ESV

[John81]

What about the ESV?

I know some folks who generally don't like modern versions yet they say they like this one.

How does the ESV compare to the KJB?

I know there are some websites which show side by side comparisons between the KJB and other modern versions; is there such for the ESV?

I've seen verses from the ESV used in something I read but I've not actually read from an ESV so I don't know much about it...to say the least.

[dwayner79]

I am a "MV'er". I use the ESV primarily.

You can get it for free from E-sword. E-sword lets you do side by side with KJV and ESV, so you can check it out.

I really don't want to get into a debate on the topic, so I am treading lightly. I suppose if you want specifics feel free to ask, but the board is KJVO and I want to respect that.

[trc123]

I love e-Sword. It's a wonderful free tool for any Christian for studying God's word and accessing commentaries, word studys, etc.......

[John81]

[quote="dwayner79"]I am a "MV'er". I use the ESV primarily.

You can get it for free from E-sword. E-sword lets you do side by side with KJV and ESV, so you can check it out.

I really don't want to get into a debate on the topic, so I am treading lightly. I suppose if you want specifics feel free to ask, but the board is KJVO and I want to respect that.[/quote]

I'm not looking for a debate, just an honest assessment of the ESV from someone who has read it or uses it.

[dwayner79]

John, I know you don't like debate on this topic, but some do. I respect the board's position. You ask a sincere question, here is a sincere response, all IMO of course.

Its a good translation. There are a few passages that I have thought were significant improvements from the NASB, and some I didn't like. I don't have specifics. I just finished teaching a class, and we used the ESV heavily. I remember a few times in my preparations not liking the translation they did. All told though, I had been using the NASB as my primary for 6 years of so, and this for a year and a half or so. I think it's equal in accuracy to it's text as the NASB, but more readable (if only slightly) and more up to date. It definitely has better cadence, and I would love to see more churches standardize on it for reading out loud. Though I am a bit more liturgical them the rest of my "liberal" brethren ;-) .

[John81]

Thank you Dwayne.

Were you comparing the ESV with the NASB simply because you previously used the NASB most or because the ESV is supposed to be an update of the NASB or something? I heard another person a week or two ago comment that they though the ESV was easier to read than the NASB.

I'm familiar with the NASB as that's what I was using prior to God directing me to the KJB about 20 years ago.

[dwayner79]

No, the ESV was not an update. It was a new translation whose intent was to provide a readable yet more formal translation with the goal of standardizing in churches. This is why most ESVs are sold without notes, etc. Just recently I saw a study Bible.

I compare with the NASB because IMO the NASB has been the best, most accurate formal translation available until the ESV came out.

[John81]

No, the ESV was not an update. It was a new translation whose intent was to provide a readable yet more formal translation with the goal of standardizing in churches. This is why most ESVs are sold without notes, etc. Just recently I saw a study Bible.

I compare with the NASB because IMO the NASB has been the best, most accurate formal translation available until the ESV came out.

Thank you Dwayne. That's what I was assuming from what you and others I know have stated but I wanted to know rather than just assume.

So, I take it that you believe the ESV is at least equal to the KJB with regards to accuracy.

I wish I had paid more attention to that book I read which quoted some from the ESV. I recall there was one particular verse that I wish I could recall right now, which there was something about it I didn't care for. However, the other verses used seemed to clearly say the same thing the KJB clearly says.

[dwayner79]

Thank you Dwayne. That's what I was assuming from what you and others I know have stated but I wanted to know rather than just assume.

So, I take it that you believe the ESV is at least equal to the KJB with regards to accuracy.

I wish I had paid more attention to that book I read which quoted some from the ESV. I recall there was one particular verse that I wish I could recall right now, which there was something about it I didn't care for. However, the other verses used seemed to clearly say the same thing the KJB clearly says.

Well, as a matter of full disclosure, I think both the NASB and the ESV are more accurate and more readable then the KJV. This stems from two factors, one is I believe the text they come from is superior, and two is English has changed since the 1600's. Those who believe the text used for the KJV is superior will obviously think otherwise, and rightfully so.

I always hate to make those statements here because I do not want to minimize my view of the King James. I have the utmost respect for it both in the quality of workmanship put into it at the time it was done, and its long standing history of use. It is a very good translation. Some of the translations today do not hold a candle to it, that's for sure.

I would love to know what passage you had in question.

[John81]

I appreciate your input in this matter Dwayne!

If I can remember of figure out which verse that was I will certainly post it here.

One other question: Why would those who made the ESV be inclined to think churches might accept their translation as the standard when churches have failed to accept any of the other MVs as their standard?

I do agree with the idea that it would be best if churches (for the most part at least) held to the same translation rather than having over a dozen being found in different churches and many churches today not even holding to one but using several MVs.

[dwayner79]

I appreciate your input in this matter Dwayne!

If I can remember of figure out which verse that was I will certainly post it here.

One other question: Why would those who made the ESV be inclined to think churches might accept their translation as the standard when churches have failed to accept any of the other MVs as their standard?

I do agree with the idea that it would be best if churches (for the most part at least) held to the same translation rather than having over a dozen being found in different churches and many churches today not even holding to one but using several MVs.

Its an outstanding question. The problem is, I had read that somewhere, and have been searching for a while to find substantiated backing for that claim and I can't. Instead what I have found is that the translation committee quietly finished and released this translation content to let people evaluate it. They still refuse to over-market the translation, content to sell a few simple bound bibles. Real humility IMO. Many churches are standardizing on the ESV however, because of the quality. So I will say I was probably mis-spoken about the translators wanting to standardize in churches, though I am sure that is a noble goal, I can find no proof that was their intention.

Here is an overview of Mark Driscoll's (I know, a heretic) reasoning. I think its pretty good. http://voxpopnetwork.com/voxpop/2007/01 ... esv-bible/

[dwayner79]

The full text of Driscoll's paper is not available easily. I found it in PDF here: http://largerneedle.files.wordpress.com ... ations.pdf

[John81]

I don't think I'm familiar with Mark Driscoll, however, that name does sound familiar. Did you toss the "heritic" point in there just because he doesn't use the KJB? :Green

His reasoning sounds good and I absolutely agree the NIV isn't that good of a translation and what I recall of the verses I read in that book the ESV would be far superior to the NIV.