English Standard Version (ESV)

[alexander284]

The NASB95 used to be my primary Bible translation of choice, until the ESV came along.

I really appreciate the ESV for its "economy of words," when compared to the NASB95.

 

[SavedByGrace]

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

if your pastor uses a word-for-word translation like the KJV, and you use the Living Bible, or Good News Bible, you will pick up much confusion!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

if your pastor uses a word-for-word translation like the KJV, and you use the Living Bible, or Good News Bible, you will pick up much confusion!

Who in the world uses the Living Bible or the GNB?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

if your pastor uses a word-for-word translation like the KJV,

The KJV is not w-f-w. There is no such thing as a w-f-w translation.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Who in the world uses the Living Bible or the GNB?

thousands!

as a new believer I was given the GNB as my first Bible. I then moved to the KJV!

a Church I visited used the GNB as its main Bible, bacause the majority in the Church hardly spoke any English

 

[SavedByGrace]

The KJV is not w-f-w. There is no such thing as a w-f-w translation.

"Which Bible Translation is Best?" — Part 2: Word-for-word Bibles on Bible Gateway - Bible Gateway Blog

 

[RipponRedeaux]

thousands!

as a new believer I was given the GNB as my first Bible. I then moved to the KJV!

a Church I visited used the GNB as its main Bible, bacause the majority in the Church hardly spoke any English

These days it would be exceedingly rare for folks to use either of those versions. And that original Living Bible (c.1970) wasn't even a translation.

How long ago did you visit that particular church which used the NGB?

 

[SavedByGrace]

How long ago did you visit that particular church which used the NGB?

2003. I have since moved out of London

 

[SavedByGrace]

And that original Living Bible (c.1970) wasn't even a translation.

it was and is! and quite useful in places, as John 1:3, for example, is is more accurate in the LB than the NLT!

LB, "He created everything there is—nothing exists that he didn’t make"

Jesus Christ as the actual Creator.

NLT, "God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him"

Jesus Christ as "secondary" creator.

 

[alexander284]

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.

Your point is well taken. The fact that the ESV is not as wedded to the "formal equivalence" philosophy as the NASB95, for example, is one of the reasons I appreciate the ESV (and prefer it over the NKJV and NASB95.)

 

[alexander284]

I also appreciate the way the ESV maintains that melodic, lilting, majestic sound (when read aloud) that generations have found so appealing about the KJV (which is has in common with the NKJV).

And, yes, I will freely admit that I like a Bible that "sounds like" a Bible, so to speak.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

These days it would be exceedingly rare for folks to use either of those versions. And that original Living Bible (c.1970) wasn't even a translation.

How long ago did you visit that particular church which used the NGB?

NGB? Would that be the No Good Bible?
The Anglican church in my village has the GNB as its pew Bible, but it doesn't matter - they don't get much use!

 

[JesusFan]

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

More accurate then the more dynamic types, such as the Niv and Nlt

 

[JesusFan]

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.

They are translated for accuracy, not as primary how well they read

 

[JesusFan]

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)

Been using the Esv for years now, and recently switched from the 1977 nas to the 1995 edition, and was looking into the 2020 revision, but read too much like the Niv for my tastes!

 

[JesusFan]

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

You would like our church, as Pastor preacheds from mainly 2011 Niv, but most use either Nlt or Esv!

 

[JesusFan]

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.

If one wanted to go that route, the Csb and the 2020 Nas seems to be better

 

[JesusFan]

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.

1977 Nas was the most accurate one of all that you mentioned here though

 

[JesusFan]

Your point is well taken. The fact that the ESV is not as wedded to the "formal equivalence" philosophy as the NASB95, for example, is one of the reasons I appreciate the ESV (and prefer it over the NKJV and NASB95.)

That is why though those 2 versions are better for serious studies!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

They are translated for accuracy, not as primary how well they read

And you specialize in post that are not very readable.

The term accuracy does not exclusively apply to the more form-oriented translations. If you read my threads you would know that the NIV and NLT are much more accurate, for the most part, than the ESV.