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

[DMcFadden]

Piper is right.

Margaret, the issues you pick with the ESV are ones of text more than translation. If you use a CT Bible, you end up dropping some words and adding others because the GREEK text of the CT does. A fairer comparison would be comparing the ESV with other CT Bibles (e.g., NIV, NLT, NASB, HCSB, etc.). Since they all presuppose the same underlying text, you have the opportunity to see how much paraphrase, how much skew, and how much spin gets brought into the translation. Among CT Bibles, the ESV is essentially literal and more fluid than the very literal and hard-to-read NASB.

 

[Zenas]

I was reading some 2006-7 articles with James White where he uses the ESV, although he also likes the NASB.

Try to query an ESV text from Gutenburg in his chat channel and see what happens.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

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!

Sad that the Message is so high,,,,

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Piper is right.

Margaret, the issues you pick with the ESV are ones of text more than translation. If you use a CT Bible, you end up dropping some words and adding others because the GREEK text of the CT does. A fairer comparison would be comparing the ESV with other CT Bibles (e.g., NIV, NLT, NASB, HCSB, etc.). Since they all presuppose the same underlying text, you have the opportunity to see how much paraphrase, how much skew, and how much spin gets brought into the translation. Among CT Bibles, the ESV is essentially literal and more fluid than the very literal and hard-to-read NASB.

Am I the only one who does not find the NASB hard to read? I find it quite easy and simple to read.

 

[DMcFadden]

And reading it, he was saying to them: "I have been finding it to replicate the exact forms of the underlying Greek. Therefore, having found the Greek to be rich in participial forms, it is more than a little difficult reading it aloud for the average English speaker."

 

[Galatians220]

The substantive points I set forth above remain unaddressed.

I'm not led by Piper or Sproul. They don't have the kind of clout that the Holy Spirit has. Nor is either of these admittedly worthy men my pastor. I value Piper quite a lot for his opinions on the "remarriage after divorce" issue, for few construe that as biblically as he does. For awhile, I was in a thrall of admiration of R. C. Sproul. I met him several years ago at a conference in Chicago, was impressed by his affability and his messages and was a long-time subscriber to Tabletalk, but I've kind of moved on.

If anyone wants details (but not identifying ones) as to how one gets eliminated from Reformed churches for voicing her preference for the KJV, I will provide them in a PM. I am not lying about that. It happened. There is little Christian love in Reformed circles these days, and little tolerance for those who prefer the KJV.

If we stay in prayer and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and that of solid preaching under which the Lord has placed us, not only that of men who may be more or less sanctified than we are, we will use the Bible version that is most solid.

If the Lord is leading you to read the ESV or another translation, I am not going to argue with you.

As for the KJV being hard to read, I will say anecdotally that the lady who convinced me to ditch the NIV and stick with the KJV was my brother's mother-in-law, a fine Christian who kindly took me under her wing right after I left the RCC. She had an 8th grade education. She invited me to a Bible study at her assisted living facility, and when she saw my NIV, she said, "Margaret, get rid of that thing and get a real Bible!" We had a lot of discussions about Bible versions other than the KJV, and she finally convinced me - along with the ten years of research I did on the issue. The Christlikeness that my brother's M.I.L. exhibited to me was so winsome, and her love so genuine and unfailing (as a Protestant from the South, she had a natural aversion to northern, even former, Catholics - but she put that aside for me!), that she - but first Christ Himself - won me over. She went, I presume to be with the Lord, a few years ago at age 86. I was blessed to have her kind fellowship for as long as I did, and as of yet, no one has taken her place.

May the Lord bless everyone here.

Margaret

 

[DMcFadden]

Margaret,

I'm sorry for not tackling the substance of your questions. On a Lord's Day morning, with preparations for church, permit me just a couple of observations.

1. The basic case for the KJV (ask Jerusalem Blade) involves a judgment regarding the textual tradition, not the form of translation. While I am a CT guy, my sympathies go to those who find the arguments compelling.

2. Every translation both adds and subtracts from the meaning of the original. The translation philosophy of the KJV (insofar as it holds to and carries out "formal correspondence" noun for noun, verb for verb, adj for adj) comes closest to the NASB in approach to grammatical forms. However, the NASB was completed without the concern for literary beauty or the stately elegance of the KJV.

3. I don't like the NIV either. For a formal correspondence Bible, I use the NASB. For a translation, the ESV and HCSB satisfy me OK. If I finally went over to the TR side, my Bible would probably be the NKJV since it retains the TR tradition, elegance of language of the KJV, and contemporizes some of the archaic forms.

 

[SRoper]

I value Piper quite a lot for his opinions on the "remarriage after divorce" issue, for few construe that as biblically as he does.

Actually Piper's position on divorce and remarriage is unbiblical and unconfessional (WCF 24:5), but this is best discussed elsewhere.

 

[Pergamum]

Interesting thread but I need to fetch a compass back home so I cannot post now.

 

[JohnGill]

Interesting thread but I need to fetch a compass back home so I cannot post now.

You should've been an FO in the Army. No compass, just a map and an 'L' scale. And you can truthfully say you never get lost.

I wish they would change Psalm 119:9, Proverbs 8:22, and Micah 5:2. Their renderings lead to some doctrinal problems.

And I'd like to see the distinction between 2nd pers sing & plur pronouns in the text and not in a footnote (Lk 22:31, 32)