# The ESV and Calvinists



## Osage Bluestem

I post on the Baptist Board and there was a sentiment that the ESV was a "calvinist" translation. It was refuted, of course.

However, it is noted by many groups that calvinists are flocking to the ESV. Why do you guys think it is that we like the ESV more than anyone else?


----------



## torstar

Probably got a few truckloads of the ESV for free.

That would be a good incentive.


----------



## fredtgreco

Actually, a good many of the contributors are Calvinistic. This the Oversight Committee:

Wayne Grudem
J. I. Packer
C. John Collins
Thomas R. Schreiner
Justin Taylor

Many of the contributors are explicitly Calvinistic:

http://www.esvonline.org/resources/esvsb/article-contributors/


----------



## Osage Bluestem

fredtgreco said:


> Actually, a good many of the contributors are Calvinistic. This the Oversight Committee:
> 
> Wayne Grudem
> J. I. Packer
> C. John Collins
> Thomas R. Schreiner
> Justin Taylor
> 
> Many of the contributors are explicitly Calvinistic:
> 
> http://www.esvonline.org/resources/esvsb/article-contributors/


 
Interesting. You believe it is indeed a Calvinist translation? Do you believe they have taken care to translate it according to our doctrines or according to the greek? The allegation on the other forum was that the translators had written their eisegesis of the greek into the text of the ESV.


----------



## Grillsy

Osage Bluestem said:


> You believe it is indeed a Calvinist translation? Do you believe they have taken care to translate it according to our doctrines or according to the greek?



What is the difference?


----------



## kodos

Osage Bluestem said:


> Interesting. You believe it is indeed a Calvinist translation? Do you believe they have taken care to translate it according to our doctrines or according to the greek? The allegation on the other forum was that the translators had written their eisegesis of the greek into the text of the ESV.



That's a bold allegation. How exactly do they back it up?


----------



## JM

A Calvinist translation is a faithful translation.


----------



## nicnap

Well, the ESV is essentially a revision of the RSV ... so, would they make that accusation of the RSV? If not, then I guess it's not. It did catch on quickly among Calvinistic folk ... I would say there are a few reasons. 1) The number of Calvinists involved with the revision; 2) there were a lot of Calvinistic folk who had been NIVers & wanted a more literal translation (NASB & NKJV have never 'caught on' as much as others ... I don't know why); 3) Crossway's marketing genius ... flood the market with ESV's while producing more & more Calvinistic literature. At least that's how I've seen it.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Grillsy said:


> What is the difference?



Good point 



kodos said:


> That's a bold allegation. How exactly do they back it up?


 
The guy didn't. He's not a fan of calvinists and because he had seen so many use the ESV he thought it had to be biased toward us.

---------- Post added at 11:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 PM ----------




JM said:


> A Calvinist translation is a faithful translation.


 
Indeed brother.


----------



## DMcFadden

nicnap said:


> Well, the ESV is essentially a revision of the RSV ... so, would they make that accusation of the RSV? If not, then I guess it's not. It did catch on quickly among Calvinistic folk ... I would say there are a few reasons. 1) The number of Calvinists involved with the revision; 2) there were a lot of Calvinistic folk who had been NIVers & wanted a more literal translation (NASB & NKJV have never 'caught on' as much as others ... I don't know why); 3) Crossway's marketing genius ... flood the market with ESV's while producing more & more Calvinistic literature. At least that's how I've seen it.



What a masterpiece of concision, Nicholas! Very succinct.

In seminary Bill LaSor was once asked why the NIV? He opined, "so that evangelicals have a Bible that is not the RSV." With growing frustration and dissatisfaction with the dynamic equivalent translational philosophy behind the NIV combined with the fact that it had grown a little stale in the three decades of its existence, the market was ripe for a formal correspondence translation without the baggage of liberalism (e.g., the RSV) or woodenness (e.g., NASB).

Without getting into the textual critical debate AGAIN, it would be safe to say that most seminarians who take Greek are indoctrinated into the superiority of the Critical Text. That would be sufficient reason why the NKJV would not receive the attention it probably deserves.

But, secular marketing and timing are undoubtedly key factors. Crossway was establishing itself as a Reformed leaning publisher at the same time that Reformed folks were becoming alienated from some of the Grand Rapids publishers such as Zondervan. A very good translation that also carves out its niche among the more literal translations, the Holman Christian Standard, might have given the ESV more of a run for their money had it not been produced by an insular denominational publisher (SBC) and missed the marketing window captured by Crossway.


----------



## HoldFast

My Arminian friend calls the ESV Study Bible the Calvinist Study Bible. It is always good for a laugh.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I don't think that the ESV itself has a calvinist slant, maybe some of the notes in the ESV study bible do. Regardless, I think the popularity of the ESV amongst Calvinists has more to do with who was behind the translation than the translation itself. It is not a bad version, certainly better than the NIV (no intelligence version) and a marked improvement over its predecessor the RSV. Still, like all version based on the critical text, it fails in that the translators put more faith in their precious methods of textual criticism than in the Word of God itself. The result is a number of inconsistencies such as Jesus misquoting the Old Testament. I personally prefer the NKJV, but I would like to see an all new translation done in the Calvinist tradition. As for popularity of the various bible versions, here is the latest list from the Christian Booksellers Association. It is from 2009 because they only release it every three years. It will be interesting to see if the ESV moves up any in the next one.

The Christian Booksellers Association has just published its list of best selling bible translations for 2009 based on both dollar and unit sales. Here are the lists, but keep in mind that the ranking is based only on sales in US Christian retail stores.

2009 - Based on Dollar 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.New American Standard Bible updated 
8.The Message 
9.New International Readers Version 
10.Today’s New International Version 

2009 - Based on Unit Sales

1.New International Version 
2.King James Version 
3.New King James Version 
4.New Living Translation 
5.English Standard Version 
6.Holman Christian Standard Bible 
7.The Message 
8.New International Readers Version 
9.New American Standard Bible updated 
10.Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)


----------



## Andres

Bill The Baptist said:


> 2009 - Based on Dollar 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.New American Standard Bible updated
> 8.The Message
> 9.New International Readers Version
> 10.Today’s New International Version
> 
> 2009 - Based on Unit Sales
> 
> 1.New International Version
> 2.King James Version
> 3.New King James Version
> 4.New Living Translation
> 5.English Standard Version
> 6.Holman Christian Standard Bible
> 7.The Message
> 8.New International Readers Version
> 9.New American Standard Bible updated
> 10.Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)



So the NKJV costs more?


----------



## Michael

Marketing, marketing, marketing.


----------



## Philip

Andres said:


> So the NKJV costs more?



It's copyrighted, so yes. Anyone can print an edition of the KJV because it's public domain in the US.


----------



## JM

CBA updates it's lists every month.

http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bible_Translations.pdf

http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/BSLs/Bibles.pdf


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I think it's because the NASB made themselves very inaccessible, by not allowing others to use their text. I don't know of many commentaries that use the NASB. By doing this the made themselves like Macintosh did in the 80's and 90's. I used the NASB, but then I looked around and realized that no one else was using it. I think it is a very solid translation, but I now use the ESV because more other people use it. I don't think the ESV would have been very successful, if the NASB had been more accessible.


----------



## Jack K

DMcFadden said:


> But, secular marketing and timing are undoubtedly key factors. Crossway was establishing itself as a Reformed leaning publisher at the same time that Reformed folks were becoming alienated from some of the Grand Rapids publishers such as Zondervan. A very good translation that also carves out its niche among the more literal translations, the Holman Christian Standard, might have given the ESV more of a run for their money had it not been produced by an insular denominational publisher (SBC) and missed the marketing window captured by Crossway.



 This would be my assessment, too. We were ready to give up the NIV, and we trusted Crossway, which did a fabulous marketing job.


----------



## Grillsy

What I find surprising is that the NIV had that much of a following in Reformed camps. For shame.


----------



## E Nomine

Amen to DMcFadden's post, above!

There is a rapidly growing number of ESV options as the variety of NKJV editions appears to be contracting.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.


----------



## torstar

Unashamed 116 said:


> What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.


 

It was the first to stand up to the KJVO crowd and boldly went into the jungle of fundamentalism.

As such it was attacked with all the venom that certain elements in those groupings could muster.

My church preaches from the NIV. The best part of it is it tells me tons about someone who will bring a different translation anyways to group teachings....

If I have any squeamishness about it then I can ask myself what my credentials are compared to the advisory board of that translation.

And I know if verses from the most popular solid translations were presented to me in a pop quiz that I could not tell them apart.


----------



## Curt

Unashamed 116 said:


> What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality



This should be interesting.


----------



## Jack K

Grillsy said:


> What I find surprising is that the NIV had that much of a following in Reformed camps. For shame.



You had to be there when the NIV first came out. It was the first time we had any Bible that was (1) a serious scholarly effort, yet (2) highly readable in everyday language and (3) still sounded somewhat like the Bibles we'd grown up with (Living Bible and TEV did not). Many believers just ate it up. It changed the whole game. And once a version gets engrained, it's hard to change what you're used to even if something still better comes along or you start to realize some shortcomings you hadn't seen early on.


----------



## discipulo

Unashamed 116 said:


> What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.




Joseph, I don't like the NIV, with all due respect, it seems to me like it is a Bible diluted in water, like a paraphrase, I can’t sense that nourishment and substance I get from other versions.

Maybe it’s me, but that's exactly my beef with it, the absence of a sense of meat.

I am so used to my favourite version, the Portuguese Translation of the XVII Century João Ferreira de Almeida, a refugee to Holland who became a Minister in the Netherlands Reformed Church and a Missionary to Indonesia.

But concerning English Versions I like KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV.

I find the NASB pretty good, I don’t know why so few people use it.


----------



## E Nomine

torstar said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My church preaches from the NIV. The best part of it is it tells me tons about someone who will bring a different translation anyways to group teachings....
Click to expand...

 
I don't know what this could tell you other than that someone brought a different translation to your study. With due respect, be cautious about making assumptions.


----------



## torstar

E Nomine said:


> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My church preaches from the NIV. The best part of it is it tells me tons about someone who will bring a different translation anyways to group teachings....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what this could tell you other than that someone brought a different translation to your study. With due respect, be cautious about making assumptions.
Click to expand...

 


They think they are smarter than others...

Once can be an honest mistake, twice and more is a mousy rebellion.

Especially if there are 25 copies of the NIV sitting there on the table in front of you.

And again there may be the exception that proves the rule.

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------




Jack K said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find surprising is that the NIV had that much of a following in Reformed camps. For shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had to be there when the NIV first came out. It was the first time we had any Bible that was (1) a serious scholarly effort, yet (2) highly readable in everyday language and (3) still sounded somewhat like the Bibles we'd grown up with (Living Bible and TEV did not). Many believers just ate it up. It changed the whole game. And once a version gets engrained, it's hard to change what you're used to even if something still better comes along or you start to realize some shortcomings you hadn't seen early on.
Click to expand...

 


And the NIV was the first to hit good conservative Christians with those notes at the bottom of the page, some suggesting that portions of Scripture don't really belong there.

Still not sure this was and is the best thing to do to non-scholars, but it is what it is.


----------



## E Nomine

Obviously I can't speak for your group, Torstar, but I bring a different version than my church's standard translation to Bible study and worship merely because I'm comfortable with my version and I like seeing the differences between the two. It is absolutely not an act of rebellion or a symbol of superiority. 

I've never been directed by an elder to use the church standard version but, if I was, I would submit to his direction.


----------



## torstar

E Nomine said:


> Obviously I can't speak for your group, Torstar, but I bring a different version than my church's standard translation to Bible study and worship merely because I'm comfortable with my version and I like seeing the differences between the two. It is absolutely not an act of rebellion or a symbol of superiority.
> 
> I've never been directed by an elder to use the church standard version but, if I was, I would submit to his direction.


 

I see membership and putting myself under the leadership of my church as accepting the version they use in teaching and in reading in unison, even without any coercion. 

If I have a different translation with me on a given day, for whatever reason, I would not loudly quote from it as to disturb others. 

If I am in a study and know everyone else is using the same translation, I would not show up with answers that are based on the wording of other translations.

And I don't understand the big deal about the NIV, unless I was credentialed. My personal choosiness over certain words is not grounds to attack a translation publicly. 

At the same time, my personal convictions are my own and free and everyone's mileage will vary.

[E... I don't really think we are in disagreement here...]


----------



## Grillsy

Jack K said:


> You had to be there when the NIV first came out. It was the first time we had any Bible that was (1) a serious scholarly effort, yet (2) highly readable in everyday language and (3) still sounded somewhat like the Bibles we'd grown up with (Living Bible and TEV did not). Many believers just ate it up. It changed the whole game. And once a version gets engrained, it's hard to change what you're used to even if something still better comes along or you start to realize some shortcomings you hadn't seen early on.



Good point Jack. I am guilty of judging a situation out of its context. 
The point about a version being ingrained is also a great reminder that the NIV remains the standard in many churches in out tradition and familiarity. 

If I am not mistaken, the NIV was criticized in its time for its translation philosophy correct? Was it simply the most conservative of the new translations at the time? If so, did that lead to the NIV's wide acceptance?


----------



## teddyrux

Joshua_B said:


> My Arminian friend calls the ESV Study Bible the Calvinist Study Bible. It is always good for a laugh.



What do they call the Reformation Study Bible? Introduction to the Reformation Study Bible from R.C. Sproul 

I started out with the NIV, based on the recommendation of my friend who lead me to the Lord. I later moved, got married and switched churches (from a Methodist church to a Calvinist church). I was introduced to the ESV in that church, although the pastor was and still is solidly NKJV. I prefer the literal translations and the ESV is in modern English.


----------



## Bethel

Unashamed 116 said:


> What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.


 
I've been asking this same question lately. Here is an article that helped me see the weaknesses of the NIV: The NIV - Simply a Bad Translation

My church uses the ESV, so I have a compact ESV Bible to use on Sundays & Wednesdays; however, for my personal study, I've been using the HCSB (in place of my NIV after reading Pastor Bacon's article). In my opinion, the HCSB reads more smoothly like the NIV, but I think the translation is better. There's something about the ESV that I can't quite articulate, but it's not a translation that I can fully embrace.


----------



## Jack K

Grillsy said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had to be there when the NIV first came out. It was the first time we had any Bible that was (1) a serious scholarly effort, yet (2) highly readable in everyday language and (3) still sounded somewhat like the Bibles we'd grown up with (Living Bible and TEV did not). Many believers just ate it up. It changed the whole game. And once a version gets engrained, it's hard to change what you're used to even if something still better comes along or you start to realize some shortcomings you hadn't seen early on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point Jack. I am guilty of judging a situation out of its context.
> The point about a version being ingrained is also a great reminder that the NIV remains the standard in many churches in out tradition and familiarity.
> 
> If I am not mistaken, the NIV was criticized in its time for its translation philosophy correct? Was it simply the most conservative of the new translations at the time? If so, did that lead to the NIV's wide acceptance?
Click to expand...

 
I'm just one guy. But as far as I can remember, the thinking those days in the Dutch Reformed circles and campus ministry groups in which I travelled was:

KJV = Old and difficult
NASB = Newer but stilted language
RSV = Liberal
Living Bible and TEV = Paraphrases/non-scholarly

The NIV seemed to answer all these objections. It was conservative and readable, and unlike the Living Bible and TEV, was published with covers/binding that made it look like a real Bible rather than a Jesus Movement fad. Those believers I knew who didn't use it were mostly going for the NASB.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Unashamed 116 said:


> What is everyones beef with the NIV? It is a solid translation. Maybe not the best but certainly good quality.


 
When the translators of the NIV came out with the TNIV, they showed their true liberal colors. Now they are planning a revision of the NIV to come out later this year that will incorporate much of the gender neutral language of the TNIV without alerting anyone to the changes. The translation commitee for the NIV has always been liberal and are now engaging in classic incrementalism to slowly change the Word of God.


----------



## MMasztal

nicnap said:


> Well, the ESV is essentially a revision of the RSV ... so, would they make that accusation of the RSV? If not, then I guess it's not. It did catch on quickly among Calvinistic folk ... I would say there are a few reasons. 1) The number of Calvinists involved with the revision; 2) there were a lot of Calvinistic folk who had been NIVers & wanted a more literal translation (NASB & NKJV have never 'caught on' as much as others ... I don't know why); 3) Crossway's marketing genius ... flood the market with ESV's while producing more & more Calvinistic literature. At least that's how I've seen it.



I think Zondervan’s publishing of the dreadful gender neutral tNIV against the wishes of many reformed clergy may have been the catalyst that resulted in the OPC (of which I was a member when they went ESV as the official translation) as well as my ARP church who also transitioned from NIV a few years ago.


----------



## Jack K

Bill The Baptist said:


> The translation commitee for the NIV has always been liberal



Really? Like since the 1960's when the first work on the New Testament began? Like there was a conspiracy starting back then to create a conservative-looking Bible which could then be secretly swapped for a liberal one 40 years later?

I'm no fan of the TNIV or the 2011 revision, and not a huge fan either of the original NIV now that we have better choices. But the claim that the translators have _always_ been liberal is a big claim to make, especially considering some of the names that were on that list early on.


----------



## DMcFadden

Joseph, as the KJV translators remind us, almost any English translation is the Word of God. However, if you are given options, why pick a lesser one in preference to a better one?

Most eras have their own particular preferences, idiosyncrasies, and . . . fads! At the time of the NIV, dynamic equivalent translation was the popular up-and-coming idea. Based upon linguistics and missionary experience, the philosophy undergirding this form of translation was the hot ticket in the academy. PhDs in NT and OT were well versed in the ideology of dynamic equivalence.

Some of us prefer a more formal correspondence form of translation, believing it to be faithful and to be preferred. Among the Critical Text translations (i.e., pretty much everything other than the KJV and NKJV), the more formal correspondence style translations with evangelical Bible translators responsible include the NASB, ESV, and HCSB.

I do not profess to be a Greek scholar. However, having used my Greek Testament on a regular basis since the fall of 1971, I can hardly stand to use the NIV when there are better options such as the ESV and HCSB available.

If abandoned on a desert island, with only a NIV available, I would praise the Lord for his mercy to me in granting me ready access to his inerrant Word. However, in the land of forty gazillion translations, you would have to pay me a BUCKET of bucks to get me to pick one up now.

Also, for those of us who consider the gender changes to the Bible a HORRIBLE idea, Zondervan's sponsorship of the NIV/TNIV has generated some difficulty with many folks. If the TNIV is their idea of a faithful Bible translation . . . yikes!


----------



## MW

The Calvinist purpose of translation is, "that the word of God *dwelling plentifully in all*, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope" -- WCF 1.8. There are at least three prominent ways in which the ESV (and NIV) robs people of the *plentiful* word of God. (1) It removes or casts doubt upon numerous readings which have been regarded as the word of God by Calvinists for centuries. (2) It obscures the plain import of the passage in literally thousands of places by the simple failure to distinguish between singular and plural. (3) It continues to carry out the modern method of neutralising truth by means of anti-doctrinal translation and thereby leaves the reader to arrive at non-Calvinist interpretations of the text.


----------



## JM

armourbearer said:


> The Calvinist purpose of translation is, "that the word of God *dwelling plentifully in all*, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope" -- WCF 1.8. There are at least three prominent ways in which the ESV (and NIV) robs people of the *plentiful* word of God. (1) It removes or casts doubt upon numerous readings which have been regarded as the word of God by Calvinists for centuries. (2) It obscures the plain import of the passage in literally thousands of places by the simple failure to distinguish between singular and plural. (3) It continues to carry out the modern method of neutralising truth by means of anti-doctrinal translation and thereby leaves the reader to arrive at non-Calvinist interpretations of the text.



...and I believe Rev. Winzer has made a few posts to show the AV to be a "Calvinist" translation in the past.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

armourbearer said:


> The Calvinist purpose of translation is, "that the word of God *dwelling plentifully in all*, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope" -- WCF 1.8. There are at least three prominent ways in which the ESV (and NIV) robs people of the *plentiful* word of God. (1) It removes or casts doubt upon numerous readings which have been regarded as the word of God by Calvinists for centuries. (2) It obscures the plain import of the passage in literally thousands of places by the simple failure to distinguish between singular and plural. (3) It continues to carry out the modern method of neutralising truth by means of anti-doctrinal translation and thereby leaves the reader to arrive at non-Calvinist interpretations of the text.


 
Are you a KJV onlyist?


----------



## JM

Are there any KJVO on this forum? I don't think so.


----------



## MW

Osage Bluestem said:


> Are you a KJV onlyist?


 
No; nor did I say anything which would suggest it.


----------



## DMcFadden

I am unaware of anyone who is KJVO (in the Ripplinger sense) active in posting on the PB.

For those who "prefer" the KJV, the term KJVO is typically viewed as a slander (or at least a very negatively freighted term). It tends to be associated with a host of kooks, at least some of whom hold to sectarian and even cultic views of the Bible.

A number of PB readers regularly preach and teach from the KJV, but allow that another English translation would be quite acceptable. Some of them like the NKJV while others argue against it for some of its textual decisions. Others argue that the KJV not only preserves a better textual tradition, but that it handles the poetic passages of the Bible (1/3 or so) in a way more in accord with the intentionality of the divine author who inspired them to be inscripturated as poetry so that they might have affective as well as cognitive and volitional power.

In any case, aren't we all viewed as nutty enough 5 pt Calvinists without ascribing particular kookiness to one another?


----------



## Jack K

And I'm sure there are also others on this board like myself who don't prefer the KJV but still appreciate that translation and find many of the agruments in favor of it to have some merit. Just because we don't use that translation regularly does not mean we think those who do are "kooky."


----------



## SCharles

torstar said:


> E Nomine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously I can't speak for your group, Torstar, but I bring a different version than my church's standard translation to Bible study and worship merely because I'm comfortable with my version and I like seeing the differences between the two. It is absolutely not an act of rebellion or a symbol of superiority.
> 
> I've never been directed by an elder to use the church standard version but, if I was, I would submit to his direction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see membership and putting myself under the leadership of my church as accepting the version they use in teaching and in reading in unison, even without any coercion.
> 
> If I have a different translation with me on a given day, for whatever reason, I would not loudly quote from it as to disturb others.
> 
> If I am in a study and know everyone else is using the same translation, I would not show up with answers that are based on the wording of other translations.
> 
> And I don't understand the big deal about the NIV, unless I was credentialed. My personal choosiness over certain words is not grounds to attack a translation publicly.
> 
> At the same time, my personal convictions are my own and free and everyone's mileage will vary.
> 
> [E... I don't really think we are in disagreement here...]
Click to expand...

 
Does the church understand conformity in the use of Bible translations as a component of membership? 

I could understand a church policy in place to teach from a particular version, especially if pew bibles were of that translation and/or congregational readings were from that translation. That being said, I don't see why an elder would object to someone personally using a different translation to participate in a study or in a worship service.

Maybe it's my Baptist background, but I am very wary of any insistence on a particular translation, especially when we are not using the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek text.


----------



## Peairtach

*Cesar*


> Maybe it’s me, but that's exactly my beef with it, the absence of a sense of meat.



I get this "sense" too. No doubt the dynamic flattening process at work. Processed food.


----------



## Galatians220

DMcFadden said:


> I am unaware of anyone who is KJVO (in the Ripplinger sense) active in posting on the PB.


 
I'm not KJVO in the _*Riplinger*_ sense, but I am TR only. However, I'm hardly active here on the PB anymore.

My preference for the King James has to do with having been raised in Tridentine-mass, pre-Vatican II Catholicism, the KJ being proscribed to me then but the RV and its American equivalent being considered "just as good as" Catholic Scripture (which we weren't encouraged to read) except for the absence of the apocrypha. The King James, therefore, is precious to me in ways I can't even properly describe with mere words. 

I've been doing a self-directed study of this issue for 14 years, using Hills, Dean Burgon and others as guides - but not Ruckman or Riplinger. As I've posted here about the issue before, I won't summarize or recap those posts. Over the past 20 years, since I left the RCC, I've watched the KJ fall into deeper and deeper disfavor in solid, Gospel-preaching churches. This is a crying shame. I've been marginalized and ostracized for merely discussing, but not propounding, the issue and so I don't do that anymore. Won't do it here, either. I just wanted to chime in and say, there is/was someone who was once active here who has been TR only for a very long time. 

Blessings to all here, as always,

Margaret


----------



## torstar

Thanks SCharles.

The exchanges took a tangent I was not expecting. 

There is no compulsion to use a specific version but it's fair to say the culture of a situation may lean toward it.

Probably best to end this tangent on that note.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

armourbearer said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a KJV onlyist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No; nor did I say anything which would suggest it.
Click to expand...

 
Ok. I wasn't accusing you. I was just curious because you said this:



> 1) It removes or casts doubt upon numerous readings which have been regarded as the word of God by Calvinists for centuries.



And then JM said you had made a case before that the KJV was a calvinist translation. So, putting two and two together and seeing a possible 4 made me want to ask the question. I hope you weren't offended by the question. I certainly meant nothing derogatory by asking it.


----------



## jwithnell

> I think it's because the NASB made themselves very inaccessible, by not allowing others to use their text.


 I agree, and it's getting harder and harder to find the translation. I'm not crazy about a "dynamic equivalent" translation such as the NIV. (I'm one of those rebels sitting there with my NASB, because it is my primary Bible and that's where my most important margin notes go; obviously I use the NIV pew edition for any responsive readings.) The NIV is so much easier on the ear than the ESV. The phrasing and use of multiple words when fewer would suffice drives me up the wall.


----------



## DMcFadden

Galatians220 said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am unaware of anyone who is KJVO (in the Ripplinger sense) active in posting on the PB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not KJVO in the _*Riplinger*_ sense, but I am TR only. However, I'm hardly active here on the PB anymore.
> 
> My preference for the King James has to do with having been raised in Tridentine-mass, pre-Vatican II Catholicism, the KJ being proscribed to me then but the RV and its American equivalent being considered "just as good as" Catholic Scripture (which we weren't encouraged to read) except for the absence of the apocrypha. The King James, therefore, is precious to me in ways I can't even properly describe with mere words.
> 
> I've been doing a self-directed study of this issue for 14 years, using Hills, Dean Burgon and others as guides - but not Ruckman or Riplinger. As I've posted here about the issue before, I won't summarize or recap those posts. Over the past 20 years, since I left the RCC, I've watched the KJ fall into deeper and deeper disfavor in solid, Gospel-preaching churches. This is a crying shame. I've been marginalized and ostracized for merely discussing, but not propounding, the issue and so I don't do that anymore. Won't do it here, either. I just wanted to chime in and say, there is/was someone who was once active here who has been TR only for a very long time.
> 
> Blessings to all here, as always,
> 
> Margaret
Click to expand...

 
Margaret,

I did not have you in mind in my comment. I DO consider the Ripplinger folks "kooky" for going beyond the evidence and confessions in their nearly cultic support for the KJV. When a KJVO person says that the KJV translators were granted special inspiration that corrects the Greek, that is going too far (in my opinion).

This year, I have read/am reading three of the histories of the KJV and have watched three of the documentaries (including the most excellent KJB, with John Rhys-Davies). Additionally, I am doing all of my teaching out of the KJV and my wife and I are doing our morning devotions in it.

I tend to be an ESV user who respects the textual and theological arguments for the Majority text and honors the amazing work of the translators of the KJV. Ryken captures well my sentiments when he identifies what we have lost in moving away from the AV. So, my own personal usage will include both the KJV and the ESV on a regular basis (with the NKJV and HCSB as backups).


----------



## MW

Osage Bluestem said:


> I hope you weren't offended by the question. I certainly meant nothing derogatory by asking it.


 
Thankyou for your candour. No offence was taken, but I immediately seek to repudiate the name of KJVO because it is regularly used as a sociological tool to mariginalise people to the fringes of evangelical discussion. Blessings!


----------



## TimV

TomasCartwright still believes the TR has no corruptions, otherwise God would be a liar. Steve R. has said he is pondering whether or not the TR could have corruptions. I think there are a few others who say that the TR could not have any corruptions for theological reasons. That would be a good definition of a KJVO. Pastor Winzer has from the start said that it is theoretically possible for the TR to have corruptions, and has even quoted people from his own Scottish based tradition saying as much.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

As an FYI here is an audio interview with Ted Letis on the ESV. 

http://www.swrc.com/ramfiles/jan203.rm

A lecture on the ESV by Dr. Letis. 

SermonAudio.com - The So-called English Standard Version


----------



## bookslover

I don't remember where I read it, but someone referred to the ESV as the Elect Standard Version. Heh. Wish *I'd* thought of that...

When I became a Christian in 1980, I started out using the NASB because that was the translation used in the church I was in at that time. Some years later, I switched to the NIV when it was new because I was dissatisfied with the NASB's woodenness. Then, when the ESV came along in 2001, I gleefully switched to it so I could dump the NIV, which I found way too paraphrastic.

Now, at 58, I'm happy with the ESV and don't see myself changing translations again in my lifetime.


----------



## Scottish Lass

torstar said:


> They think they are smarter than others...
> 
> Once can be an honest mistake, twice and more is a mousy rebellion.
> 
> Especially if there are 25 copies of the NIV sitting there on the table in front of you.




Or I prefer to use my own because it has wide margins for note-taking?


----------



## torstar

Scottish Lass said:


> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They think they are smarter than others...
> 
> Once can be an honest mistake, twice and more is a mousy rebellion.
> 
> Especially if there are 25 copies of the NIV sitting there on the table in front of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or I prefer to use my own because it has wide margins for note-taking?
Click to expand...

 

I"m not even 1% understanding how anything was said about private matters here. The whole problem was with the deliberate and public use of another translation just to mess things up for others.

I've asked 20 coworkers where anything about the private use of your preference for translation was mentioned, they saw nothing but public disturbance as being the issue raised.


----------



## Scottish Lass

torstar said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> They think they are smarter than others...
> 
> Once can be an honest mistake, twice and more is a mousy rebellion.
> 
> Especially if there are 25 copies of the NIV sitting there on the table in front of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or I prefer to use my own because it has wide margins for note-taking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I"m not even 1% understanding how anything was said about private matters here. The whole problem was with the deliberate and public use of another translation just to mess things up for others.
> 
> I've asked 20 coworkers where anything about the private use of your preference for translation was mentioned, they saw nothing but public disturbance as being the issue raised.
Click to expand...

 
Okay. You said "group teachings". I bring my own translation to group teachings and take private notes, and yes, sometimes read aloud. But we have no expected translation. In that setting, I would read aloud from the group translation and take notes in mine. Our denom's SS booklet has a translation in the back for group use, and that's what I do then.


----------



## athanatos

bookslover said:


> I don't remember where I read it, but someone referred to the ESV as the Elect Standard Version. Heh. Wish *I'd* thought of that...


Just to cover all bases, you DO know what it stands for, right? ESV stands for Extra Spiritual Version.


----------



## au5t1n

The other day I met my friend for dinner and we were discussing Jeremiah, which he is currently reading. I pointed out that last year when I read Jeremiah (in the KJV -- my friend reads the ESV), I noticed a recurring theme where many, many times, God says he rose up early to call the people to repentance. I loved that imagery and thought it was a very interesting recurring theme in Jeremiah. My friend had no idea what I was talking about. So I just looked up all the instances where this imagery occurs in Jeremiah and sent them to him: Jer. 7:13; 7:25; 11:7; 25:3-4; 26:5; 29:19; 32:33; 35:14-15; 44:4 - Passage*Lookup - King James Version - BibleGateway.com

Out of curiosity, I checked the ESV for the references. Consistently, the ESV says "persistently" instead of "rising up early." I checked the Hebrew. It says "rising up early." This is yet another example of where the ESV makes a pointless interpretation instead of translating what the verse actually says. I have noticed lots of these over my use of both translations. The ESV doesn't seem to be nearly as literal as it claims to be. I can name dozens of other examples if anyone wants them.

I still think it's a good translation, but I don't use it regularly anymore because I find the translation method extremely annoying. I like reading what was actually written (as much as reasonably possible in English), not replacements of whole phrases with interpretations, when the phrase would have made perfect sense if it were simply translated directly. In fact, the more I discover these, the more I wonder if the ESV is even significantly more accurate than the NIV.

Added: The NASB and the NKJV translate it correctly, by the way.


----------



## DMcFadden

One could just as easily show instances where the KJV translates the same Greek word in harmony Gospel accounts with different English words, leading the reader to think that the underlying Greek is more different than it actually is.

A helpful exercise would be to read the translator's preface to the KJV. 



> Another things we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that *we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done*, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified that same in both places (for there be some words that be not the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by PURPOSE, never to call it INTENT; if one where JOURNEYING, never TRAVELING; if one where THINK, never SUPPOSE; if one where PAIN, never ACHE; if one where JOY, never GLADNESS, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?


 [emphasis mine]

NONE of the formal correspondence style translations is perfect. However, the KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB, despite their differences over which text to use or how to replicate into English the Hebrew and Greek originals, come mighty close to being "word for word" translations in a way that the NIV, TNIV, NLT, CEV, TEV, JB, LB, Message, etc. will NEVER be.

Now in a "downsizing" mode in preparation for an eventual move to Indiana to be near children and grandchildren, Jeanette and I have been eliminating clutter in our lives. Accordingly, it has been my goal to keep one exemplar in fine leather (R.L. Allan if possible) of each of the solid formal correspondence transations: KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB (NASB is soooo wooden to my ears that using it on the computer is good enough for me, can't imagine carrying it to church) and of my favorite study Bibles (ESV Study Bible, MacArthur ESV, and Reformation Study Bible). The rest of them were put back into "circulation" and saved me shelf space on my desk.


----------



## au5t1n

DMcFadden said:


> One could just as easily show instances where the KJV translates the same Greek word in harmony Gospel accounts with different English words, leading the reader to think that the underlying Greek is more different than it actually is.



I don't think this is nearly as bad as replacing entire phrases with made-up phrases, but that's just my opinion. What the translators are describing in your quote is reasonable because, as it points out, the same word can be used differently, and so might be translated differently (or with a synonym). This is common in translation of books in general. Inserting entire phrases that have no basis in the text is entirely different, as the ESV frequently does.

I don't really have a beef with the ESV; I just personally prefer to use something more precise, and I think readers of the Bible should be aware of what they're getting. It seems to me that the ESV is marketed as being more literal than it really is. This is misleading. It is consistently interpretive in a way that the KJV, for example, is not. A good example is 1 Peter 1:13, where an entire clause was made up from scratch by the ESV translators.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------

I didn't go looking for examples, by the way. They just seem to come to me. The Jeremiah problem mentioned above is one I noticed today while looking up verses for my friend. I don't see the point at all of totally destroying the imagery and removing words that the Holy Spirit inspired. It seems like a disrespectful handling of the Scripture to me. Almost a dozen times throughout Jeremiah, God told Jeremiah to tell the people that he rose up early and sent the prophets to call them to repentance, and folks reading the ESV like my friend does would never have known about this recurring theme. It's missing from the ESV, and yes, that does bother me a little. Just a little, but this kind of thing is why I stopped using the ESV as my main translation, though I still consult it and consider it a good translation in many ways. I do see your point, Mr. McFadden; I just think there is a qualitative difference between the kinds of imperfections of the two translations we are using as examples.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Osage Bluestem said:


> I post on the Baptist Board and there was a sentiment that the ESV was a "calvinist" translation. It was refuted, of course.
> 
> However, it is noted by many groups that calvinists are flocking to the ESV. Why do you guys think it is that we like the ESV more than anyone else?


 
Personally and honestly, the endorsements from distinguished Reformed theologians (along with a few other tidbits of information) encouraged me to pick up a copy of the ESV Reformation Study Bible when it first came out. One of the reasons I like it is because of the translation philosophy, another reason is readability and flow. I wouldn't call it a "calvinist" translation any more than I would call the HCSB a "baptist" translation. I would say they are faithful to the texts behind them. I do not understand why some Protestants put more trust in tradition and a team of less than 50 Catholic scholars than teams of 100 or more Protestant scholars all affirming biblical inerrancy, especially when said translations are revisions of previous translations! Not to mention manuscript discoveries, advances in original languages, and access to manuscripts. Personally, I am now leaning more toward the HCSB as my favorite translation because it is not based on another translation, it is a very readable literal translation, and a team of 100 Protestant biblical scholars (from various denominations) all affirming biblical inerrancy translated it.


----------



## Kiffin

bookslover said:


> I don't remember where I read it, but someone referred to the ESV as the Elect Standard Version. Heh. Wish *I'd* thought of that...


 
lol. Not sure if it was original to him but at the Gospel Coalition, Driscoll before his seminar told us to "get your Elect Standard Version out."

I'm beginning to like the HCSB. We got free ones at the conference!

Look how they translate John 3:16 for example:
_For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life._
Not sure if Arminians will like this one....lol


----------



## nicnap

torstar said:


> I've asked 20 coworkers ....



Seriously?


----------



## au5t1n

nicnap said:


> torstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked 20 coworkers where anything about the private use of your preference for translation was mentioned, they saw nothing but public disturbance as being the issue raised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?
Click to expand...

 
No kidding.


----------



## Grillsy

Apologist4Him said:


> I do not understand why some Protestants put more trust in tradition and a team of less than 50 Catholic scholars than teams of 100 or more Protestant scholars all affirming biblical inerrancy



Which translation was done by less than 50 Catholic scholars that Protestants put their trust in? 



Apologist4Him said:


> Personally, I am now leaning more toward the HCSB as my favorite translation because it is not based on another translation



Just as when reading the great theologians of the past, it is a good thing to learn and use what was good in those things that came before. Translation in a vacuum is not a good thing. I'm sure the HCSB translators consulted other translations even if they don't claim a direct lineage.


----------



## E Nomine

> The whole problem was with the deliberate and public use of another translation just to mess things up for others.
> +raised.



As with your earlier assumption that people using different versions are rebellious and/or snobbish, I find this assumption that people just want to "mess things up" extremely offensive.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Grillsy said:


> Which translation was done by less than 50 Catholic scholars that Protestants put their trust in?



Sorry, I was still waking up and distracted, I'm glad you caught my mistake, I should have stated it differently... based on Roman Catholic Jerome's Latin Vulgate, Catholic 'humanist' priest Erasmus' "textus receptus", and the Bishop's Bible, the 47 scholars were all from the Church of England, and included the apocrypha in the first 1611 edition.



Grillsy said:


> Just as when reading the great theologians of the past, it is a good thing to learn and use what was good in those things that came before. Translation in a vacuum is not a good thing. I'm sure the HCSB translators consulted other translations even if they don't claim a direct lineage.



I believe the KJV was the best English translation for hundreds of years... I wouldn't say modern translations have been done in a vacuum... scholars today can compare alexandrian type mss with byzantine type mss ...according to Daniel Wallace "The Majority Text differs from the Textus Receptus in almost 2,000 places. So the agreement is better than 99 percent. But the Majority Text differs from the modern critical text in only about 6,500 places. In other words the two texts agree almost 98 percent of the time." The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site


----------



## DMcFadden

austinww said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> One could just as easily show instances where the KJV translates the same Greek word in harmony Gospel accounts with different English words, leading the reader to think that the underlying Greek is more different than it actually is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is nearly as bad as replacing entire phrases with made-up phrases, but that's just my opinion. What the translators are describing in your quote is reasonable because, as it points out, the same word can be used differently, and so might be translated differently (or with a synonym). This is common in translation of books in general. Inserting entire phrases that have no basis in the text is entirely different, as the ESV frequently does.
Click to expand...


That is not what I was referencing. Obviously a single word, _hesed,_ for example, can be translated differently, depending upon the context. I seem to remember that the KJV handles it with 16 different English words.

My point is illustrated by Romans 5:2-11. Paul did not vary his vocabulary, using the same Greek word 3x in this text. The KJV translates it with different English words in each instance. This makes for a more attractive style; more attractive, indeed, than the original from which it was translated!

But, more to the point, when the Synoptics record the same incident using the SAME GREEK words, one might think that passages would be translated in the same way regardless of the Gospel involved. But, as McGrath observes, 



> “The evidence, however, suggests that the Second Oxford Company of translators, who were responsible for translating the gospels, did not see things in quite this light. We regularly find identical Greek passages in two or three gospels which are translated in quite different manners in the King James Bible."



Compare Mark 14:38 and Matthew 26:41 in the KJV and in the Greek:

Mark 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. 

γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν· τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής.
γρηγορειτε και προσευχεσθε ινα μη εισελθητε εις πειρασμον το μεν πνευμα προθυμον η δε σαρξ ασθενης 

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Identical Greek words are translated rather differently in the Marcan and Matthean accounts. 

My point was not to diss the KJV. Although my regular Bible is the ESV, I'm using the KJV for all my teaching and daily devotions in this year of the 400th Anniversary. However, the complaint made about varied word use in the ESV can be illustrated in the KJV as well. Formal correspondence does NOT mean mechanical literalism. The KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB are ALL essentially literal. They are not, however, mechanically so.


----------



## au5t1n

DMcFadden said:


> However, the complaint made about varied word use in the ESV can be illustrated in the KJV as well.



I was following you up until this point. I think we are fully agreed that many of the KJV's word choices -- especially in the Synoptics or when the same word is used in close proximity in a passage (this problem occurs in 1 Cor. 13 as well) -- could stand to be corrected, and translations like the ESV and NASB may handle those better. The problem is, my complaint concerning the ESV did_ not_ concern mere variation in how a single word is translated. It concerned replacement of entire phrases with phrases that have no underlying basis in the text. I agree that the ESV is "essentially literal," but I think it is significantly less literal. Unnecessary word variation in the KJV is unfortunate and could stand to be improved, but it is still a direct translation of a word that actually appears in the underlying text. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## seajayrice

Please, no translation compares to the AV. I enjoy the NKJV and the NASB but let’s be clear, they pale to the AV (manuscript family and tenor). The NIV, really? The ESV, just business folks, Calvinist love new books.


----------



## MW

austinww said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the complaint made about varied word use in the ESV can be illustrated in the KJV as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was following you up until this point. I think we are fully agreed that many of the KJV's word choices -- especially in the Synoptics or when the same word is used in close proximity in a passage (this problem occurs in 1 Cor. 13 as well) -- could stand to be corrected, and translations like the ESV and NASB may handle those better. The problem is, my complaint concerning the ESV did_ not_ concern mere variation in how a single word is translated. It concerned replacement of entire phrases with phrases that have no underlying basis in the text. I agree that the ESV is "essentially literal," but I think it is significantly less literal. Unnecessary word variation in the KJV is unfortunate and could stand to be improved, but it is still a direct translation of a word that actually appears in the underlying text. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

 
I think Dennis is essentially correct. I would also add that a part of the beauty of the AV is its semantic sensitivity. If we look at the Romans 5 example, we see that the variation in wording is (1) not very different in English, and (2) conveys different nuances of the original Greek. It proves to be helpful to have the variety in order to fill out what the Greek means in English in different contexts. Given that the purpose of the translation is to facilitate those with little to no understanding of the Greek, this proves to be quite beneficial.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

seajayrice said:


> Please, no translation compares to the AV. I enjoy the NKJV and the NASB but let’s be clear, they pale to the AV (manuscript family and tenor). The NIV, really? The ESV, just business folks, Calvinist love new books.


 
The NKJV is from the same manuscript family as the AV. As for the ESV, it is mainly the product of great marketing. I am not sure what Crossway paid to have the people who are endorsing it, but their comments strike me as overly fawning. I mean it is fine to appreciate and enjoy a new translation, but to say something like " we are building our entire ministry around the ESV." as John Piper did, is a little much. The ESV even has its own website where different leaders have videotaped messages extolling its virtues over all other translations. Based on some of their comments and the degree to which many reformed Christians seem to have accepted the ESV as the only translation they use, I wouldn't be surprised if 100 years from now we are talking about ESV onlyists.


----------



## Rufus

If I buy a Kindle I'll download the ESV for it. I have a KJV Bible, a NIV New Testament (which I used the most), and a half million (7 or so) GNTs (military edition). While I use the NIV, I kinda feel dissatisfied with it.


----------



## Scottish Lass

Rufus said:


> If I buy a Kindle I'll download the ESV for it.




I have it on my nook--very handy.


----------



## Zenas

The NLT says nice things. It makes me smile.


----------



## DMcFadden

I just received an email charging me with "misrepresenting things,"putting out "misinformation," being "grossly mistaken," "utterly unfair," etc. The correspondent argues that the TNIV and HCSB are "practically kissing cousins." Evidently, my offending words were in post #61:



> NONE of the formal correspondence style translations is perfect. However, the KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB, despite their differences over which text to use or how to replicate into English the Hebrew and Greek originals, come mighty close to being "word for word" translations in a way that the NIV, TNIV, NLT, CEV, TEV, JB, LB, Message, etc. will NEVER be.



Different scholars produce different scales with the various translations at different data points on the continuum. For example, a fairly popular one that has been widely published is as follows:







I stand by my claim that formal correspondence translations include the NJV, NKJV, ESV, and (most often) the HCSB. The commonly used phrase for this philosophy of translation is "word for word." No translation is really w-o-r-d f-o-r- w-o-r-d in a technical sense. But in colloquial English that is the phrase that usually accompanies "formal correspondence" translations. Similarly "thought for thought" renders the more technical term "dynamic equivalence." This does not mean that a "dynamic equivalence" translation ignores the words of the original.

While I do NOT consider an interlinear a true "translation," it stands at one end of the translation philosophy spectrum just as The Living Bible and The Message hang out at the other end. 

My email correspondent and I are fighting over the middle. On most of the charts I have seen, the HCSB is in the more "formal correspondence" end of the chart with the NIV closer to dead center and The Living Bible and/or The Message on the far end. If you like the NIV, you will probably see the HCSB as closer to the NIV philosophy with what Holman calls "optimal equivalence" being a mediating approach. I like the ESV and see the HCSB as closer to it and agree with the charts that place the HCSB more in the formal correspondence section. But, obviously the NASB is MORE consistently formal correspondence in execution than the HCSB.

What we can probably all agree on is that translation is as much art as science. I do not hesitate to call any English translation the "Word of God." However, of the dozens of competing English translations, I generally PREFER a more formal correspondence type: KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB (although the word-for-word NASB does not appeal to me at all). The HCSB does some things that makes it look like a dynamic equivalent Bible. On the other hand, the care with the names of God is a very "literal" quality for a Bible. 

The NIV is a mediating translation intended to strike a balance between loose paraphrase and woodenly strict formal correspondence. In this sense, it is a "serious" translation done by a team of competent scholars trying to increase understandability and is much like the NLT. Obviously gazillions of people love it, buy it, read it, preach from it, and treasure it. More power to them. Not me.

Frankly, since joining the Puritan Board, I have had a growing respect for the arguments of people like Jerusalem Blade and Matthew Winzer. Much of my cocky confidence in the CT has been beaten out of me by these good brethren. It is interesting to note that even the NIV differs from the CT in several hundred places. The latest critical text published by SBL treats the putative text underlying the NIV as one of the four exemplars (along with Wescott and Hort, Tregelles, and the 2005 Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine textform). But even the NIV differs from the UBS/Aland CT in 231 places! A rational textual case can be made for the Byzantine text over against the Alexandrian. And a powerful practical case can be made for the negative effects of abandoning the KJV.

After reading Ryken (an ESV guy), extol the virtues of the AV in this anniversary year, I also lament some of the losses that came with our proliferation of translations. But, hey, we are where we are. There is probably no way to put the geni back in that bottle. So, you all can read what you want, but I'm reading the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and HCSB.


----------



## nicnap

Bill The Baptist said:


> I am not sure what Crossway paid to have the people who are endorsing it, but their comments strike me as overly fawning. I mean it is fine to appreciate and enjoy a new translation, but to say something like " we are building our entire ministry around the ESV." as John Piper did, is a little much.



A bit uncharitable are we? To say a man would sell out conviction for cash when it comes to Bibles is quite the statement. You should consider your words and charges more carefully.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

nicnap said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what Crossway paid to have the people who are endorsing it, but their comments strike me as overly fawning. I mean it is fine to appreciate and enjoy a new translation, but to say something like " we are building our entire ministry around the ESV." as John Piper did, is a little much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit uncharitable are we? To say a man would sell out conviction for cash when it comes to Bibles is quite the statement. You should consider your words and charges more carefully.
Click to expand...

 
I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of the people who have endorsed the ESV, I am simply saying that the amount of praise that is being heaped on the ESV is unwarranted and makes you question the motivation. If you think I am exagerating, go here and watch the videos, http://www.esv.org. I do not mind someone endorsing a bible, what I mind is the feeling I get that Crossway thinks that I am stupid. They think they can repackage the RSV, which was a liberal translation from the word go, get a bunch of highly respected reformed pastors and theologians to endose it, and then I will blindly and mindlessly accept it as the greatest translation ever produced in the English language. Well I know what it is and I am not going to accept it, I don't care who endorses it.


----------



## nicnap

Bill The Baptist said:


> I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of the people who have endorsed the ESV



You sure didn't sound like it; you didn't give them the judgment of charity. Instead, you asserted that they had sold out.



Bill The Baptist said:


> If you think I am exagerating, go here and watch the videos, http://www.esv.org.



I've seen the videos.



Bill The Baptist said:


> I do not mind someone endorsing a bible, what I mind is the feeling I get that Crossway thinks that I am stupid. They think they can repackage the RSV, which was a liberal translation from the word go, get a bunch of highly respected reformed pastors and theologians to endose it, and then I will blindly and mindlessly accept it as the greatest translation ever produced in the English language.



Crossway doesn't think you're stupid ... they have stated plainly, from the beginning, that it was a revision of the RSV, so they aren't trying to 'dupe' any one. The RSV was a fine translation of the CT. It did have a liberal slant to it and that has been corrected. All of this has been stated from the beginning; so no one is trying to 'outsmart' you.



Bill The Baptist said:


> Well I know what it is and I am not going to accept it, I don't care who endorses it.



Right, and that's the issue I took with your other post. Not that you don't care for the ESV, but that you would think a man uses it because he was paid to do so. The way you stated it made it sound as if he had given up his textual/translational understanding for a little cash. Something that is a hefty charge, in my estimation.


----------



## Galatians220

Bill The Baptist;860762
The NKJV is from the same manuscript family as the AV. [/QUOTE said:


> I don't know if the NKJV is from the same family as the KJV. This page would differ: The NKJV Examined.
> 
> I've done my own verse comparisons, but I'm no scholar.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Margaret


----------



## Bill The Baptist

nicnap said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a tremendous amount of respect for most of the people who have endorsed the ESV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure didn't sound like it; you didn't give them the judgment of charity. Instead, you asserted that they had sold out.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think I am exagerating, go here and watch the videos, http://www.esv.org.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen the videos.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not mind someone endorsing a bible, what I mind is the feeling I get that Crossway thinks that I am stupid. They think they can repackage the RSV, which was a liberal translation from the word go, get a bunch of highly respected reformed pastors and theologians to endose it, and then I will blindly and mindlessly accept it as the greatest translation ever produced in the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crossway doesn't think you're stupid ... they have stated plainly, from the beginning, that it was a revision of the RSV, so they aren't trying to 'dupe' any one. The RSV was a fine translation of the CT. It did have a liberal slant to it and that has been corrected. All of this has been stated from the beginning; so no one is trying to 'outsmart' you.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I know what it is and I am not going to accept it, I don't care who endorses it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and that's the issue I took with your other post. Not that you don't care for the ESV, but that you would think a man uses it because he was paid to do so. The way you stated it made it sound as if he had given up his textual/translational understanding for a little cash. Something that is a hefty charge, in my estimation.
Click to expand...

 
You are correct that that is a hefty charge, and I do not really mean to imply that they were doing it for the money. If that is the impression I gave, then I apologize. I just feel that these fine people are having an inordinate amount of influence on the choice of bible translations for many people because they trust them. Most people today have totally forgotten about the RSV and what it is about, and so they blindly use the ESV mainly because of those who endorse it. That is my issue. Here is a good link about the ESV from a reformed source, stylos: Three Basic Challenges to the ESV

[]


----------



## Pilgrim

Bill The Baptist said:


> You are correct that that is a hefty charge, and I do not really mean to imply that they were doing it for the money. If that is the impression I gave, then I apologize. I just feel that these fine people are having an inordinate amount of influence on the choice of bible translations for many people because they trust them. Most people today have totally forgotten about the RSV and what it is about, and so they blindly use the ESV mainly because of those who endorse it. That is my issue. Here is a good link about the ESV from a reformed source, stylos: Three Basic Challenges to the ESV




I too have found that many have no clue or interest in the ESV's basis in the RSV, even though it is clearly stated in the preface and on the title (copyright) page. Piper has said that it is "The RSV with the theological problems fixed." I had one pastor tell me that he thought it was sort of an update of the NASB. Just goes to show that even many educated people don't bother to read prefaces and introductions. 

Given my background in liberal churches where the RSV was used and especially in liberal college religion departments where the Oxford Annotated Bible (edited by Metzger and perhaps other members of the RSV/NRSV committee) with its higher critical book introductions and footnotes was a required text, admittedly I am a little more knowledgeable on the RSV issue compared with someone who either had no church background or who grew up in evangelical churches in which it wasn't used or mentioned. 

Crossway did a bang-up job with marketing the ESV, especially in taking advantage of the internet. But the popularity of it with many Reformed today, especially the YRR's, which in large part is probably due to its endorsement by their heroes, is probably as apt an illustration of the problem with personalities that Carl Trueman recently noted than anything else.


----------



## Apologist4Him

E Nomine said:


> As with your earlier assumption that people using different versions are rebellious and/or snobbish, I find this assumption that people just want to "mess things up" extremely offensive.


 
I do not understand the double standard of questioning the motivations of modern translators and not questioning the motivations of earlier translators. It is difficult for me to imagine people devoting their entire lives to becoming equipped for the privilege and honor of translating the Scriptures to intentionally "mess things up". I found the following tad bit of info from Wikipedia interesting...

"The thorough Calvinism of *the Geneva Bible* (not so much displayed in the translation, which was acknowledged to be an excellent one, but in the marginal notes), *offended the high-church party of the Church of England*, to which almost all of its bishops subscribed. They associated Calvinism with Presbyterianism, which sought to replace government of the church by bishops (Episcopalian) with government by lay elders. However, they were aware that the Great Bible of 1539 —which was the only version then legally authorized for use in Anglican worship—was severely deficient; in that much of the Old Testament was translated from the Latin Vulgate, rather than from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In an attempt to replace the objectionable Geneva translation, they circulated one of their own, which became known as the Bishops' Bible."



nicnap said:


> A bit uncharitable are we? To say a man would sell out conviction for cash when it comes to Bibles is quite the statement. You should consider your words and charges more carefully.



I have to firmly agree, and add, in giving endorsements, they put their reputation on the line. And surely considered the implications of making such an endorsement. I cannot imagine being a well known Christian leader, being very knowledgeable of the Greek, and recommending a Bible translation without careful study and consideration.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Apologist4Him said:


> E Nomine said:
> 
> 
> 
> As with your earlier assumption that people using different versions are rebellious and/or snobbish, I find this assumption that people just want to "mess things up" extremely offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not understand the double standard of questioning the motivations of modern translators and not questioning the motivations of earlier translators. It is difficult for me to imagine people devoting their entire lives to becoming equipped for the privilege and honor of translating the Scriptures to intentionally "mess things up". I found the following tad bit of info from Wikipedia interesting...
> 
> "The thorough Calvinism of *the Geneva Bible* (not so much displayed in the translation, which was acknowledged to be an excellent one, but in the marginal notes), *offended the high-church party of the Church of England*, to which almost all of its bishops subscribed. They associated Calvinism with Presbyterianism, which sought to replace government of the church by bishops (Episcopalian) with government by lay elders. However, they were aware that the Great Bible of 1539 —which was the only version then legally authorized for use in Anglican worship—was severely deficient; in that much of the Old Testament was translated from the Latin Vulgate, rather than from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In an attempt to replace the objectionable Geneva translation, they circulated one of their own, which became known as the Bishops' Bible."
> 
> 
> 
> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bit uncharitable are we? To say a man would sell out conviction for cash when it comes to Bibles is quite the statement. You should consider your words and charges more carefully.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to firmly agree, and add, in giving endorsements, they put their reputation on the line. And surely considered the implications of making such an endorsement. I cannot imagine being a well known Christian leader, being very knowledgeable of the Greek, and recommending a Bible translation without careful study and consideration.
Click to expand...

 
Be that as it may, just be aware that everytime you purchase an ESV bible, a portion of that money goes to the National Council of Churches who own the copyright on the RSV, upon which the ESV is based. I'm sure that many of us on this board would be very much against that organization and the things that they do, but many of us are also unwittingly supporting the very thing we claim to be against.


----------



## JM

I do not own an ESV but after reading this thread I believe I should have a hard copy to use as a reference.


----------



## Apologist4Him

Bill The Baptist said:


> Be that as it may, just be aware that everytime you purchase an ESV bible, a portion of that money goes to the National Council of Churches who own the copyright on the RSV, upon which the ESV is based. I'm sure that many of us on this board would be very much against that organization and the things that they do, but many of us are also unwittingly supporting the very thing we claim to be against.


 
Do you buy Reformed books from places that also sell books by non-Reformed authors? I do. Christianbook.com in one example. Were the KJV translated in modern times, it would also be copyrighted, in times past, unauthorized copying was nearly a non-issue (considering printing press relatively new invention and the costs of printing), however they did have laws...a translation could be legal or illegal. William Tyndale was burned to death for making an "illegal" translation of the Bible. I think copyrights are a wee bit more generous, than saying X translation is legal, and any illegal translations will be burned out of existence.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Apologist4Him said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be that as it may, just be aware that everytime you purchase an ESV bible, a portion of that money goes to the National Council of Churches who own the copyright on the RSV, upon which the ESV is based. I'm sure that many of us on this board would be very much against that organization and the things that they do, but many of us are also unwittingly supporting the very thing we claim to be against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you buy Reformed books from places that also sell books by non-Reformed authors? I do. Christianbook.com in one example. Were the KJV translated in modern times, it would also be copyrighted, in times past, unauthorized copying was nearly a non-issue (considering printing press relatively new invention and the costs of printing), however they did have laws...a translation could be legal or illegal. William Tyndale was burned to death for making an "illegal" translation of the Bible. I think copyrights are a wee bit more generous, than saying X translation is legal, and any illegal translations will be burned out of existence.
Click to expand...

 
I understand your point, all of us are guilty of indirectly supporting many of the things we are actually against. I would not fault anyone for purchasing an ESV or any other version that they choose. My problem is more with the translators and the oversight commitee, who knew full well what the RSV was all about and who was behind it, and yet still consiously chose to base their translation on it. It makes me question their judgment a bit. If you enjoy the ESV, then by all means continue to use it. I am simply trying to inform my reformed brethren who may be unaware of these things, especially in the face of the almost monolithic support of the ESV in reformed circles.


----------



## nicnap

Bill The Baptist said:


> a portion of that money goes to the National Council of Churches who own the copyright on the RSV, upon which the ESV is based.



This is ignoring the facts of what has been said over and over by the committee for the ESV. They paid a lump sum up front in order to procure the rights. No money goes to the NCC. This went around several times, ten years ago, and was denied several times and ways.

No offense to your friend, but: “The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.” Doesn't even imply that money goes to the NCC; a plain and honest reading of it states simply that the ESV is adapted from the RSV which is copyrighted by the NCC. It's like a citation; you give the information for what you are citing. There should be no question about this (though he attempts to build a case around this.)

Just fyi, my textual preference is stated and well known here on the PB; I am not making an uncritical plug for the ESV.

---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------




Bill The Baptist said:


> My problem is more with the translators and the oversight commitee, who knew full well what the RSV was all about and who was behind it, and yet still consiously chose to base their translation on it.



So, if something is to be translated, "the way, the truth, and the life", and it is translated that way by the KJV, the RSV, the ESV ... the ESV is less accurate because it is a revision of the RSV? What is at issue is the original text; is the translation a good translation of the original. Get over the RSV thing, that has been done away with, and the ESV does not 'take on the liberalism' of that translation. It is a fair translation of the CT.

Let me put it out there in a more practical way. Say a church calls you, and they are using the ESV; do you run ram-rod through and say, "I will not use the ESV!" In so doing, causing division? Or do you with patience and care teach the people, taking your time and saying, "In this text my own translation from the originals would read more like this ... " or "My preferred textual basis would read this way ..." This is more than let's be right in picking our translations; this is, let's be pastoral and teach and lead people along. If after you've been in the church five or so years and the pew Bibles are wearing out, and you want to address translations and take some time to teach on it ... by all means, lead them to the NKJV or whatever you prefer.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

nicnap said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> a portion of that money goes to the National Council of Churches who own the copyright on the RSV, upon which the ESV is based.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignoring the facts of what has been said over and over by the committee for the ESV. They paid a lump sum up front in order to procure the rights. No money goes to the NCC. This went around several times, ten years ago, and was denied several times and ways.
> 
> Regardless of how it is paid, the existence of the ESV has benefited the NCC
> 
> No offense to your friend, but: “The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.” Doesn't even imply that money goes to the NCC; a plain and honest reading of it states simply that the ESV is adapted from the RSV which is copyrighted by the NCC. It's like a citation; you give the information for what you are citing. There should be no question about this (though he attempts to build a case around this.)
> 
> Just fyi, my textual preference is stated and well known here on the PB; I am not making an uncritical plug for the ESV.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> My problem is more with the translators and the oversight commitee, who knew full well what the RSV was all about and who was behind it, and yet still consiously chose to base their translation on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if something is to be translated, "the way, the truth, and the life", and it is translated that way by the KJV, the RSV, the ESV ... the ESV is less accurate because it is a revision of the RSV? What is at issue is the original text; is the translation a good translation of the original. Get over the RSV thing, that has been done away with, and the ESV does not 'take on the liberalism' of that translation. It is a fair translation of the CT.
> 
> Let me put it out there in a more practical way. Say a church calls you, and they are using the ESV; do you run ram-rod through and say, "I will not use the ESV!" In so doing, causing division? Or do you with patience and care teach the people, taking your time and saying, "In this text my own translation from the originals would read more like this ... " or "My preferred textual basis would read this way ..." This is more than let's be right in picking our translations; this is, let's be pastoral and teach and lead people along. If after you've been in the church five or so years and the pew Bibles are wearing out, and you want to address translations and take some time to teach on it ... by all means, lead them to the NKJV or whatever you prefer.
Click to expand...

 
As a pastor, I would never tell someone what translation they should use, and I think that is my point. Which translation you use is a personal matter, but you should at least be informed. When big name pastors endorse a particular translation, it tends to influence those who just don't care to look into it for themselves and instead put their trust in the people they respect. In the spirit of the reformation, we must never allow anyone to control how, when, and where we receive Scripture. I would say that the ESV is a pretty good version, certainly preferable to the NIV, NLT, Message, etc. It just seems to me that there is a movement within reformed circles to only use the ESV and I don't think that is healthy. I am also aware that the ESV has changed many of the objectionable passages from the RSV, but that doesn't answer the question of why they would use it as a textual basis to begin with. If a translation team took the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness)and made a new translation based on it and changed the objectionable passages that diminished the deity of Christ, would you buy it? Just a question.


----------



## nicnap

Bill The Baptist said:


> As a pastor, I would never tell someone what translation they should use, and I think that is my point. Which translation you use is a personal matter, but you should at least be informed.


If the church has a stated translation (which is what I meant), your translation ought to be their translation. The church should at least have a uniform pew Bible so that the people can follow along, etc. 



Bill The Baptist said:


> When big name pastors endorse a particular translation, it tends to influence those who just don't care to look into it for themselves and instead put their trust in the people they respect.



When they endorse it, they are saying it is there preference ... as a pastor, you will influence people to where your preferences are, as well. 



Bill The Baptist said:


> In the spirit of the reformation, we must never allow anyone to control how, when, and where we receive Scripture.



I think you've missed the spirit of the Reformation on this one. The spirit of the Reformation was not libertarian. Also, these men are making recommendations, not demands. Don't give them power they don't have; don't make your brethren (laymen) out to be dumb, uncritical people. 



Bill The Baptist said:


> I am also aware that the ESV has changed many of the objectionable passages from the RSV, but that doesn't answer the question of why they would use it as a textual basis to begin with.



Again, if it says, "I am the way, the truth, and the light," in the original, is it bad that ESV says it, even if it came from the RSV? What matters is the original.



Bill The Baptist said:


> If a translation team took the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness)and made a new translation based on it and changed the objectionable passages that diminished the deity of Christ, would you buy it? Just a question.



Not a good question at that. The NWT is explicitly non-Christian; apples & oranges.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

nicnap said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a pastor, I would never tell someone what translation they should use, and I think that is my point. Which translation you use is a personal matter, but you should at least be informed.
> 
> 
> 
> If the church has a stated translation (which is what I meant), your translation ought to be their translation. The church should at least have a uniform pew Bible so that the people can follow along, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When big name pastors endorse a particular translation, it tends to influence those who just don't care to look into it for themselves and instead put their trust in the people they respect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they endorse it, they are saying it is there preference ... as a pastor, you will influence people to where your preferences are, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the spirit of the reformation, we must never allow anyone to control how, when, and where we receive Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you've missed the spirit of the Reformation on this one. The spirit of the Reformation was not libertarian. Also, these men are making recommendations, not demands. Don't give them power they don't have; don't make your brethren (laymen) out to be dumb, uncritical people.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am also aware that the ESV has changed many of the objectionable passages from the RSV, but that doesn't answer the question of why they would use it as a textual basis to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if it says, "I am the way, the truth, and the light," in the original, is it bad that ESV says it, even if it came from the RSV? What matters is the original.
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a translation team took the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness)and made a new translation based on it and changed the objectionable passages that diminished the deity of Christ, would you buy it? Just a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a good question at that. The NWT is explicitly non-Christian; apples & oranges.
Click to expand...

 
I think we have spent enough time and caused enough division with this thread already. Obviously we are not going to agree on this, and that is often a good thing. I will concede that the ESV is a perfectly acceptable version of the bible, but one that I choose not to use or recommend for reasons already verbalized. In the spirit of Christian brotherhood, let us now move on to the things that unite us rather than those that divide us.


----------



## JM

JM said:


> I do not own an ESV but after reading this thread I believe I should have a hard copy to use as a reference.



Momentary lapse. I'll keep my AV.


----------



## MW

> "The thorough Calvinism of *the Geneva Bible* (not so much displayed in the translation, which was acknowledged to be an excellent one, but in the marginal notes), *offended the high-church party of the Church of England*, to which almost all of its bishops subscribed.


 
What a load of rubbish!

Look back to the Lambeth Articles or look forward to the delegation to the Synod of Dort. Either way the Church demonstrates its commitment to Calvinism.


----------



## Grimmson

This is a little off topic, but I wanted to address a historical issue here. The Lambeth articles (written 1595) is actually an example of the Anglican Church not being united concerning Calvinism. Queen Elizabeth I was not known for being a supporter of Calvinism, and did not approve of the Lambeth Articles and ordered for their suppression. Also we do not want to confuse the historical context of the Bishop Bible (1568) with that of Dort (1618-9). Particularly something to keep in mind is the 1558 Act of Supremacy and also the Act of Uniformity in which many Calvinists, later to be known as puritans, rebelled against.


----------



## MW

My apologies to David Jolly. I thought I pressed reply but actually edited your post. I think I was able to recover the substance of your original. Please accept my apology and correct as needed.


----------



## MW

> This is a little off topic, but I wanted to address a historical issue here. The Lambeth articles (written 1595) is actually an example of the Anglican Church not being united concerning Calvinism. Queen Elizabeth I was not known for being a supporter of Calvinism, and did not approve of the Lambeth Articles and ordered for their suppression. Also we do not want to confuse the historical context of the Bishop Bible (1568) with that of Dort (1618-9). Particularly something to keep in mind is the 1558 Act of Supremacy and also the Act of Uniformity in which many Calvinists, later to be known as puritans, rebelled against.



Robert Letham: "The Lambeth Articles (1595) are an unequivocally Calvinist document, approved and superintended by Archbishop Whitgift, although never formally adopted as official Anglican dogma... In 1618, the British delegation to Dort sent by James I, with the approval of Archbishop George Abbot, took the Lambeth Articles with them as evidence of the faith professed in England.... Calvinism continued to be the backbone of the Church of England for several generations after Hooker." (The Westminster Assembly, 53, 54.) The church was Calvinist. Queen Elizabeth loved her supremacy and her settlement. That doesn't affect the Calvinist commitment of the church.


----------



## sevenzedek

Osage Bluestem said:


> it is noted by many groups that calvinists are flocking to the ESV. Why do you guys think it is that we like the ESV more than anyone else?



I am quite surprised to see that no one has commented on the Calvinistic resurgence one might call the _Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement._ Heroes of this movement are guys like John Piper, CJ Mahaney, and Wayne Grudem. I believe this resurgence is one reason for why so many in the reformed camp are flocking to the ESV. We look up to these guys--do we not?
Another reason that also seems plausible is the story I once heard that says that the reformed seminaries are biased in a big way toward the critical text. And let's face it. The ESV is the best translation of the critical text out there.
One more reason I believe the ESV is taking off so well is the fact that it was a dream come true for so many people. Again, let's face it. The ESV accomplishes what no other translation was able to do. It combined readability with accuracy. The ESV is much more readable than the NASB, NKJV, KJV, etc. It really is too bad we don't have an ESV equivalent from the Received Text. I would buy such a work if it existed. So, for those who don't mind the critical text, why would they not flock to the ESV?


----------



## jayce475

sevenzedek said:


> We look up to these guys--do we not?



Do we?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

sevenzedek said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is noted by many groups that calvinists are flocking to the ESV. Why do you guys think it is that we like the ESV more than anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite surprised to see that no one has commented on the Calvinistic resurgence one might call the _Young, Restless, and Reformed Movement._ Heroes of this movement are guys like John Piper, CJ Mahaney, and Wayne Grudem. I believe this resurgence is one reason for why so many in the reformed camp are flocking to the ESV. We look up to these guys--do we not?
> Another reason that also seems plausible is the story I once heard that says that the reformed seminaries are biased in a big way toward the critical text. And let's face it. The ESV is the best translation of the critical text out there.
> One more reason I believe the ESV is taking off so well is the fact that it was a dream come true for so many people. Again, let's face it. The ESV accomplishes what no other translation was able to do. It combined readability with accuracy. The ESV is much more readable than the NASB, NKJV, KJV, etc. It really is too bad we don't have an ESV equivalent from the Received Text. I would buy such a work if it existed. So, for those who don't mind the critical text, why would they not flock to the ESV?
Click to expand...

 
I think that you are absolutely correct that one of the main reasons for the popularity of the ESV is the fact that so many "heroes" of the reformed community have endorsed it. As for seminaries and the critical text, I would say that all seminaries are biased towards the critical text, with the exception of some fringe ones like Bob Jones. I would also agree that the ESV is much more readable than the NASB or NIV, but I would disagree regarding the KJV or NKJV. Both of those versions are much more poetic, and thus more readable and enjoyable to listen to. I think the problem with the KJV has more to do with having words that people are just not used to hearing anymore and so they have trouble understanding some of it, but it has nothing to do with readablility.


----------



## kodos

sevenzedek said:


> We look up to these guys--do we not?



I don't look up to men in general (though I have a lot of admiration for Grudem, and Piper to some extent). I get quite nervous when people sing the praises of men. I've seen time and time again people get let down by their 'heroes', after following them off some cliff. They are fallen men, saints for sure!, but fallen men nonetheless. 

Frankly, I admire a lot of the mature saints on this board more than I do those in the YRR movement.

And yes, I use the ESV.


----------



## py3ak

Bill The Baptist said:


> with the exception of some fringe ones like Bob Jones.



Bob Jones is not renowned for its opposition to the critical text.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

py3ak said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> with the exception of some fringe ones like Bob Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Jones is not renowned for its opposition to the critical text.
Click to expand...

 
You're right that they are not opposed to the critical text, but they are one of the few seminaries that still teaches the superiority of the TR and the Majority Text. They are not KJV onlyists, however.


----------



## py3ak

Bill The Baptist said:


> teaches the superiority of the TR and the Majority Text



Are you sure about that?


----------



## nicnap

Bill The Baptist said:


> I would say that all seminaries are biased towards the critical text



GPTS stands on more of a majority text position than a critical text one. 



Bill The Baptist said:


> You're right that they are not opposed to the critical text, but they are one of the few seminaries that still teaches the superiority of the TR and the Majority Text. They are not KJV onlyists, however.



They utilize the critical text. This is per two men I know who have their PhDs from BJU. They utilize the KJV in the class b/c of its familiarity and its availability. But they are by no means TR guys.

I think you are thinking of Pensacola, who is TR & KJV only.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

py3ak said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> teaches the superiority of the TR and the Majority Text
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
Click to expand...

 
Below is their statement on bible translations from their website;

Home » Welcome to BJU » Who We Are » Statement about Bible Translations 
Statement about Bible Translations
Although Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position, we continue to hold the widely-used King James Version (KJV) as the campus standard in the classroom and in the chapel pulpit. The position of the University on the translation issue has not changed since the founding of the school in 1927.

We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts, and we believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today. However, from the founder to the present administration, we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language.



Obviously they wouldn't use the KJV if they didn't think it was superior to CT translations.


----------



## nicnap

Bill The Baptist said:


> we continue to hold the widely-used King James Version



It is used because of its availability and use by most of the churches that support them and because it can purchased relatively cheaply.


----------



## Philip

Bill The Baptist said:


> I understand your point, all of us are guilty of indirectly supporting many of the things we are actually against. I would not fault anyone for purchasing an ESV or any other version that they choose. My problem is more with the translators and the oversight commitee, who knew full well what the RSV was all about and who was behind it, and yet still consiously chose to base their translation on it.



Bill, the RSV is a fine translation, even if it does have a liberal slant. I first became aware of it as "the translation that Packer used in _Knowing God_," so the choice wasn't necessarily a bad one.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

P. F. Pugh said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point, all of us are guilty of indirectly supporting many of the things we are actually against. I would not fault anyone for purchasing an ESV or any other version that they choose. My problem is more with the translators and the oversight commitee, who knew full well what the RSV was all about and who was behind it, and yet still consiously chose to base their translation on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, the RSV is a fine translation, even if it does have a liberal slant. I first became aware of it as "the translation that Packer used in _Knowing God_," so the choice wasn't necessarily a bad one.
Click to expand...

 
Knowing God is an excellent book, however J.I. Packer has also come out in support of theistic evolution, so I don;t know if that would make me feel better about the RSV.


----------



## jayce475

Bill The Baptist said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> teaches the superiority of the TR and the Majority Text
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Below is their statement on bible translations from their website;
> 
> Home » Welcome to BJU » Who We Are » Statement about Bible Translations
> Statement about Bible Translations
> Although Bob Jones University does not hold to a King James Only position, we continue to hold the widely-used King James Version (KJV) as the campus standard in the classroom and in the chapel pulpit. The position of the University on the translation issue has not changed since the founding of the school in 1927.
> 
> We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible in the original manuscripts, and we believe that God has supernaturally preserved every one of His inspired words for us today. However, from the founder to the present administration, we have never taken the position that there can be only one good translation in the English language.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously they wouldn't use the KJV if they didn't think it was superior to CT translations.
Click to expand...

 
BJU has actually published a few books attacking the TR/MT. Their position appears to have moved over the years, possibly explaining the confusion.


----------



## tarrda

I would be very interested in examples of the alligations against the ESV. I'm not saying your wrong but statements that you have made need to be backed up with examples to help those of us who are less informed understand why it is as you say.


----------



## DMcFadden

Looking at the available English translations, theological commitment is not as determinative as . . . 
a. Choice of text
b. Translation philosophy

Rather than impugning the motives of evangelical and Reformed leaders, or speculating wildly, why not look at the simple and available information?

* Most Reformed and Evangelical scholars are in the CT not TR camp.
* Some Reformed and Evangelical scholars want a Bible that is more "formal correspondence" AND still in "readable" English style
* Some Reformed and Evangelical scholars want a Bible that is more "dynamic equivalent" in translation philosophy

So, why is anyone surprised that Reformed and Evangelical scholars end up in either a dynanic equivalent or formal correspondence direction (using a CT as the base)???.
-- Those who want a CT "dynamic equivalent" Bible promote the NIV (family) or NLT as the two "best" exemplars of the CT text in a "dynamic equivalent" style
-- Those who want a CT "formal correspondence" Bible promote the ESV as the best exemplar of the CT text in a "formal correspondence" style

--If your criteria select the CT (not the TR) . . . you eliminate the KJV and NKJV
--If your criteria eliminate the dynamic, thought for thought, or paraphrastic productions . . . you eliminate the NIV and NLT
--If your criteria also lays stress on "readability" or "understandability" or "contemporary English" . . . you have only one or two choices (depending on how you classify the HCSB). The ESV wins by default in such a decision tree.

Pretty simple, actually. Money is not the issue. Text + translation philosophy requires a limited range of choices.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> formal correspondence family - KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, HCSB (albeit more mediating in its "optimal equivalence")


 
This thread is still about the ESV, so let's concentrate on that. Oswald Allis made numerous criticisms of the RSV, which still apply to its lack of modification in the ESV. The first issue he dealt with was "translation or paraphrase." He pointed out the paraphrase involved in the RSV, and used three texts as an example -- 1 Cor. 3:4; 11:12; and Rom. 4:16. The ESV continues to paraphrase in all three examples. In two of them it uses the word choice of the RSV, and in one of them alters the RSV to a word choice of another paraphrase which Allis criticised. One of these texts, Rom. 4:16, is crucial to the apostle's argument relative to the doctrine of justification by faith alone. ESV follows RSV.

How evangelicalised and literalised is the ESV? If one compares Allis' overall criticisms with the revisions made in the ESV, it will be seen that the ESV has undergone only slight modification in a few obvious texts. The majority of the problems remain.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

tarrda said:


> I would be very interested in examples of the alligations against the ESV. I'm not saying your wrong but statements that you have made need to be backed up with examples to help those of us who are less informed understand why it is as you say.


 
I don't think there is a problem with ESV, it is certainly one of the better modern translations. The issue to me has more to do with the almost monolithic support that the ESV enjoys amongst reformed Christians, and whether or not that support is truly warranted. If you truly want to study this issue, you must begin with the RSV translation upon which the ESV is based. Do some research on who was behind that translation, the problems with that translation, and where that translation has moved today as it is now called the NRSV. Once you have done this, then ask yourself why would conservative, orthodox Christians want to have anything to do with the RSV or the National Council of Churches? Why did they not just do a new translation, as was done with the NIV and HCSB? If you like the ESV, then by all means use it. Just do it from a position of being informed instead of just blindly following what the reformed leaders are doing.


----------



## nicnap

Bill The Baptist said:


> If you truly want to study this issue, you must begin with the RSV translation upon which the ESV is based.



No, you begin by looking at the ESV itself; what are the conclusions it draws and makes; how does it translate key passages, etc.



Bill The Baptist said:


> Once you have done this, then ask yourself why would conservative, orthodox Christians want to have anything to do with the RSV or the National Council of Churches? Why did they not just do a new translation, as was done with the NIV and HCSB?



Why not take a standing translation and make it better; the KJV is not a 'new translation.' It is improvement upon previous work; no need to reinvent the wheel. Check the accuracy of what was translated before, and improve/modify as needed. They have not 'associated' with the NCC; you keep tossing that out there, but it has be repeatedly refuted.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The association charge comes from the fact that the translators of the ESV sought and received permission from the NCC (since they owned the copyright) to use the RSV as a basis for the ESV. Only 5%–10% of the RSV text is different in the ESV.


----------



## nicnap

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The association charge comes from the fact that the translators of the ESV sought and received permission from the NCC (since they owned the copyright) to use the RSV as a basis for the ESV. Only 5%–10% of the RSV text is different in the ESV.



Right, but they are not associated with them as has been alleged ... aligning with the NCC. They are associated in that they paid, according to those who worked with/on ESV, a lump some; there is no further association in that sense. The Textual basis and the remaining similarities between the two are a different sort of association.


----------



## TimV

Bill, you are engaging in the same sort of rhetoric that cause most educated people to look at KJVOnlies with suspicion. If you care that the NCOC had something to do with an ancestor of the ESV what do you do with the fact that Erasmus dedicated the Textus Receptus to the Pope who excommunicated Luther???? To me, the fact that the granddad of the KJV was a humanistic Catholic whom the Reformers called a snake is sad, but I still wouldn't throw out his work just because of that. The TR was a wonderful achievement regardless.

I recommend that you keep your passion! It's good. But I'd also consider reading up on this subject.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

TimV said:


> Bill, you are engaging in the same sort of rhetoric that cause most educated people to look at KJVOnlies with suspicion. If you care that the NCOC had something to do with an ancestor of the ESV what do you do with the fact that Erasmus dedicated the Textus Receptus to the Pope who excommunicated Luther???? To me, the fact that the granddad of the KJV was a humanistic Catholic whom the Reformers called a snake is sad, but I still wouldn't throw out his work just because of that. The TR was a wonderful achievement regardless.
> 
> I recommend that you keep your passion! It's good. But I'd also consider reading up on this subject.


 
This is the absolute last post I am going to put on this thread because I think we are beating a dead horse at this point. Let me just say that I am not a KJV onlyist and I really don't think the debate up to this point has been about the CT vs. the TR as much as it has been about the RSV. The reason for my passion is not because of any particular disdain for the CT or even the ESV itself, but because of the rising tide of ESV onlyism that I see in the reformed community. I personally prefer the NKJV for two reasons; 1. It retains much of the poetic beauty of the KJV while at the same time being easier to understand. 2. although it uses the TR as its textual base, it is the ONLY version that footnotes any time there is a different reading in either the CT or the majority text, thereby allowing me to consider all the different readings of a particular passage when I am studying. I personally own 8 different versions of the bible and frequently compare them, and I think that everyone should do the same. I also believe that God has supernaturally preserved His Word. Not in any particular translation, but in the manuscripts themselves. The manuscripts that we have available may differ in many ways, but the core message of the gospel has been miraculously preserved for over 2000 years. For that we can all be thankful, regardless of which version we use.


----------



## DMcFadden

Since I specialize in beating dead horses . . . one more time . . .

IF you want a formal correspondence and "readable" English translation of the Critical Text you only have ONE (or two if you count the HCSB) choice, the ESV. 

It is not a case of being blindly ESV, ESV-only, or susceptible to financial motivations. It is simple arithmetic: 1 = 1.

Now, if you are open to a more thought-for-thought translation (I'm not), you multiply your options considerably.

And, if you accept the arguments for the TR/MT as compelling (and I find them more so all the time), you have the KJV and the NKJV.

But, given the scholarly commitments and theory they accept regarding textual transmission, the evangelical and Reformed leaders who have endorsed the ESV hardly have any other choice.

As Rodney King used to say: "Can't we just get along?" Poor Piper, Grudem, Frances Chan, MacArthur, Chapell, Driscoll, Ryken, Schreiner, Sproul, Wallace, and more. Can they help it that once you narrow the decision tree to a CT + formal correspondence + readable translation, there is only one choice left?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Here is a post by the old Puritanboard librarian that sheds some light on the RSV/ESV issue. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-only-versus-byzantine-superiority-20221/#post253815


----------



## JM

ESV Bible

The marketing on this translation is really astounding.


----------



## Bad Organist

Hi JM,

I don't know whether you mean that as good or bad, but to me the marketing of the ESV is somewhat disingenuous. Clever, and Madison Ave slickness, and half truths. You get the sense from reading the web-site that the English-speaking world has quite a few terrible translations based on inferior and outdated scholarship, and so a bunch of scholars got together and got it right, maybe for the first time. I wouldn't consider the ESV even as being any more in the line of the KJV than 3 or 4 others currently in print. In fact I would say the NKJV is much closer than the ESV to the KJV. There are passages in the ESV where the word order is different, the words themselves are different and where the meaning is quite different. The ESV claims to be essentially literal, but is it more essentially literal than the NKJV, or the NASB or the NRSV or even the Holman CSB. 

The ESV is said to be a "standard" bible. On what basis is it a "standard" or "the standard"? Seems to me that the standard bibles are not best sellers, and typically not terrible long lived in the market place. The RSV was said to be such a great translation when it came out, and was gone in less than 40 years.

I understand that of late that the ESV is now published with the Apocrypha. Why? I thought the ESV was supposed to be an evangelical bible. Or is the Apocrypha now considered part of the bible by evangelicals? 

Our church has switched over to the ESV, but increasingly I think it was done too quickly. The preaching has not improved, the bible knowledge has not increased, and curiously enough, after 3 or 4 years, I have not heard anyone quoting the ESV from memory. I find that many ESV renderings just do not lend themselves to memorization. 

I think the ESV is pushed on those that want something new, different. Some of what I have read in the ESV Study Bible doesn't strike me as historic calvinism or reformed in the puritan sense. 

Looking at the CBA sales listings and what is on store shelves, seems to me that the ESV is a long ways away from being the best selling bible in english. I think it is the marketing and the plugs given to it by high profile leaders that is keeping the ESV in the bible buying folks mind.

Bad Organist
Free Church of Scotland
Toronto, Canada


----------



## Reformed Thomist

Bad Organist said:


> I understand that of late that the ESV is now published with the Apocrypha. Why? I thought the ESV was supposed to be an evangelical bible. Or is the Apocrypha now considered part of the bible by evangelicals?


 
Why was the Geneva Bible (and the KJV) published with the Apocrypha?


----------



## JM

I was just pointing out the obvious.


----------



## DMcFadden

Bad Organist said:


> The ESV claims to be essentially literal, but is it more essentially literal than the NKJV, or the NASB or the NRSV or even the Holman CSB.


 






According to the guy who made this chart, Yes. No. Yes. And Yes.

If slick marketing is bothersome to you, don't listen to the new NIV ads. I had a 325 mi. drive to a conference today. When the NIV ad came on the radio, I almost wanted to go buy one myself. It sounds like it will make be smarter, wiser, richer, and a whole lot better looking [not to mention curing athletes foot, halitosis, and dandruff].


----------



## TimV

My goal is to be as wise in the way of the world as Dr. M without getting as cynical as me.


----------

