English Standard Version

I believe it is one of the most readible English versions we have. I prefer it over the NIV, but I still study out of the KJV. I often refer to the ESV though to help with contextual problems.

 

It is the Bible believer's choice version. It's accuracy, literal translation, and readability makes it suitable for all around usage. I use it as my primary translation. The NASB is close behind, but the ESV is superior. Its translators and advisors are a who's who of solid conservatives. Made me switch from being NASBonly to ESVOnly

 

I was crazy about it at first. But as I have used it more and more, I like it less and less. Some of the translation choices bother me. It could just be becuase I am used to other more traditional readings and don't like change.

God Bless You,
Neal

 

I like the ESV a lot; it's literal but still very readable. I'm using it more and more. Ironically, the ESV doesn't differ radically from the RSV on which it is based. A few notorious passages like Isaiah 7:14 have been "de-liberalized," but otherwise it reads very similarly to the RSV. That's not a criticism, just a comment.

 

Dr. Bob, a look at the translators and review team would ease any worries you have. Find it at www.esvbible.org

 

For some this will be a hurdle. My understanding is that the liberal bias of the RSV was not so pervasive as to make it impossible to revise. You will see some translation choices that are "non-traditional" but when you check them out, at least I've found, that those choices better reflect the underlying text. I love the ESV and hope that one day it will gain wide spread acceptance.

That being said, there is one passage in which I think they made a major blunder, especially when you consider the reservations that conservatives will have with an RSV-based translation. In Micah 5:2, they leave the RSV's "whose origin is from of old, from ancient days." This is unacceptable as it implies an orign for Christ. IMHO, "whose goings forth" is really the only to translate the Hebrew. BibSac had a pretty famous critic of the RSV back in the 50's or 60's and actually highlighted this verse. I'm very surprised that the ESV translators left it alone.

Andy

 

Me too. I talked to my Hebrew teacher about it and he concurred that it was not the best way to translate the passage.

God Bless,
Neal

 

Originally posted by neal4christ:
>>I was crazy about it at first. But as I have used it more and more, I like it less and less.

<Off topic>

Hey Neal,
PM me: I have a question for you.

<Back on topic>

 

I believe the ESV is arguably the English translation that bests combines accuracy, readability, and literary quality. Like TomVols, the ESV and NASB Update are at the top of my preference list.

I am puzzled, though, as to why the ESV apparently hasn't gained more of a foothold in the market yet. I wonder if it's a publisher problem or something else.

 

For one thing, it was released around 9/11. People weren't paying much attention to Bible ads then. Second, the TNIV controversy was in full bore. Third, Crossway is a lot like Lockman in that it doesn't have the media oomph like Tyndale does for the NLT and Zondervan does for the NIV.

But give it time. It'll catch on.

 

I too started out excited about the ESV. I started preaching from it 3 months ago, yet I've decided to go back to the NKJV. I simply feel like I have lost confidence in it. For example, I was studying "crowns" (crown of glory, crown of life, crown of righteousness, ect) last week. The ESV translates it "wreaths" Perhaps that is a better translation but it sure didn't give me a comforable feeling. So, I'm not putting it aside completely, just not preaching from it.
Ol Trapper

 

i just went to the museum n saw some beautiful laurel wreaths in gold in the Roman display.

they're really nice looking, but they don't look at all like diadems! fwiw

 

When compared to the KJV, the only place I could find where the ESV uses "wreath" instead of "crown" is in 1 Cor. 9:25. Athletes in Paul's day got wreaths when they won, not crowns. The only other places that the ESV does not use "crown" occurs in Rev. 12:3, 13:1, and 19:12, where it uses "diadem." Not really a big change in my book. All the other crown passages (at least in the NT) appear as crown passages in the ESV.

Andy

 

I do not believe the ESV accuracy, the ESV superiority and its literal translation.

 

Care to explain why?

 

Care to explain why? </font>[/QUOTE]Likewise any modern versions. Nothing new!

 

Because the ESV came from the ultra-liberal RSV of the NCCC.