Featured English Standard Version (ESV)

1. It is my preferred translation.
2. It is definitely deserving of its popularity.
3. It is a fine translation AND it has been marketed well.

 

Our church just switched from the NKJV to the ESV. I have to say, I like the NKJV better.

 

maybe the best compromise between literal accuracy and able to be understood!

 

Prefer the Nasb, but its a fine translation

 

Due to the esv not being a Kjv?

 

I am not as familiar with the ESV as probably I should be. From what I have read from it, I approve of it as a 'formal equivalence' translation, though I think it is less literal than either the NASB or NKJV. I also approve of its position on 'Gender inclusion.'

Against that, I am sorry that it does not italicize additional words that it adds to help the meaning, as the NASB and NKJV do. I also dislike the translation of monogenes as 'only,' simply because it isn't true (Galatians 3:26). Either 'unique' ('one of a kind') or 'only begotten' is better. I also wish it followed the Majority Text rather than the C.T., but I have to accept that I am in a minority in that view.

The ESV has become quite popular in Britain among conservative churches. Two such churches where I preach occasionally have switched to it from the NIV, and I am aware of some others. Some of the best UK seminaries encourage its use.

 

No....due to the fact that I don't see any need to go out and buy a new Bible version when they all present the Word of God equally, and I'm happy with the Bible I have.

 

It is a serviceable Bible translation; perfectly orthodox. It is overrated especially by Grudem and Ryken. And it has been marketed extremely well.

 

What do you mean by "literal accuracy" as that is a new term. Any translation; even the most form-oriented are able to be understood. But the more form-driven ones do not sound natural or clear.

 

$$$ into the coffers of theological liberals and worse (the National Council of Churches — right there in the front matter of every ESV, look!)

 

It uses New Testament textual variants more often than not which would be understand are not God's word. Aid in translation words are never italics, so you do not know such and such a word or phrase is added by the translators. It is said to follow the RSV as a translation. Though it is sometimes better.

 

The KJV uses a lot of textual variants; even though the revisers did not know they were using variants in the first place.

 

I prefer using a translation that differs from the text that a pastor uses. I can pick up more things that way.

 

Formal equivalence does not = w-f-w. And the latter doesn't exist anyway.
The NIV is a mediating translation. That's a more balanced approach. Besides, the ESV uses more functional equivalence than you may be aware of.

 

The ESV is noted for its poor English. It is the very essence of awkwardness.

The 1977 NASB was known for it's wooden style at times. But the 1995 and 2020 editions are smoother than the ESV.

 

Most of those variants according to the CT mss were not known.