• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What is your opinion regarding the English Standard Version of the Bible?

alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
What is your opinion of the English Standard Version of the Bible?

From my own perspective, you might say it's starting to grow on me, but ...

I just don't see what all the fuss is about (at least not yet).

It simply appears to me to be a warmed over RSV, cleaned up for conservative Christians.

However, I am certainly open to persuasion.
 
rsr

rsr

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator
I have used the ESV for many years and generally like it (I'm sure Van will soon arrive to blast it to the nether regions for its "Calvinistic" bias). It reads well for people (like me) who grew up with the KJV. It is, as a rule, more literal than most other modern versions; in same cases it is more literal than the KJV.

At heart is it a "warmed over" version of the RSV, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The RSV had many features to recommend it; the ESV's main difference is that it interprets Old Testament messianic prophecies from the point of the New Testament, which the RSV avoided.

I think it's good both for reading and for study. I am using the LEB more and more these days, but I still think the ESV is a good choice.
 
Son of Robert

Son of Robert

Member
rsr said:
I have used the ESV for many years and generally like it (I'm sure Van will soon arrive to blast it to the nether regions for its "Calvinistic" bias). It reads well for people (like me) who grew up with the KJV. It is, as a rule, more literal than most other modern versions; in same cases it is more literal than the KJV.

At heart is it a "warmed over" version of the RSV, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The RSV had many features to recommend it; the ESV's main difference is that it interprets Old Testament messianic prophecies from the point of the New Testament, which the RSV avoided.

I think it's good both for reading and for study. I am using the LEB more and more these days, but I still think the ESV is a good choice.
Click to expand...
Do you think it is like the nasb?
 
rsr

rsr

<b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator
In some ways. IMO they are both on the formal equivalence side of the spectrum, sometimes being more literal than the KJV.

Both are in the KJV stream by different paths.

The NASB started out as an update of the old ASV (the American adaptation of the English Revised Version, but superior in my view) but from a newer eclectic text. The NASB (especially the original) was reputed to be like the original ERV/ASV — more faithful to the Greek than to the English — but I think that is overblown. The NASB is criticized as "wooden," but I think that simply reflects its attempt to accurately reflect the underlying text as its prime mission. IMO, the NASB is the updating of the ERV that the Revised Standard Version attempted to be but failed.

The ESV, as has been said, is an updating of the Revised Standard Version. It occurred at a time when the most popular evangelical Bible (the NIV) appeared to be veering toward a gender neutrality that many conservative evangelicals wanted to avoid (see the TNIV, which I rather like, and the new NIV). But the translators of the ESV took care to translate the Old Testament messianic texts in the light of the New Testaments. Most famously, the Isaiah prophesy that a young woman would conceive (arguably a perfectly good rendering) is reworked as a virgin would conceive (reflecting both the Septuagint and the KJV, ERV, etc.).

The language of the ESV is more like the KJV; the translators, like those of the NKJV, paid particular attention to the KJV to make the transition easier. The NASB is much less like the KJV in word choice and cadence.

I have used the NASB for 40 years but have preferred the ESV for about 20 years. I think both are excellent.

And that's probably a lot more than you wanted to know.
 
Son of Robert

Son of Robert

Member
rsr said:
In some ways. IMO they are both on the formal equivalence side of the spectrum, sometimes being more literal than the KJV.

Both are in the KJV stream by different paths.

The NASB started out as an update of the old ASV (the American adaptation of the English Revised Version, but superior in my view) but from a newer eclectic text. The NASB (especially the original) was reputed to be like the original ERV/ASV — more faithful to the Greek than to the English — but I think that is overblown. The NASB is criticized as "wooden," but I think that simply reflects its attempt to accurately reflect the underlying text as its prime mission. IMO, the NASB is the updating of the ERV that the Revised Standard Version attempted to be but failed.

The ESV, as has been said, is an updating of the Revised Standard Version. It occurred at a time when the most popular evangelical Bible (the NIV) appeared to be veering toward a gender neutrality that many conservative evangelicals wanted to avoid (see the TNIV, which I rather like, and the new NIV). But the translators of the ESV took care to translate the Old Testament messianic texts in the light of the New Testaments. Most famously, the Isaiah prophesy that a young woman would conceive (arguably a perfectly good rendering) is reworked as a virgin would conceive (reflecting both the Septuagint and the KJV, ERV, etc.).

The language of the ESV is more like the KJV; the translators, like those of the NKJV, paid particular attention to the KJV to make the transition easier. The NASB is much less like the KJV in word choice and cadence.

I have used the NASB for 40 years but have preferred the ESV for about 20 years. I think both are excellent.

And that's probably a lot more than you wanted to know.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
alexander284 said:
What is your opinion of the English Standard Version of the Bible?

From my own perspective, you might say it's starting to grow on me, but ...

I just don't see what all the fuss is about (at least not yet).

It simply appears to me to be a warmed over RSV, cleaned up for conservative Christians.

However, I am certainly open to persuasion.
Click to expand...
The preferred version among reformed and Calvinists, and that would be due to being more accurate than Niv, and also more readable than Nas!
 
Just_Ahead

Just_Ahead

Active Member
No real opinion because I do not use the ESV.

However, I do not think the ESV came about in the proper way--too many mixed motives on the part of those pushing the ESV.
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Just_Ahead said:
However, I do not think the ESV came about in the proper way...
Click to expand...
Your mention of this caused me to look into the history of the ESV. While doing so, I ran into a surprising fact (if correct) that the ESV revises about 6% of the RSV. That seems like a very small percentage -- at least much smaller than I expected. (However, this is just an opening comment that is not sourced.)
Why the English Standard Version (ESV) Should not become the Standard English Version: How to make a good translation much better, by Mark L. Strauss
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
I have a negiative view ESV. It follows the RSV reading for Revelation 13:8, which, by the way, NRSV corrected.


ESV Bible Translation Revisions 'Potentially Dangerous,' Biblical Scholar Warns

'Editors changed the previous translation of Genesis 3:16 which said, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." The verse has now been changed to read, "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you."'
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Lets look at three versions of Revelations 13:8:

RSV and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.

ESV and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

NRSV and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered.

As you can see, the NRSV corrected a doctrinally driven mistranslation in the RSV, but the ESV promulgated the error.

Now three versions of 2 Thessalonians 2:13:

RSV But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

ESV But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

NRSV But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

As you can see, the NRSV corrected a doctrinally driven mistranslation in the RSV, but the ESV promulgated the error. In this example, both the RSV and ESV turn a noun into a verb to sever the linkage between being chosen for salvation and the basis - through faith in the truth.
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
McCree79 said:
ESV, NASB, CSB and NKJV (if you prefer TR based)



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Regarding the CSB, there are many things I like about that particular Bible translation.

However, I have come across a few passages here and there that come across as rather odd or unusual.

I'm curious as to whether you've experienced this phenomenon, as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top