ESV Weaknesses?
- Thread starter jbergsing
- Start date
- Status
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
As far as I can tell (and I've been reading the ESV since 2002), there may be the very occasional infelicitous reading, but I don't think there are any major problems or boo-boos (technical term!) with the translation. It isn't nearly as clumsy to read as the NASB and much more faithful to the underlying Greek and Hebrew than the NIV.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
You don't look like you have big feet in your avatar.
Why do you think there is just a head shot?
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Why do you think there is just a head shot?
Nice teeth! Are they yours?
Yes, minus a few wisdom teeth...which, come to think of it, explains some other problems I have.
jbergsing
Puritan Board Sophomore
Although I was inquiring more about the translation itself, you have struck a chord with me there. I've been using the ESV for about a year and have almost worn mine out! Normal daily use shouldn't lead to it falling apart like it is starting to do.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
No comment <cough>...
***
This poor brother is trying to get an answer to his question about the ESV, and you and I have highjacked his thread. It's now "The Bill and Richard Show".
John - I know. Just having some fun at a newbies expense. Seriously, some folks have problems with the ESV because they don't know how to reconcile the way it uses active Greek verbs. It certainly isn't a dynamic equivalent. No English translation is perfect. My scholarship of textual criticism only goes so far, but I have no problems with some of the major translations (ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV and RSV). Just keep the NIV at arms length.
jbergsing
Puritan Board Sophomore
John - I know. Just having some fun at a newbies expense. Seriously, some folks have problems with the ESV because they don't know how to reconcile the way it uses active Greek verbs. It certainly isn't a dynamic equivalent. No English translation is perfect. My scholarship of textual criticism only goes so far, but I have no problems with some of the major translations (ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV and RSV). Just keep the NIV at arms length.
Yeah, I though so. No prob. I, like many people, am a recovering NIV user.
jbergsing
Puritan Board Sophomore
And what's more is I'm now lugging around my Reformation Study Bible (ESV) so as to not do any more damage to my original ESV. I don't really like to do that as those study bibles get cumbersome when you're trying to juggle it, your wife's bible and manage four small children simultaneously! You should see me sometimes. It's quite a sight!
I'm thinking of getting a pocket-sized bible as a replacement!
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
And what's more is I'm now lugging around my Reformation Study Bible (ESV) so as to not do any more damage to my original ESV. I don't really like to do that as those study bibles get cumbersome when you're trying to juggle it, your wife's bible and manage four small children simultaneously! You should see me sometimes. It's quite a sight!
I managed to get hold of a free ESV leather bound Bible without red lettering. I'm pretty pleased.
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
I have several ESV Bibles. My main one is the Premium Calfskin Leather
(Smyth Sewn Binding) one that lists for $170 but you can get it for $112 from evangelicalbible.com.
https://evangelicalbible.com/store/product.php?productid=16155&cat=248&page=1
My only complaint was that it seemed that the gilding on the pages came off to easily. In retrospect, after the first splotches on the gilded appeared, no more has come off. This leads me to suspect that it was not bad workmanship but due to some left over medication on my hands that I was putting on my eyelids at the time. So that said, I am extremely pleased with the quality of this edition. It is every bit worth the $112 evangelicalbible.com is asking for it.
As far as the translation goes, I think it is overall the best English translation out there right now.
(Smyth Sewn Binding) one that lists for $170 but you can get it for $112 from evangelicalbible.com.
https://evangelicalbible.com/store/product.php?productid=16155&cat=248&page=1
My only complaint was that it seemed that the gilding on the pages came off to easily. In retrospect, after the first splotches on the gilded appeared, no more has come off. This leads me to suspect that it was not bad workmanship but due to some left over medication on my hands that I was putting on my eyelids at the time. So that said, I am extremely pleased with the quality of this edition. It is every bit worth the $112 evangelicalbible.com is asking for it.
As far as the translation goes, I think it is overall the best English translation out there right now.
Staphlobob
Puritan Board Sophomore
Just keep the NIV at arms length.
I was meeting with several pastors yesterday when one of them said he doesn't mind if new believers begin with the NIV, because they can always move up to something better later on.
Then it hit me: That's the exact same argument for ebonics.
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
- I may have to use that line sometime.Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
.............
Ginny Dohms
Puritan Board Freshman
John,
I, too, am a first time poster on PB, so I will offer my welcome to you at this time.
One key question that needs to be addressed, when it comes to translations, is to ask which original manuscript the translation was taken from. Of course this debate, as with the translations that follow, will not be unaninimously agreed upon, but there are many in the reformed community that believe the Textus Receptus, which the KJV was derived from, is the most accurate. The ESV did not use the TR to translate the New Testament. This site reveals which manuscripts were used, and how the ESV translation came about.
http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts
I hope that helps somewhat.
Ginny
jbergsing
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks for your reply and hello to you, too! And thanks for that link! I am aware of the different original manuscripts, some of the differences between them and of the KJVO arguments. I watched it destroy a baptist church I belonged to many years ago. I myself do not subscribe to the KJVO beliefs and choose to use the ESV. This is why I wanted to head off any attempts to insert the KJVO arguments in my original post. It is not up for debate in this thread as it is not being discussed. My question was only about the ESV. Again, thanks for your reply!
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
I think it is one of the best overall English version available. I do have some issues with it. 1 Sam 13:1 is a terrible thing to read in public if it catches you off guard.
Other than that i do have issues with the publishers. They announced a 2007 revision and said that they would email anybody who asked the revisions. Then they told me personally that they would email me a list of the revisions.
Well, on 1/18/2007 they informed me that at an executive management meeting they decided not to release such a list.
Crossway's inability to follow through on their word has me very concerned about the future of this version.
… let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation. (Jam 5:12)
… each tree is known by its own fruit…(Luk 6:44)
Other than that i do have issues with the publishers. They announced a 2007 revision and said that they would email anybody who asked the revisions. Then they told me personally that they would email me a list of the revisions.
Well, on 1/18/2007 they informed me that at an executive management meeting they decided not to release such a list.
Crossway's inability to follow through on their word has me very concerned about the future of this version.
… let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation. (Jam 5:12)
… each tree is known by its own fruit…(Luk 6:44)
Hey Larry,
Have you seen this on the 2007 revisions? It's not exhaustive by any means, but you might be interested:
Truth Unchanged Not Changed That Much: A Preliminary Survey of Updates to the ESV New Testament
Have you seen this on the 2007 revisions? It's not exhaustive by any means, but you might be interested:
Truth Unchanged Not Changed That Much: A Preliminary Survey of Updates to the ESV New Testament
Kevin Lewis
Puritan Board Freshman
Prefer NASB over ESV
I have used the NASB for about 20 years. I decided to try the ESV (jump on the bandwagon) to check it out. I am surprised that people say the ESV flows better than the NASB. Maybe it is just me (and Baptist in Crisis) but I much prefer the flow and reading of the NASB. Also, in the last year or so, I have started reading the NKJV a lot also as that is what our pastor preaches from and I like to be able to follow along word for work.
I have used the NASB for about 20 years. I decided to try the ESV (jump on the bandwagon) to check it out. I am surprised that people say the ESV flows better than the NASB. Maybe it is just me (and Baptist in Crisis) but I much prefer the flow and reading of the NASB. Also, in the last year or so, I have started reading the NKJV a lot also as that is what our pastor preaches from and I like to be able to follow along word for work.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
That is a help...thanks.
It makes me appreciate the NASB a bit more (another one of my favorites).
Good to see the ESV revision coming into closer proximity with the reformed understanding of 1 Cor. 1:30, but it still has a ways to go before it is up to standard.
jbergsing
Puritan Board Sophomore
I really like the NASB, as well. However, our pastor preaches from ESV. When I was deciding on which one to purchase, this was the deciding factor. Both are good translations and I don't mind using either. But, as you noted, it's easier to follow along when you are using the same translation as your pastor.
Not sure I can take seriously a review that suggests I get the TNIV as a good contemporary translation:
- Status
