Beautiful New ESVs

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Christopher

Puritan Board Freshman
Check these out. The covers are done by hand. They are the thinline compact type.

[img:2424d8d387]http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/siteimages/esv.trutones.big.jpg[/img:2424d8d387]
 
ONLY $19 !!!! That is great! However, if you have seen this compact thinline you will realize that the print is not for the weak sighted.
Hear are the stats on it:

Compact TruTone(tm) Editions
The inside is identical to the Compact Thinline editions
The cover is a handstitched, soft, leather-like material and features a unique design. It comes with a lifetime guarantee
Red-letter
Concordance
No center-column cross-reference system
No maps
3.75" x 5.75"
6.2-point type

Here is the site were you can PRE-order it.
http://www.gnpcb.org/catalog/bibles/

I think this mihgt be the gift I will get folks for birthdays and such. Looks nice, it's ESV, and hey, it's the Word of God.
 
Where do I get them and do they come in black lambskin with gold edging sprinkled with the blood of a lamb from a hyssop branch ? ?
 
So does anyone know if there is a Reformed Study Bible for the ESV in the making? I know they made one for the NKJV which is no longer in print and there's one for the NIV which I heard it is ok, but I don't like the NIV. My New Geneva Study Bible is getting a bit worn and it may be time for a new one. I prefer the NKJV too because I think it seems to flow better and also seems clearer on those difficult texts. But perhaps that is more due to the TR than to the translation.
 
[quote:c2385a5e73][i:c2385a5e73]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:c2385a5e73]
So does anyone know if there is a Reformed Study Bible for the ESV in the making? I know they made one for the NKJV which is no longer in print and there's one for the NIV which I heard it is ok, but I don't like the NIV. My New Geneva Study Bible is getting a bit worn and it may be time for a new one. I prefer the NKJV too because I think it seems to flow better and also seems clearer on those difficult texts. But perhaps that is more due to the TR than to the translation. [/quote:c2385a5e73]

I have heard that the New Geneva is going to be reprinted with the ESV soon.
 
I really like the ESV

I have several translations and compare them often.I think
the ESV is top-notch.Frequently when there is a marginal reference in the NASBU showing the literal rendering,the literal is actually in the text of the ESV.Of course there are occasions when I prefer the reading of part of a verse in the NASBU or another version to the ESV,but generally the latter
is better.
Also,just because a text in a version such as the NKJ has
an easier read,that may not indicate that it is more accurate.
A text shouldn't be smoothed out for the sake of a nicer flow.
Let the supposed difficulty remain.Being faithful to the Greek
and Hebrew ancient texts is the way to go.Naturally,a literal
translation would not make sense sometimes,in some passages.But,I think,overall,the ESV is the best as far as English traslations go.
 
[quote:cc357e38cb][i:cc357e38cb]Originally posted by joshua[/i:cc357e38cb]
[quote:cc357e38cb][i:cc357e38cb]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:cc357e38cb]
Personally, I'll stick with the NKJV. [/quote:cc357e38cb]

Wayne, I'd sincerely like to know the reason for your preference. I like both versions... [/quote:cc357e38cb]

It's nothing overly complex, just personal preference. I have a number of translations from NIV, KJV, RSV, NASB, etc and I like the NKJV best. The ESV is probably a good translation but for now I'll stick with the NKJV as my primary Bible unless I see a compelling reason to switch and for now I don't see one.
 
Does no-one on these boards have any fundamental convictions about the differences in the texts underlying the KJV and NKJV compared to those underlying the NIV, ESV, etc?

I'm not trying to be contentious, just curious. I personally think that the ESV is the best modern english translation -but I would not use it as an 'official' version (as a pulpit bible, for example) as I believe that the scholars texts underlying it are inferior, and that the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Texts (on which KJV is based) are the closest to the original. I know the TR isn't the oldest extant text, but does age= closeness to original? I have seen the scholars' texts referred to as 'superior' by Mark Kodak on here. But I'll take the ecclesiastical texts myself...

Just interested for comments - don't want to start some horrible version-wars! My fundamental question is - are underlying texts an issue for American/Canadian believers, nor not?

Now, for a version like the ESV based on the ecclesiastical texts.... oh baby...
 
[b:705564caa2]Jonathan wrote:[/b:705564caa2]
Does no-one on these boards have any fundamental convictions about the differences in the texts underlying the KJV and NKJV compared to those underlying the NIV, ESV, etc?

My fundamental conviction is very unscholarly since I don't know Greek, Hebrew, etc., but I'm most comfortable using the KJV because of the texts its based on. I can't debate textual variants or anything like that, but I do know that God has spoken to me and continues to speak to me through the KJV, so there's no reason to change (if its not broke, don't fix it). I'm sure others can testify the same thing about other versions as well. God doesn't seem to have limited himself to only one Bible in the same way that men do.

I sometimes wonder if the KJV would be any different now if Erasmus had all the Greek texts available to him that we have now.

Bob
 
Johnathan and Bob:check out James White's book called
"The King James Only Controversy".I know you two are not King James Only types,but it is very informative on these issues.AND,I am sure this subject has come up before on this board.If you do a search(which I haven't)you'll gain a
great deal of info.
 
I use the NKJV over the ESV for precisely the reason that I believe the MT superior to the CT. (You can search to find my comments, mostly in threads with doulosChristou)

I think that the ESV is the best translation based on the critical text, and I like the fact (for both the ESV and NKJV) that the cadence and translation is very similar to the NKJV.
 
Tim,
I haven't read James White's book yet, but I've listened to all the KJV debates that he has at his site. I must say that it was kind of a let down listening to them. I guess I was expecting something a little different then what I heard. James White won the debates hands down - I couldn't help but wonder "Are these the best that the KJV crowd has to offer?" I couldn't believe some of the things Gail (can't remember her last name) said. James was very kind in the way he didn't pounce on her, but just let her "arguments" speak for themselves.

Bob
 
[quote:219bca0424][i:219bca0424]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:219bca0424]
[b:219bca0424]Jonathan wrote:[/b:219bca0424]
Does no-one on these boards have any fundamental convictions about the differences in the texts underlying the KJV and NKJV compared to those underlying the NIV, ESV, etc?

My fundamental conviction is very unscholarly since I don't know Greek, Hebrew, etc., but I'm most comfortable using the KJV because of the texts its based on. I can't debate textual variants or anything like that[/quote:219bca0424]

Me neither. I claim no personal scholarship, just a wide amount of reading on the subject, and I have convinced myself of my position -which involved rejecting extreme arguments on both sides. I know some people who would not even use the NKJV - and that's where the arguments get petty and picky, almost matters of personal taste. Its been a matter of seperating wheat from chaff getting through this subject area, and I came out with the conclusion that the underlying text was the fundamental issue, with other issues following on from it.
 
Hey Guys,check out Leland Ryken's book entitled:"The
Word of God in English".He is biased in favor of the ESV,how-
ever,he still loves the fundamental strengths of the KJV.
For many passages of the KJ the verses are understandable to a person unfamiliar with that old English.
But some passages are definately in need of clarity.It is
easier to witness to a JW arguing for the Diety of Christ with
even the NIV,rather than a KJ,for instance.
The so-called King James Bible was not written in the
manner of common speech back then.For the New Testament
about 85% is basically William Tyndale's work.By the way,I
really respect Mr.Tyndale.I read a lot of his translation several months ago.The King James "translators"did mostly
stylistic work,not Greek and Hebrew translating.Many times
(not all)I prefer Mr.Tyndale's translation to the rendering of the KJ when they infrequently differ.He was speaking the common tongue(vulgar).But that was about 85 years before the KJ of 1611.
 
[quote:0e2f500805][i:0e2f500805]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:0e2f500805]
Tim,
I haven't read James White's book yet, but I've listened to all the KJV debates that he has at his site. I must say that it was kind of a let down listening to them. I guess I was expecting something a little different then what I heard. James White won the debates hands down - I couldn't help but wonder "Are these the best that the KJV crowd has to offer?" I couldn't believe some of the things Gail (can't remember her last name) said. James was very kind in the way he didn't pounce on her, but just let her "arguments" speak for themselves.

Bob [/quote:0e2f500805]

Bob,

That's because the KJV only crowd is generally a bunch of heretics and fools. Gail Riplinger follows in the footsteps of her teacher, Peter Ruckman, who holds aberrant views on the Trinity, the atonement and inspiration. It is one thing to say that the KJV is the best choice among translations for a variety of reasons - cadence, clarity, link with the past church, text base, etc. It is quite another thing to say (as Ruckman does) that God inspires only 1 translation per language.

I love the KJV, which is part of the reason why I use the NKJV, but I have also come face to face in a church with a Ruckmanite. Just to give you a typical thought from a Ruckmanite, this gentleman wanted me to read a commentary set by some guy I had never heard of because he was KJV only, and he called Calvin "the most unspiritual man I ever read." (A direct quote, not a paraphrase)
 
You haven't lived until you meet King James only advocates who are Koreans.Why do you champion the cause
when you are not that familiar with contemporary English?They read Samuel Gipp,Riplinger,Ruckman and company.In
fact Ruckman's books dominate "Christian"sections at bookstores here.
 
Now this IS an interesting topic - I saw a bumper sticker on a car a couple of years ago that read, "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible" or something like that. It stuck in my head (don't ask why - it's like a slot machine up there!)

Now I see there is some controversy in translations. I still have my Catholic Bible that I've had forEVER. When I first began to reexamine Christianity, I went to Dickson's Bible Bookstore and bought the New King James Version. If I had to voice my motivations for picking that version, it would probably be because the KJV is the quintessential protestant Bible, coming out of post "Bloody Mary v. Elizabeth I grudge match" England.

So there's controversy AND a book... Can I request that some of these controversies involve books I can CHECK OUT AT THE LIBRARY?!?! I am going broke buying all these books! The problem is, most of the books mentioned on this site are way too specific for me to find in the library...C'mon you guys!!! I'll suggest one - how about an Atkins vs South Beach controversy?!?!

Mary :wink::wink::wink:
 
:lol:
I have to laugh. Its funny how Christopher's original post has evolved.

Just a few more comments, then I'll get back to the ESV.

[b:49d88d063a]Fred wrote:[/b:49d88d063a]
I have also come face to face in a church with a Ruckmanite. Just to give you a typical thought from a Ruckmanite, this gentleman wanted me to read a commentary set by some guy I had never heard of because he was KJV only, and he called Calvin "the most unspiritual man I ever read."

Wow. That's quite a comment. I wonder what other works he's comparing Calvin to. Not to cast stones, but I wasn't real impressed by the spirituality of Ruckman when I first heard him speak. Maybe it was just a bad first impression.

I'll give this man the benefit of the doubt that he didn't have such a low opinion of Calvin simply because Calvin didn't use the KJV. (I'd be REALLY impressed with Calvin, though, if he did use the KJV).

[b:49d88d063a]Jonathan wrote:[/b:49d88d063a]
Me neither. I claim no personal scholarship, just a wide amount of reading on the subject,

Ditto, though most of my reading was from the KJV side of the argument. I suppose I've read just enough of the other side to take myself out of the "KJV-only" camp, but not enough to put the KJV on the shelf.

:banana: And now, back to the ESV :banana:

I wonder if e-sword will be offering this version soon, or is the ESV gonna be like some of the other versions that have copyright issues?

Bob

[Edited on 5-12-2004 by blhowes]
 
[quote:8efa7d8b50][i:8efa7d8b50]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:8efa7d8b50]
I wonder if e-sword will be offering this version soon, or is the ESV gonna be like some of the other version that have copyright issues?

Bob [/quote:8efa7d8b50]

Bob,

Go to the website. I think I remember hearing that the ESV approved its use by Esword recently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Herald
  • Locked
Beautiful Virginia
Replies
17
Views
4K
Southern Presbyterian
Southern Presbyterian
V
  • Locked
Beautiful Places
Replies
15
Views
3K
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
P
  • Locked
God's Beautiful Creation
Replies
0
Views
477
Phil D.
P
P
  • Locked
The Beautiful Black Hills
Replies
25
Views
3K
iddevalois
iddevalois
T
  • Locked
Found Some Beautiful Fonts
Replies
24
Views
4K
FivePointSpurgeonist
FivePointSpurgeonist
Back
Top