Is there an ESV problem I don't know about?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've never heard anyone say that the NASB sings!

It sings to me!!! :lol:

I just find something "icky" that I cannot rightly explain about the ESV.

I'm glad it does sing for you. Praise God! I don't know about an "icky" thing with ESV. That's interesting too.

But I'm an old guy and I stick with the older translations. I have used almost all of them at one time or another, but I keep coming back to the AV, while using the NKJV in the pulpit.

Whatever translation we use, let's be faithful to our LORD. Let us point our people to Jesus...always.

I cannot rationally explain the "ickyness" factor of the ESV for me. It just feels weird.
 
It sings to me!!! :lol:

I just find something "icky" that I cannot rightly explain about the ESV.

I'm glad it does sing for you. Praise God! I don't know about an "icky" thing with ESV. That's interesting too.

But I'm an old guy and I stick with the older translations. I have used almost all of them at one time or another, but I keep coming back to the AV, while using the NKJV in the pulpit.

Whatever translation we use, let's be faithful to our LORD. Let us point our people to Jesus...always.

I cannot rationally explain the "ickyness" factor of the ESV for me. It just feels weird.

We all have our tastes. Not a problem. I understand. Britney Spears makes me feel....icky!
 
I'm glad it does sing for you. Praise God! I don't know about an "icky" thing with ESV. That's interesting too.

But I'm an old guy and I stick with the older translations. I have used almost all of them at one time or another, but I keep coming back to the AV, while using the NKJV in the pulpit.

Whatever translation we use, let's be faithful to our LORD. Let us point our people to Jesus...always.

I cannot rationally explain the "ickyness" factor of the ESV for me. It just feels weird.

We all have our tastes. Not a problem. I understand. Britney Spears makes me feel....icky!

I have always been an underdog in practically everything so maybe the ESV's marketing and "hipness" soured it on me. Who knows...
 
I find the ESV too "literary". I get the feeling when I read it that it was written to a certain demographic or something. It just does not "sing" the way the KJV, NKJV, or even the NASB does to me. These are all subjective but it is one of several reasons I do not use the ESV.

I've never heard anyone say that the NASB sings!

It sings to me!!! :lol:

I just find something "icky" that I cannot rightly explain about the ESV.
Firstly, icky IS a funny word! (I am still a kid at heart) but I have an OPC Pastor friend who said "Man, I just CAN"T get myself to like this translation. He went back to the NASB, guess it's what you get used to.:2cents:
 
I've never heard anyone say that the NASB sings!

It sings to me!!! :lol:

I just find something "icky" that I cannot rightly explain about the ESV.
Firstly, icky IS a funny word! (I am still a kid at heart) but I have an OPC Pastor friend who said "Man, I just CAN"T get myself to like this translation. He went back to the NASB, guess it's what you get used to.:2cents:

That OPC Pastor friend and I are kindred spirits. I was/am the same way.
 
It sings to me!!! :lol:

I just find something "icky" that I cannot rightly explain about the ESV.
Firstly, icky IS a funny word! (I am still a kid at heart) but I have an OPC Pastor friend who said "Man, I just CAN"T get myself to like this translation. He went back to the NASB, guess it's what you get used to.:2cents:

That OPC Pastor friend and I are kindred spirits. I was/am the same way.
You DON'T want to be his kindred spirit!:lol: Just KIDDING Mark if you read this! (Mark is a PB reader, I have not been able to get him to join.):):)
 
Interesting to note that Concordia is moving from the NIV to the ESV for the next edition of their study Bible which is due out next year.
 
Interesting to note that Concordia is moving from the NIV to the ESV for the next edition of their study Bible which is due out next year.
Yes, they are! Thank you for that, it will be interesting to see if that helps overall sales.:detective:
 
If I'm correct, the OPC adopted the ESV as their version a few years ago. My ARP church has also adopted the ESV as the version we use.
 
If I'm correct, the OPC adopted the ESV as their version a few years ago. My ARP church has also adopted the ESV as the version we use.
Most PCA and OPC Churches HAVE made the ESV the Pew Bible as well as using it in the respective publications, HOWEVER, it does not seem to have changed sales that much.:2cents:
 
As a strong supporter of the ESV there two things with it. (I hardly use the NKJV and NASB anymore.) There is a difference between the 2001 and 2007 Text ESV editions. I do not know the technicalities of the issues, but one is able to contact Crossway for their answer, or look it up via google. The second is the complementarian emphasis. (dont get me wrong I am a man and I celebrate my masculinity... i despise gender neutrality). But at times the ESV translate the word man into mankind or humanity. (things like that).
 
But at times the ESV translate the word man into mankind or humanity. (things like that).

And that's where the "icky meter" starts running. At least for many of us. :book2: :2cents:

Margaret
That doesn't make it icky to me. After all, that's a good translation of the word "anthropos"

My understanding was that when the word was clearly male, they translated it male. If it was not, they would use words such as "mankind", etc. I think they did the right thing to make it MORE accurate.
 
I concede I have no expertise in Greek or Hebrew translation; I rely upon others whose doctrine I respect for that. So -- if this is one instance in which the ESV translates a word more accurately, I stand corrected.

To the extent that gender neutrality, however, is advanced, promulgated, championed, propounded or otherwise invoked as a nod to the feminist agenda, and not necessarily to make a verse rendering more accurate, I would say that an "ick factor" is present. And I'm not accusing the ESV of being an offender; other "translations" would be more culpable, I'm sure, in that area.

I also admit that my only acquaintance with the ESV has been online. I don't own one. It's the only conservative-friendly Bible version that I don't own.

If I've made a mistake due to lack of knowledge, I apologize.

Margaret
 
Okay, here is the explanation directly from the company:

Gender Issues

"In the area of gender language, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original.

For example, “anyone” replaces “any man” where there is no word corresponding to “man” in the original languages, and “people” rather than “men” is regularly used where the original languages refer to both men and women. But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew.

Similarly, the English word “brothers” (translating the Greek word adelphoi) is retained as an important familial form of address between fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians in the first century. A recurring note is included to indicate that the term “brothers” (adelphoi) was often used in Greek to refer to both men and women, and to indicate the specific instances in the text where this is the case.

In addition, the English word “sons” (translating the Greek word huioi) is retained in specific instances because of its meaning as a legal term in the adoption and inheritance laws of first-century Rome. As used by the apostle Paul, this term refers to the status of all Christians, both men and women, who, having been adopted into God’s family, now enjoy all the privileges, obligations, and inheritance rights of God’s children.

The inclusive use of the generic “he” has also regularly been retained, because this is consistent with similar usage in the original languages and because an essentially literal translation would be impossible without it.

Similarly, where God and man are compared or contrasted in the original, the ESV retains the generic use of “man” as the clearest way to express the contrast within the framework of essentially literal translation.

In each case the objective has been transparency to the original text, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture."

In addition, here is some more information about the ESV.

ESV Information
 
Folks, there are several expressions of personal taste and preference (e.g., "icky") mixed in with some misstatements (e.g., the gender thing) in this thread.

The ESV is supported by Piper and Grudem BECAUSE it treats the words of Scripture with integrity and does not wash out the original in some sea of P.C. correctness. Both Piper and Grudem have "written the book" on complementarianism (e.g., Grudem is somethings called the "father" of the modern complementarian movement). They made sure that UNLIKE the liberal translations, they were scrupulously accurate in rendering the Greek and Hebrew.

As for the concern that it is "based" upon the RSV, that is both a helpful AND misleading observation. Yes, the translators of the RSV had a preference for textual emendations. But, it also preserved much of the stately beauty of the old KJV. In my opinion, the evangelical translators of the ESV corrected the places where RSV translators erred.

I use the ESV primarily when I want my Reformation Study Bible and the NIV (yech!) when employing the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (wish it came out in the ESV!). However, when my wife and I do our Bible reading and prayer time in the morning, my groggy eyes and halting tongue keeps tripping over the words more frequently than some other translations.
 
I am thinking about switching to the ESV from the NIV. I have the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (NIV) and I use it for devotions. I am looking forward to buying one of the new ESV study Bibles that's coming out in October. There are notes by Wayne Grudem, J. I. Packer, and a whole lot of other people that I can't recall right now. I have been wanting to do the fighter verse system with Bethlehem Baptist Church, but I have reluctant to do that since I read the NIV. Also, most of the preachers that I listen to use the ESV. I did have an ESV Bible, but I gave it to someone who was struggling with their faith. I am glad that I did that, but I would like to get another ESV.
 
Interesting to note that Concordia is moving from the NIV to the ESV for the next edition of their study Bible which is due out next year.
Yes, they are! Thank you for that, it will be interesting to see if that helps overall sales.:detective:

That's kind of what I wondered.

I'm kind of looking forward to it myself. Unlike the current version which is, as I understand it, a modified version of the NIV Study Bible, this one is being done from the ground up. I emailed Concordia about this awhile back and recieved this response:

Concordia Publishing House will release The Lutheran Study Bible in October 2009

-- the first study Bible in English to be developed from the ground up with
notes that are exclusively Lutheran.

Combining a personal, devotional, and practical application approach to Bible
reading with solid, scholarly study notes, The Lutheran Study Bible uses the
English Standard Version®, one of the fastest-growing translations worldwide and considered to be one of the most precise English translations available.

The study notes were prepared by theologians, scholars, and pastors from 12
Lutheran church bodies, providing a distinctively Lutheran interpretation. Key
features include:

• 26,500+ study notes, including more than 2,000 application notes and
prayers
• 80,000+ center-column cross-references, listing interrelated themes and concepts from the Old and New Testaments
• 120 full- or half-page maps, charts, and diagrams
• More than 220 articles and introductions to biblical books and topics

Detailed information about the unique features of The Lutheran Study Bible will be online at cph.org/lutheranbible in October 2008.
 
As a strong supporter of the ESV there two things with it. (I hardly use the NKJV and NASB anymore.) There is a difference between the 2001 and 2007 Text ESV editions. I do not know the technicalities of the issues, but one is able to contact Crossway for their answer, or look it up via google. The second is the complementarian emphasis. (dont get me wrong I am a man and I celebrate my masculinity... i despise gender neutrality). But at times the ESV translate the word man into mankind or humanity. (things like that).

Changes made in the 2007 edition of the English Standard Version
 
If I'm correct, the OPC adopted the ESV as their version a few years ago. My ARP church has also adopted the ESV as the version we use.

The OPC adopted it for use in their magazine "New Horizons" and I think it has been adopted by Great Commission Publications as well. But the OPC has no "official" translation.
 
And that's where the "icky meter" starts running. At least for many of us.

Margaret

That doesn't make it icky to me. After all, that's a good translation of the word "anthropos"

I'm with Margaret, although Grace Alone is right to point out the technical issue, and Pastor McFaddon is insightful as always with his point about personal taste. It's something that has changed meaning over the last couple years, like when the original Star Trek came out saying "Where no man has gone before" was immediately understood as what anthropos meant, but the Next Gen people were probably right to change it to "Where no one has gone before".

I guess you've got to save your ammo for battles that you can win :lol:
 
If I'm correct, the OPC adopted the ESV as their version a few years ago. My ARP church has also adopted the ESV as the version we use.

The OPC adopted it for use in their magazine "New Horizons" and I think it has been adopted by Great Commission Publications as well. But the OPC has no "official" translation.

Exactly...the OPC explains it in further detail here...
Q and A
 
And that's where the "icky meter" starts running. At least for many of us.

Margaret

That doesn't make it icky to me. After all, that's a good translation of the word "anthropos"

I'm with Margaret, although Grace Alone is right to point out the technical issue, and Pastor McFaddon is insightful as always with his point about personal taste. It's something that has changed meaning over the last couple years, like when the original Star Trek came out saying "Where no man has gone before" was immediately understood as what anthropos meant, but the Next Gen people were probably right to change it to "Where no one has gone before".

I guess you've got to save your ammo for battles that you can win :lol:

Thanks, Tim. Re-reading my earlier post, it was not as clear as it should have been. ESV was produced by inerrantist conservatives who thought the NIV was too loose in its dynamic-equivalent style and that modern translations were jumping on the feminist egalitarian bandwagon.

They wanted a Bible that was "more literal" than the NIV in translation philosophy, more stately in language than most modern translations to read aloud in church, and to affirm the conservative view of the differences between male and female.

The translators/editors were generally among the ones most OPPOSED to the creep of the feminist agenda in the church. Grudem, for example, is one of the strongest voices against the ordination of women. His books (e.g., Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?) are clear and univocal in opposition to feminism. When they translate "anthropos" as denoting humanity, not a male (andros or aner), it is to take a club away from the feminists who use it to complain of "male bias" in translations. By being MORE "accurate" with those things, yet unyielding on the areas where modern translations tip the hand to feminism, they stake out their position rather strongly in my opinion. The ESV (whether you like it or hate it), is a traditional, evangelical, conservative, CT translation that stands opposed to liberalizing works such as the TNIV and NRSV. That is what has given it such currency in Reformed circles.
 
Here is what the CBA says about Bible says at March of this year:

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS - Based on Unit Sales
1 New International Version
2 New King James Version
3 King James Version
4 New Living Translation
5 English Standard Version
6 Holman Christian Standard Bible
7 The Message
8 New American Standard Bible update
9 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)
10 Today’s New International Version

How the NIV keeps its position is a mystery to me. My favs are the ESV and the HCSB for CT modern translations.

The TNIV bugs me to no end!
 
August 2008 has the unit sales listed as:
1 New International Version
2 New Living Translation
3 New King James Version
4 King James Version
5 English Standard Version
6 Holman Christian Standard Bible
7 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)
8 The Message Eugene Peterson
9 New American Standard Bible update
10 International Children’s Bible
 
Considering the fact that reformed churches are the primary group that has embraced the ESV, I am amazed that the ESV is even #5. It's pretty sad to see NLT ahead of ESV, though.
 
If the King James and the 1599 Geneva Bibles were at the very bottom of any Bible bestsellers list, it wouldn't surprise me nor would it change my mind...

Can I just suggest some verse comparisons, ESV et al. to KJV and 1599 Geneva? With Proverbs 30:6, and the doctrines we prize so very much, in mind? Just a short list (it could be much, much longer, but I restrain myself):

Luke 2:33; 43
Colossians 1:14
Genesis 15:1
Luke 4:4
John 3:36 (works!)
John 1:12
Matthew 5:22
II Corinthians 2:17

Please just compare them and as/if you notice any differences, consider what is being affected. As an example, in Matthew 5:22, the KJV's "without a cause" is omitted in the CT versions. But - didn't Jesus get angry occasionally? Did this put Him "in danger of the judgment?" Was He not a perfect Savior? Why omit those three words when they served the church well for almost 2,000 years, and give us a wonderful picture of our Savior's character, as well as letting us know that there is indeed such a thing as righteous anger?

The "new versions," in their presumed desire to make the word of God more accessible to readers of all levels of ability, draft off of the text that served the church for over 1,800 years, in my opinion and presume a lot. People today take for granted that just because some words are changed "here and there," we'll always have intact Christian doctrine to teach our children and to edify, build up and comfort us - and with which to give God the glory and honor. However, the prevalence of correct Christian doctrine is diminishing by the day as more and more committees take up the unholy work of "modifying" God's word at the whim of one publishing house or another, or to "meet the demands" of one demographic or another.

BTW, I've been "eliminated" from three Reformed churches for ever so gently espousing the above opinion. So be it.

I'll just retreat now... Sorry...

Margaret
 
Margaret, honestly, I read a good bit on this topic before I bought the ESV. There are people who believe that KJV has errors and that the ESV is MORE accurate due to the availability of more manuscripts. When I read strong endorsements by people like John Piper and R C Sproul, I was comfortable changing to ESV. Both my previous pastor and current pastor preach from it. I think the language is lovely in the KJV, but I cannot comprehend it as well as I can the ESV. The ESV is written in my language and the KJV is not.

I cannot imagine any reformed church "eliminating" someone due to expressing a preference for a different Bible version! We have people using probably 5 different versions at least! It's certainly the choice of the individual which they prefer to read. I just know for the forseeable future, I will be using the ESV because I think it is the most accurate and readable English translation available today.

Here's Piper's review (although his main emphasis is to prove why it is superior to the NIV which is the #1 seller):

Good English With Minimal Translation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top