Why do so many reformed believers use the ESV?

[Rippon]

Rippon. I'm sorry but every time the ESV comes up as a version, you need to disparage it. It doesn't matter what you say and to say that they apparently haven't read much of the ESV is laughable. No seminary just grabs a Bible off the shelf and uses it. Please discontinue your attack on a wonderful Bible version that many of us use and prefer over other versions.

I said that the ESV does not have literary beauty. You perceive that as an attack upon the ESV. I also think that the KJV has a lot of antiquated English. Is that an attack upon the KJV?!

Please get realistic.

I didn't suggest that the seminary just grapped a random Bible version and told students to use it. I belive that the seminary is quite mistaken in its belief that the ESV has literary beauty. Many defenders of the ESV haven't read as much of it as I have apparently.

 

[Rippon]

Agree. And noted. Attacking a translation is not allowed on the BB. Discussing them (including shortcomings - real or perceived) is as we have with the NASB, KJV, Geneva, NIV, etc

Do you think I attacked the ESV Dr.Bob? If so, why didn't you remove the offending portions of my remarks? I was indeed focusing on some of the ESV's shortcomings. I have said before that it is theologically solid.

 

[Rippon]

Literary beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

That's for sure. I just strongly react whenever I hear that designation applied to the ESV.

While Rippon didn't attack the ESV per se,

Thank you.

it is a little old. Everytime the subject comes up, it gets ridiculous.

We get it, Rippon. You can't stand the ESV and its proponents. Time to move on.

See my earlier remarks at the start of this post.

 

[annsni]

I said that the ESV does not have literary beauty. You perceive that as an attack upon the ESV. I also think that the KJV has a lot of antiquated English. Is that an attack upon the KJV?!

Yet every time someone says that they prefer the ESV, you go off on why it's such a terrible translation. How about saying "I don't prefer it" and leave it at that?

I didn't suggest that the seminary just grapped a random Bible version and told students to use it. I belive that the seminary is quite mistaken in its belief that the ESV has literary beauty. Many defenders of the ESV haven't read as much of it as I have apparently.

No - you said "Apparently TNARS hasn't actually read much of the ESV." That means that their opinion was actually a lie. Oh - and the defenders of the ESV just talk out their rears? They haven't read it? I've read it through twice and I prefer it to other versions. Most of those who use it have read it quite thoroughly, thank you very much. If you don't like it, why did you read it so much? Stick with your own version and stop calling those who prefer the ESV liars.

 

[Rippon]

I didn't suggest that the seminary just grapped [sic]a random Bible version and told students to use it. I belive that the seminary is quite mistaken in its belief that the ESV has literary beauty. Many defenders of the ESV haven't read as much of it as I have apparently.

No attack -- just fact.

 

[Rippon]

Yet every time someone says that they prefer the ESV, you go off on why it's such a terrible translation.

Where have I said that?

You said "Apparently TNARS hasn't actually read much of the ESV." That means that their opinion was actually a lie. Oh - and the defenders of the ESV just talk out their rears?

Touchy! I didn't say that the seminary was lying. But, in their enthusiasm for the ESV they went overboard in their statements.

They haven't read it? I've read it through twice and I prefer it to other versions. Most of those who use it have read it quite thoroughly, thank you very much.

You have the perfect right to prefer it. You have the right to say that most who use it have read it thoroughly. But I still hold to the fact that the ESV has some rather deplorable English.

If you don't like it, why did you read it so much?

You may not be familiar with the fact that I have many threads comparing various versions. I won't think poorly of you if you read the TNIV all the way through.

I have several copies of the ESV. I have a lot of notes in both. The notes are not slamming it -- just explaining the text more fully.

Stick with your own version and stop calling those who prefer the ESV liars.

Your rage is quite apparent -- and quite inappropriate.

 

[Tater77]

I use the ESV and NASB. I am neither Reformed nor Calvinistic ?!?!?! So I don't understand the whole argument.

 

[TomVols]

I use the ESV and NASB. I am neither Reformed nor Calvinistic ?!?!?! So I don't understand the whole argument.

You use BOTH? Then you have to be Reformed and/or premillenial. :laugh: Don't you know that sterotypes are always true? :laugh:

 

[wfdfiremedic]

I will say one thing that annoys me about the ESV. Otherwise, I love it. Their translation of John 1:18 compared to the NASB. Why did they not go literal on this? They make note of it in the footnotes, but not in the text. I say this because I come from a JW background. Maybe I am wrong, and i would love for some Greek reading scholars to chime in on this. Is there a difference between saying Jesus is "IN" the bosom of the father compared to being along side the Father? Thanks for all your help.

I say this because this is the verse that most Arians will utilize to state Jesus is not the essence of the Father, and therefore holds no Deity. To me, this is the essence of Christianity.


-In Christ

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Their translation of John 1:18 compared to the NASB. Why did they not go literal on this? They make note of it in the footnotes, but not in the text. I say this because I come from a JW background. Maybe I am wrong, and i would love for some Greek reading scholars to chime in on this. Is there a difference between saying Jesus is "IN" the bosom of the father compared to being along side the Father?...

John uses the same word translated in 1:18 as "in" by the KJV five other times in the same chapter. In 1:7 it is "for a witness"; in 1:9 it is "into the world"; in 1:11 it is "unto his own"; in 1:12 it is "on his name"; and lastly in 1:43 it is "into Galilee". As even this small sampling demonstrates the Greek word can be understood somewhat broadly. I don't think it can be expected to have the level of specificity that you may want.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

One thing I have noticed. The ESV loves the word, "Elect." Maybe this is why reformed believers like it.

 

[Winman]

One thing I have noticed. The ESV loves the word, "Elect." Maybe this is why reformed believers like it.

I don't think so, the word elect is found 15 times in the ESV, 20 times in the KJB.

 

[jbh28]

I don't think so, the word elect is found 15 times in the ESV, 20 times in the KJB.

You mean the KJV is more calvinistic than the ESV!

and the NASB has it only 8 times. But be Arminian!

 

[Winman]

You mean the KJV is more calvinistic than the ESV!

and the NASB has it only 8 times. But be Arminian!

That's right, all you Calvinists should go back to the KJB! :thumbs:

 

[jbh28]

That's right, all you Calvinists should go back to the KJB! :thumbs:

I actually spoke with a Calvinist one time that actually said that only the KJV taught Calvinism. He was an extreme kjvo. He says that the Scriptures were not inerrant until the KJV.

 

[Rippon]

I don't think so, the word elect is found 15 times in the ESV, 20 times in the KJB.

Don't forget other forms of the word such as election. Then, chosen is used in many cases to signify the same thing in the ESV as well as other versions -- KJV and TNIV for example.

The KJV isn't any more Calvinistic than the ESV. Either way, you should get with the program and be more Calvinistic in your understanding of Scripture Winman.

 

[William Price]

Both I and my home church prefer the ESV. I have read through the posts on here slamming the ESV (and yes, they do try to slam the ESV), and I must use the term strawman in the attacks. I was a KJV man for my life prior to conversion, my life while I was a modalist minister. I find the ESV very accurate to the original text and very easy to read.

I believe, and if I am wrong I will admit it, that the attacks on the ESV stem more from a hatred of Reformed Theology than actually an attack on the version. But, that is just my thought.

 

[gb93433]

I have lived long enough to notice that these kind of issues do nothing but divide. The ESV-Reformed issue is just the same issue by a different name. My prediction is that eventually it will turn much the same way as Presbyterianism and fundamentalism. It will either get more liberal or more legalistic.

I had a new believer tell me a few days ago that he has been listening to a reformed preacher and there are things that he doesn't agree with. When the young man told me what they were I realized that the preacher has been reading books of reformed authors rather than studying his Bible. All moveents seem to lean that way. Too often they study the beliefs of the movement rather than their Bible. Soon the views of the leaders of the movement become the filter of interpretation for others. Then something else comes along. People keep seeking some new way or doing things rather than hungering and thirsting after righteousness and knowing God.

God has called us to two things: to Himself and make disciples. What else is there?

 

[gb93433]

The KJV isn't any more Calvinistic than the ESV. Either way, you should get with the program and be more Calvinistic in your understanding of Scripture Winman.

So let's see how Calvinistic you really are.

How would you interpret 1 Sam 16:14-17 and 1 Sam 16:23?

1 Sam 16:14-17, "Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him. Saul's servants then said to him, "Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you. "Let our lord now command your servants who are before you. Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp; and it shall come about when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play the harp with his hand, and you will be well."

1 Sam 16:23, "So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him."

 

[TomVols]

I believe, and if I am wrong I will admit it, that the attacks on the ESV stem more from a hatred of Reformed Theology than actually an attack on the version. But, that is just my thought.

Can't say I'd agree entirely. The biggest opponent of the ESV on here is a member named Rippon, and he claims to be Reformed.

I wish at times the ESV wasn't so slavish to the RSV. It could use some more clarity in places. That said, I agree with you that it is a good translation, in many places vastly improved over say the NASB and RSV, but at times it follows the RSV way too much.