The ESV and Calvinists

[teddyrux]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...]

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]

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]

Are you a KJV onlyist?

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.