified than we are, we will use the Bible version that is most solid.

If the Lord is leading you to read the ESV or another translation, I am not going to argue with you. 

As for the KJV being hard to read, I will say anecdotally that the lady who convinced me to ditch the NIV and stick with the KJV was my brother's mother-in-law, a fine Christian who kindly took me under her wing right after I left the RCC. She had an 8th grade education. She invited me to a Bible study at her assisted living facility, and when she saw my NIV, she said, "Margaret, get rid of that thing and get a real Bible!" We had a lot of discussions about Bible versions other than the KJV, and she finally convinced me - along with the ten years of research I did on the issue. The Christlikeness that my brother's M.I.L. exhibited to me was so winsome, and her love so genuine and unfailing (as a Protestant from the South, she had a natural aversion to northern, even former, Catholics - but she put that aside _for me!_), that she - but first Christ Himself - won me over. She went, I presume to be with the Lord, a few years ago at age 86. I was blessed to have her kind fellowship for as long as I did, and as of yet, no one has taken her place.

*May the Lord bless everyone here.*

Margaret


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 10, 2008)

Margaret,

I'm sorry for not tackling the substance of your questions. On a Lord's Day morning, with preparations for church, permit me just a couple of observations.

1. The basic case for the KJV (ask Jerusalem Blade) involves a judgment regarding the textual tradition, not the form of translation. While I am a CT guy, my sympathies go to those who find the arguments compelling. 

2. Every translation both adds and subtracts from the meaning of the original. The translation philosophy of the KJV (insofar as it holds to and carries out "formal correspondence" noun for noun, verb for verb, adj for adj) comes closest to the NASB in approach to grammatical forms. However, the NASB was completed without the concern for literary beauty or the stately elegance of the KJV.

3. I don't like the NIV either. For a formal correspondence Bible, I use the NASB. For a translation, the ESV and HCSB satisfy me OK. If I finally went over to the TR side, my Bible would probably be the NKJV since it retains the TR tradition, elegance of language of the KJV, and contemporizes some of the archaic forms.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 10, 2008)

Galatians220 said:


> I value Piper quite a lot for his opinions on the "remarriage after divorce" issue, for few construe that as biblically as he does.



Actually Piper's position on divorce and remarriage is unbiblical and unconfessional (WCF 24:5), but this is best discussed elsewhere.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 10, 2008)

Interesting thread but I need to fetch a compass back home so I cannot post now.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Interesting thread but I need to fetch a compass back home so I cannot post now.



You should've been an FO in the Army. No compass, just a map and an 'L' scale. And you can truthfully say you never get lost.

I wish they would change Psalm 119:9, Proverbs 8:22, and Micah 5:2. Their renderings lead to some doctrinal problems.

And I'd like to see the distinction between 2nd pers sing & plur pronouns in the text and not in a footnote (Lk 22:31, 32)


----------

