English Standard Version (ESV)

[alexander284]

I'd like to hear your thoughts regarding the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible.

For instance: is it deserving of its immense popularity, or is it (in reality) overrated?

Is it popular because it's a fine translation, or because it's been marketed so well?

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

 

[Baptist4life]

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

 

[JesusFan]

I'd like to hear your thoughts regarding the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible.

For instance: is it deserving of its immense popularity, or is it (in reality) overrated?

Is it popular because it's a fine translation, or because it's been marketed so well?

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

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Prefer the Nasb, but its a fine translation

 

[JesusFan]

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

Due to the esv not being a Kjv?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

 

[Baptist4life]

Due to the esv not being a Kjv?

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.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I'd like to hear your thoughts regarding the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible.

For instance: is it deserving of its immense popularity, or is it (in reality) overrated?

Is it popular because it's a fine translation, or because it's been marketed so well?

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

 

[RipponRedeaux]

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

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.

 

[Jerome]

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

 

[37818]

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.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

It uses New Testament textual variants more often than not which would be understand are not God's word.

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

 

[alexander284]

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

Any idea why they made the switch?

 

[Dr. Bob]

I approve it and recommend it for everyday reading and study. Since we read corporately from the huge selection in our hymnal (not from 10 different translations in the congregants' hands) it fits the bill for me.
1. Utilizes the best Greek texts (unlike the limited Byzantine family of conflated documents like KJV)
2. Utilizes the formal equivalence in literal word-for-word translation into English (unlike the NIV style of more dynamic thought-for-thought, or worse)
3. Utilizes modern English and good grammar for sentence flow (unlike the NASB's stilted and wooden phrasing)

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I approve it and recommend it for everyday reading and study. Since we read corporately from the huge selection in our hymnal (not from 10 different translations in the congregants' hands) it fits the bill for me.

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

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Utilizes the formal equivalence in literal word-for-word translation into English (unlike the NIV style of more dynamic

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.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Utilizes modern English and good grammar for sentence flow (unlike the NASB's stilted and wooden phrasing)

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.

 

[alexander284]

I approve it and recommend it for everyday reading and study. Since we read corporately from the huge selection in our hymnal (not from 10 different translations in the congregants' hands) it fits the bill for me.
1. Utilizes the best Greek texts (unlike the limited Byzantine family of conflated documents like KJV)
2. Utilizes the formal equivalence in literal word-for-word translation into English (unlike the NIV style of more dynamic thought-for-thought, or worse)
3. Utilizes modern English and good grammar for sentence flow (unlike the NASB's stilted and wooden phrasing)

I am in total agreement with you here.

 

[37818]

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

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