ESV Bible translation

[PaulDA]

I was just reading Bethany's prayer request and saw a few posts on the ESV.
This translation intrigues me.
I think I will order a copy on line or get one from a store.
I do like the NIV, not only because it is in modern English but because you can find anything that goes with it, like concordances and other study helps without any problems.
Now, can pholks here list the pros and cons of the ESV version?
I'm curious.

[Josh]

From what I understand, it's simply a more accurate and scholarly translation. And, for what its worth, I find the language to be clearer and more precise than in the NIV version. (Especially since recent translations of the NIV have been getting more and more liberal.)

Fwiw, I recommend to Tom (and anyone else who associates themself with the Reformed tradition) the Reformation Study Bible, put out by Ligonier Ministries. It comes only in the ESV and is the most incredible study Bible I've ever had-- the theological and historical notes it contains illuminate the Bible for me like nothing else can.

[PaulDA]

From what I understand, it's simply a more accurate and scholarly translation. And, for what its worth, I find the language to be clearer and more precise than in the NIV version. (Especially since recent translations of the NIV have been getting more and more liberal.)

Fwiw, I recommend to Tom (and anyone else who associates themself with the Reformed tradition) the Reformation Study Bible, put out by Ligonier Ministries. It comes only in the ESV and is the most incredible study Bible I've ever had-- the theological and historical notes it contains illuminate the Bible for me like nothing else can.

Hmmmm, I just ordered the reference edition from CBD, in leather for $29.99, but I see they also have the reformed study bible in hard cover for $29.99 also.
I think I would like to get that instead and open my mind to the Calvinist approach and just to see how others think and to broaden my knowledge in that way.

[bloop]

I use the NRSV myself.  While some see it as a "liberal" translation, it seems to me that it's just attempting to be more accurate in regard to the author's intent than a more literal translation might allow.

[Tom]

From what I understand, it's simply a more accurate and scholarly translation. And, for what its worth, I find the language to be clearer and more precise than in the NIV version. (Especially since recent translations of the NIV have been getting more and more liberal.)

Fwiw, I recommend to Tom (and anyone else who associates themself with the Reformed tradition) the Reformation Study Bible, put out by Ligonier Ministries. It comes only in the ESV and is the most incredible study Bible I've ever had-- the theological and historical notes it contains illuminate the Bible for me like nothing else can.

very true Josh. i too have been troubled by the increasingly liberal stance the latest versions of the NIV convey. some editions published recently are so vauge as to the divinity of Christ that honestly i wonder how a non-believer could ever see Him in the text for Who He is.

for me Christ IS the Gospel. (to allude to John Piper's new book "God Is The Gospel") but seriously, Christ is essential to every facet of Christianity. if you take away (or simply fail to reference) Christ's divine nature, then all you've got is a fancy religion of do-gooders who follow a "really nice guy" who got executed because "he was misunderstood."

but back to the pro and cons of the ESV. a couple off the top of my head:

PRO:
it has a very literal rendering of the oldest Biblical texts extant.

it is VERY readable and clearly understood. as opposed to the KJV which you practically need a degree in old english prose to comprehend. i do find the KJV to be beautiful from a literary standpoint, but it is archaic in language usage. and we need people to understand the Word, not just appeciate the way it sounds.

CON:
not many references or study materials geared toward it yet because it is relatively new.

you have to explain why you prefer the ESV quite a bit to people since it is such a new translation.

 

[Vlad!]

How does it differ from the NASB? As I understand it, the New American Standard translation is supposed to be very literal. One complaint against it is that (as I recall) it uses KJV-style language for prayer, something not born out in the text, but other than that I can't see much difference in the stated goals of these two translations.

[Josh]

The two are very similar-- the ESV, though, is slightly easier to read, I think.

[bloop]

I know that my wife got me a copy of the ESV for Christmas.  I saw her package it with "The Simpsons Season 6".   8-)  

[Tom]

I know that my wife got me a copy of the ESV for Christmas.  I saw her package it with "The Simpsons Season 6".   8-)

lucky guy.

ironically enough, i think my wife is also going to get me an ESV for Christmas. small world...

[bethany]

I got a free ESV Bible two summers ago at RUF summer conference. I'm a fan.  

[MJanke]

How does it differ from the NASB? As I understand it, the New American Standard translation is supposed to be very literal. One complaint against it is that (as I recall) it uses KJV-style language for prayer, something not born out in the text, but other than that I can't see much difference in the stated goals of these two translations.

They are both word-for-word translations. But the NASB is the most "pure" WFW that we have. If we were going to rank translations on a scale from 1-10, with one being a pure thought-for-thought translation philosophy and 10 being a pure word-for-word philosophy, the NASB would be just at or under 10. The ESV and NKVJ would be around 7-8. NIV would be a 4. The New Living would be a 2.

To be clear, though, a pure WFW is not necessarily "better." Translating is not always "best" when you simply proceed in a word-for-word fashion, because languages have different rules and grammar, and there are idioms and other things which can make for awkward reading.

The ESV is actually most popular in reformed church circles. RC Sproul is one if its biggest advocates.

very true Josh. i too have been troubled by the increasingly liberal stance the latest versions of the NIV convey. some editions published recently are so vauge as to the divinity of Christ that honestly i wonder how a non-believer could ever see Him in the text for Who He is.

The TNIV, which you are refering to, has nothing to do with a discussion on the NIV. It is a completely separate translation, connected in name only. The NIV does not have any of the issues to which you are refering (nor does the TNIV err so greatly, but that's a different discussion).