Esv

[JML]

Deliberately avoiding a TR, CT discussion, two of many issues I would have with the ESV would be this:

1. Its tendency as a commentary instead of a translation. For example, 1 Corinthians 7:25-38 in the ESV contains the word “betrothed.” If you look at the footnote, it says “Greek – virgin.” There is quite a difference between the two words. Betrothed means to be “engaged to be married.” A virgin could be engaged to be married but would not necessarily be so. This seems more like a commentary of what the translators think this verse is talking about rather than a translation.

2. The inclusion in the text before John 7:53 of, “[The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11.].” I find it hard to speak to someone about the inerrancy of Scripture when my Bible has this in the text.

 

[rbcbob]

See SermonAudio.com - A Critique of the ESV & Leland Ryken's Book

 

[SolaGratia]

See SermonAudio.com - A Critique of the ESV & Leland Ryken's Book

Thanks, Very Very Helpful!

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

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.

...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.

This is one of the many reasons I really like my awesome Thompson-Chain Reference NKJV. It is very helpful in my studies to know the differences between the texts.

 

[DMcFadden]

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.

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

Arie, that was my only point. Since it only appeared in this decade, it would be fair to say that it has only "recently" become a defacto "Reformed Bible" in SOME circles. Hey, I would rather use the NKJV for the reasons that Wannabe and Backwoods identify. Despite the arguments of some to the contrary, I just do not find the ESV to be all that easy to read out loud. As I have noted before, every other day (when it is my turn to do the reading of the day in devotions with my wife), the awkwardness of it jumps out at me as my blurry-eyed morning-tied tongue continually stumbles over the phrasing. The HCSB is a smooth as silk CT Bible to read; the NKJV is a wonderfully literate Byzantine text Bible.

However, with Piper and others making it sound as if it is the best thing since chocolate fudge sundaes, what can I say? Realism compels me to admit the seeming inevitable.

[BTW, the HCSB tends to show more respect for Byzantine readings than the ESV too]

 

[Damon Rambo]

The ESV's primary shining feature, is it's accurate portrayal of the various Greek tenses, voices, etc. I am continually amazed at other translations failure to capture what the Greek is actually saying, and equally amazed at the ESV's proper renderings.

Some of the people here have stated that the ESV is clunky, poetically speaking. This is understandable: the ESV is not designed to be an "easy reader" Bible: it is designed to be accurate to the Greek/Hebrew, and their various forms.

And it does this, In my humble opinion, without equal. There is no better translation, in terms of accuracy, than the ESV. At least, that is the way I see it.

 

[DMcFadden]

The ESV's primary shining feature, is it's accurate portrayal of the various Greek tenses, voices, etc. I am continually amazed at other translations failure to capture what the Greek is actually saying, and equally amazed at the ESV's proper renderings.

Some of the people here have stated that the ESV is clunky, poetically speaking. This is understandable: the ESV is not designed to be an "easy reader" Bible: it is designed to be accurate to the Greek/Hebrew, and their various forms.

And it does this, In my humble opinion, without equal. There is no better translation, in terms of accuracy, than the ESV. At least, that is the way I see it.

So, you basically see the ESV as a kind of . . .

The ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, and NAS are ALL very good at rendering the Greek and Hebrew with a high degree of accuracy. I like them ALL because of their being MORE literal which, the older I get, makes more and more sense to me.

 

[Damon Rambo]

The ESV's primary shining feature, is it's accurate portrayal of the various Greek tenses, voices, etc. I am continually amazed at other translations failure to capture what the Greek is actually saying, and equally amazed at the ESV's proper renderings.

Some of the people here have stated that the ESV is clunky, poetically speaking. This is understandable: the ESV is not designed to be an "easy reader" Bible: it is designed to be accurate to the Greek/Hebrew, and their various forms.

And it does this, In my humble opinion, without equal. There is no better translation, in terms of accuracy, than the ESV. At least, that is the way I see it.

The ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, and NAS are ALL very good at rendering the Greek and Hebrew with a high degree of accuracy. I like them ALL because of their being MORE literal which, the older I get, makes more and more sense to me.

I agree that these are all good translations (Although, as a literalist, I am not too fond of the NASB, which takes too much liberty with the numbering of the days in Genesis).

However, the KJV, and NKJV in particular, do not do as good of a job, in my opinion, of accurately conveying the Perfect, pluperfect, and Present Greek tenses. The ESV (and the HCSB does a pretty good job as well, although it has a "pre mill" slant to some passages) just conveys the continuing/completed sense of these forms, much more accurately.

 

[Bad Organist]

The ESV's primary shining feature, is it's accurate portrayal of the various Greek tenses, voices, etc. I am continually amazed at other translations failure to capture what the Greek is actually saying, and equally amazed at the ESV's proper renderings.

Some of the people here have stated that the ESV is clunky, poetically speaking. This is understandable: the ESV is not designed to be an "easy reader" Bible: it is designed to be accurate to the Greek/Hebrew, and their various forms.

And it does this, In my humble opinion, without equal. There is no better translation, in terms of accuracy, than the ESV. At least, that is the way I see it.

The ESV, HCSB, KJV, NKJV, and NAS are ALL very good at rendering the Greek and Hebrew with a high degree of accuracy. I like them ALL because of their being MORE literal which, the older I get, makes more and more sense to me.

I agree that these are all good translations (Although, as a literalist, I am not too fond of the NASB, which takes too much liberty with the numbering of the days in Genesis).

However, the KJV, and NKJV in particular, do not do as good of a job, in my opinion, of accurately conveying the Perfect, pluperfect, and Present Greek tenses. The ESV (and the HCSB does a pretty good job as well, although it has a "pre mill" slant to some passages) just conveys the continuing/completed sense of these forms, much more accurately.

Damon,

Can you furnish examples of what you are saying here?

Arie V
FC of Scotland
Toronto, Canada

 

[rbcbob]

I recently suggested to someone in a post regarding their question about the ESV. They were encouraged by a lesson that I taught which included principles of translation. In that lesson I highly recommended a book by Leland Ryken called "The Word of God in English". If you would like to listen to the lesson you can do so at
SermonAudio.com - A Critique of the ESV & Leland Ryken's Book

Bob
__________________