Esv

Status
Not open for further replies.
A5pointer

A5pointer

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am partial to using the NASB but have been asked to use the ESV when teaching as it is the standard translation at my church. I know nothing about it. Any thoughts? What should I expect and watch out for? Thank you.
 
It has the same textual basis as the NASB. I haven't read it extensively, but my first reaction is that it lies midway between the NASB and the NIV. It would like to be as literal as the NASB, but finds itself often using dynamic equivalence to satisfy some perceived readability notions.

:2cents:
 
Gomarus said:
It has the same textual basis as the NASB. I haven't read it extensively, but my first reaction is that it lies midway between the NASB and the NIV. It would like to be as literal as the NASB, but finds itself often using dynamic equivalence to satisfy some perceived readability notions.

:2cents:
Click to expand...

Thank you, I have noticed that it does seem to be a combination when it is read as I read my NASB. The order of words is sometimes different.
 
The ESV is a very good translation of the Critical Text.
I was also asked to read from it since it's our church's official version in the pews.

The only thing to watch out for would be 1 Sam 13:1 - if you start reading the passage without knowing what you're in for it can really lead to an uncomfortable moment...
[bible]1 Sam 13:1[/bible]
I would suggest starting at verse 2 if you need to read from the passage and just drop verse 1...reading verse 1 as its written is just too problematic.
 
larryjf said:
The ESV is a very good translation of the Critical Text.
I was also asked to read from it since it's our church's official version in the pews.

The only thing to watch out for would be 1 Sam 13:1 - if you start reading the passage without knowing what you're in for it can really lead to an uncomfortable moment...
[bible]1 Sam 13:1[/bible]
I would suggest starting at verse 2 if you need to read from the passage and just drop verse 1...reading verse 1 as its written is just too problematic.
Click to expand...

I can see that. Are there any other such passages in the ESV?
 
I have the Reformation Study Bible in ESV as well as the new ESV Study Bible.

Would be hard pressed to use another version.
 
larryjf said:
The ESV is a very good translation of the Critical Text.
I was also asked to read from it since it's our church's official version in the pews.

The only thing to watch out for would be 1 Sam 13:1 - if you start reading the passage without knowing what you're in for it can really lead to an uncomfortable moment...
[bible]1 Sam 13:1[/bible]
I would suggest starting at verse 2 if you need to read from the passage and just drop verse 1...reading verse 1 as its written is just too problematic.
Click to expand...

I agree this is really odd. I was looking at commentaries on this verse and noticed that Gill mentioned that the ellipses were a possible way to translate it.

Gill on 1 Sam 13:1:

1Sa 13:1 Saul reigned one year,.... "Or the son of a year in his reigning" (s); various are the senses given of these words: some interpret them, Saul had a son of a year old when he began to reign, Ishbosheth, and who was forty years of age when his father died, 2Sa_2:10, others, who understand the words of Saul himself, think there is an "ellipsis" or defect of the number, and that it may be supplied, that Saul was the son of thirty or forty years, or whatsoever age he may be supposed to be at when he began his reign;
Click to expand...
 
The ESV is an excellent translation. I find the OT to be less clear and accurate than the NKJV, which is arguably the best OT translation. But it is good. The NT is based on the Alexandrian text and the translators did an excellent job. However, they are not clear on translation decisions, leaving the uneducated reader with the impressions that it is simply accurate. Added words are not in italics and few other words are noted as offering different translations. While this may not be necessary, it does offer the careful reader the opportunity to dig more deeply to assess where they stand on a particular translation decision.
The NASB is faithful in providing such notes, but focuses on the Alexandrian text. This is why I prefer the NKJV, for it shows the MT and NU variants, as well as added words in italics and possible variants in translations in column notes. But that may be a philosophical issue I have, as well as a textual one.
Overall, again, the ESV is a great translation though, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it or hand it out, if it's what is available.
 
I agree with Joe on the preference for the NKJV.

From a stylistic point of view, I object to the awkwardness of the some of the readings in the ESV (not as bad as the NAS, however!).

From a translational perspective, the KJV, NKJV (Byzantine texts) AND the NAS, ESV, and HCSB (Critical Text) are ALL essentially LITERAL translations. Each one has their own in-house vocabularly to describe their approach to being "literal," but literal they are.

One can be literal and ungainly: NAS.

One can be literal and colloquial: HCSB (e.g., use of contractions in direct discourse are just as literal but give a different "feel" and texture to the style of translation; use of "Messiah" for "Christos" at places in the NT is similarly "as literal" but different from the NAS). The expression "let us go" and "let's go" are equivalent from the standpoint of being literal. However, in direct discourse, the second one sounds more natural and conversational. The first one introduces an element of staid formality that may misrepresent the tone of the original.

One can be literal and literary: KJV, NKJV, ESV. Of the three, the ESV is the most tongue-tieingly awkward (in my opinion).

However, the ESV is a SOLID and FINE conservative translation. I would not hesitate to recommend it or to use it. And, for that matter, the ESV Study Bible is quite simply the finest study Bible available in the English language.

For my own study, I use a leather NKJV Reformation Study Bible, a leather ESV Study Bible, and a leather HCSB.
 
DMcFadden said:
For my own study, I use a leather NKJV Reformation Study Bible, a leather ESV Study Bible, and a leather HCSB.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of cows. When we do our family devotions we use various study Bibles, but not my ESV. I just got it a couple months ago and haven't really looked at it much yet. Pam uses the MacArthur, I have a simple Nelson and our son uses the Reformation, all in NKJV. It's great to discuss it and share perspectives we get from the different study notes. But ours are bonded...

Sorry, :offtopic:
 
the ESV

Hi,

I am a new poster to this forum.

Our church recently went from the NKJV to the ESV. We were never told why, just happened.

I have spent the last 6 months doing comparisons between about 10 versions. That means the English language has at least 9 too many. Anyhow, the result is I am now more confused than ever about what God actually said in His Word.

The ESV, strikes me as a text book, a scholarly work. It may be relatively accurate as far as I can tell ( I don't read the original languages), but to me it doesn't have that devotional quality of the KJV or the NKJV. Also, I don't know why they couldn't have translated the word "servant" properly as "bond-servant" if that is what it means. Instead it is foot-noted over 70 times, covering over 200 verses. Also the word "brothers", why couldn't that have been left as "brethren". Instead it is foot-noted over 100 times with an explanation. The use of italics would have been helpful to show supplied words. The text setup in the printed page is preferred in the KJV or NKJV, with the verse number to the left of the text. Much easier to find which verse you are looking for. Many other peculiar things about the ESV have already been noted on this forum.

At the end of the day, I'm not really sure why the ESV needed to be produced. It doesn't improve on what is already out there. If they really want to be taken seriously as a KJV type Bible, they should have stayed closer to the KJV version in many places. As it is, I just view it as a revision of the RSV.

Personally, I think I will stick with the NKJV, until I am convinced of the superiority of another version.

Arie V
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada
 
I say you start here:
Table of Comparisons

Ignore the editorializations at this site and just use the tables provided to compare the verses and judge for yourself where you may run into trouble with this or that translation. (Note: the tables at the link above do not include the ESV translation).

AMR
 
But ours are bonded...
Click to expand...

Man, Joe, you bailed out your bibles?! What had they done to get arrested? When are their court dates? Maybe you should get in contact with Fred, Evie, and Andrew and put together a stellar defense team.
 
I have read and preached from a lot of differen't translations through the years. I always go back to my KJV. I do really like the ESV, and stay with it in my personal study, longer than the other new translations. I do believe that it is a great literal translation of the critical text, and very readable. It is not as "wooden" as the NASB. I can't stand the NIV at all. You may have to preach from it, but that does not mean that it has to be your main study Bible. Even, when I was preaching from the ESV mostly, I still used the KJV in my personal study. If you prefer to study with the NASB, just compare the two closely before preaching your sermons.
 
Last edited:
The ESV is the standard translation for the church where I pastor.

One additional thing to keep in mind regarding the style of this translation is that it is the only modern version in which the translators put much effort into not only the readability of a 'formal equivalent' (the old term for what is now being called 'essentially literal') translation, but also the beauty and the majesty of the text as heard when read aloud. Much attention was given to this by the KJV translators and it has not been major consideration in any subsequent translation until the ESV (while some credit must be given here to the RSV, the ESV translators upped it several notches).
 
Robert Truelove said:
The ESV is the standard translation for the church where I pastor.

One additional thing to keep in mind regarding the style of this translation is that it is the only modern version in which the translators put much effort into not only the readability of a 'formal equivalent' (the old term for what is now being called 'essentially literal') translation, but also the beauty and the majesty of the text as heard when read aloud. Much attention was given to this by the KJV translators and it has not been major consideration in any subsequent translation until the ESV (while some credit must be given here to the RSV, the ESV translators upped it several notches).
Click to expand...

Hi,

In my church, I don't hear any improvement in the public reading of ESV text, over the NKJV.
I'm not sure where your assertion comes from that only the ESV scholars paid attention to how the text sounds when read aloud. The NKJV version in their preface make mention of the graceful, musical and poetical style of their renderings, that I would assume is an emphasis on the vocalization of the text. Even the CEV has a blurb in their preface on how their translation is based on when it is read aloud.

One thing I find very telling even in today's world, when scripture is quoted from memory, it is, or sounds like it is from the KJV. When those who promote the new versions, they tend to paraphrase. Our church has now used the ESV for about 8 months, I have yet to hear a quotation from memory using that version.

And maybe that is one of the downsides to having all these versions. The Word of God is somehow devalued, and not laid up in the hearts and minds of Christian folk. Quite often the renderings of the new versions, while smooth and up to date, are not memorable or quotable.

Arie V
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada
 
Last edited:
Bad Organist said:
Robert Truelove said:
The ESV is the standard translation for the church where I pastor.

One additional thing to keep in mind regarding the style of this translation is that it is the only modern version in which the translators put much effort into not only the readability of a 'formal equivalent' (the old term for what is now being called 'essentially literal') translation, but also the beauty and the majesty of the text as heard when read aloud. Much attention was given to this by the KJV translators and it has not been major consideration in any subsequent translation until the ESV (while some credit must be given here to the RSV, the ESV translators upped it several notches).
Click to expand...

Hi,

In my church, I don't hear any improvement in the public reading of ESV text, over the NKJV.
I'm not sure where your assertion comes from that only the ESV scholars paid attention to how the text sounds when read aloud. The NKJV version in their preface make mention of the graceful, musical and poetical style of their renderings, that I would assume is an emphasis on the vocalization of the text. Even the CEV has a blurb in their preface on how their translation is based on when it is read aloud.

One thing I find very telling even in today's world, when scripture is quoted from memory, it is, or sounds like it is from the KJV. When those who promote the new versions, they tend to paraphrase. Our church has now used the ESV for about 8 months, I have yet to hear a quotation from memory using that version.

And maybe that is one of the downsides to having all these versions. The Word of God is somehow devalued, and not laid up in the hearts and minds of Christian folk. Quite often the renderings of the new versions, while smooth and up to date, are not memorable or quotable.

Arie V
FS of Scotland
Toronto, Canada
Click to expand...

I agree with Arie. I think the "readability" of the ESV is vastly overstated. My wife and I read our Bible aloud together quite a bit and I usually stumbled over the ESV more than the NASB because of its awkwardness.

In addition, people don't often realize that the ESV is really just a revision of the RSV. The ESV old testament is very, very similar to the old testament RSV. The new testament is better, but still retains much of the archaic language ("would that", e.g.) They took out a lot of the liberal bias, but otherwise the ESV is pretty similar to the RSV. I actually like the ESV but I think it has become overhyped in reformed circles.
 
Stephen L Smith said:
I would argue that table of comparisons are not helpful because they miss the big issue - the issue is what text type would be used; the translation follows from that.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna disagree with this statement for the same reasons I gave above. Translation philosophy has everything to do with what we end up with. For instance, if one is CT then they don't like the NKJV, but the NIV is eclectic so it would stand to reason they'd prefer it. But it's not nearly as accurate, even in the Alexandrian tradition, as the NKJV, though the NKJV follows the TR - not even the MT. Furthermore, I can learn more about the NU from the NKJV than I can from the ESV because the notes in the NKJV reveal textual differences and translation decisions. This, along with their translation method, reveals their translation philosophy. It is a humble effort to inform people of what they've done and cue them in on possible differences. So, text type is a consideration, but the bigger issue is the integrity, humility, accuracy and readability of the translation, according to their method. This is backed up by their philosophy, which involves all of the above as well. :2cents:
 
Wannabee said:
Stephen L Smith said:
I would argue that table of comparisons are not helpful because they miss the big issue - the issue is what text type would be used; the translation follows from that.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna disagree with this statement for the same reasons I gave above.
Click to expand...

Joe, your argument was a little muddled to me, but I think we are fairly close in our arguments. The translation philosophy is important - literal vs esentially literal vs DE etc. Robert Thomas' books on bible translation (from the Masters Seminary) is helpful here. The text type is also an issue, as is obviously the footnotes.

The thing i was objecting to is the KJV only lists that say the "modern versions" deny certain doctrinal truths, and do so without reference to text type or philosophy of translation.
 
In terms of "readability," I tilt toward the HCSB for a critical text Bible and the NKJV for a Byzantine text Bible. Both of these are AMAZINGLY good (for different reasons).

The HCSB is smooth as silk while being literal (mostly) in translation philosophy.

The NKJV is easy on the ears and also quite literal in translation philosophy.

But, one must be a realist. The ESV has a TREMENDOUS advantage over the other translations in Reformed circles. All of my carping about text/footnotes (NKJV) or translational fluidity (HCSB) don't obviate that signal advantage the ESV has among Reformed folks.
 
Thanks Stephen. Yes, Dr. Thomas' writing on this is good, though I disagree with his take on prophesy in the NT.

DMcFadden said:
But, one must be a realist. The ESV has a TREMENDOUS advantage over the other translations in Reformed circles. All of my carping about text/footnotes (NKJV) or translational fluidity (HCSB) don't obviate that signal advantage the ESV has among Reformed folks.
Click to expand...

I do wish someone would simply provide a good MT translation though. The NKJV is unapologetically TR, with few exceptions.

Dennis, are you referring to the study notes, or is there a reason inherent in the ESV translation that gives it an advantage? Other than the fact that it's promoted by so many, I wasn't aware of it being preferred for the reformed.
 
Not to speak for Dennis, but I think he means the overwhelming usage of the text of the ESV among reformed folks. I rarely run into anyone who doesn't use it.
 
LawrenceU said:
Not to speak for Dennis, but I think he means the overwhelming usage of the text of the ESV among reformed folks. I rarely run into anyone who doesn't use it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "reformed folk", but I know that there are still whole denominations who use KJV. There are still congregations using NKJV. There are some groups, who call themselves reformed who use the NIV. If the ESV is the so-called "reformed bible", it is only very recently so.

My guess is that the reason for the growing acceptance is more from slick "madison ave." marketing, and getting heavy hitters like R.C. Sproul and John Piper and others to go to bat for it, than for any native excellence it is said to possess, or that it has God's blessing on it.

When our church switched to the ESV, about the biggest reason stated, was that the ESV Study bible was about to be released. Odd isn't it.

"of the making of many Bibles, there is no end"

Arie V
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JM
  • Locked
ESV Apocrypha
Replies
3
Views
2K
W.C. Dean
W.C. Dean
StephenG
  • Locked
Gideons ESV
Replies
3
Views
6K
Robert Truelove
R
N. Eshelman
  • Locked
ESV variances
Replies
14
Views
7K
k.seymore
K
larryjf
  • Locked
Revised ESV
2
Replies
49
Views
13K
KMK
KMK
jbergsing
  • Locked
ESV Weaknesses?
2
Replies
54
Views
15K
Robert Truelove
R
Back
Top