Chris, this is a VERY good point that has concerned many (the small % of changes done to the RSV), look at the timeframe, the idea for the ESV was conceived in Colorado in late 98, after some negotiation with the NCC RSV rights were obtained, after this Translation Teams were formed, work started and the ESV was on the shelves in 2001. There are a LOT of people who feel much of the work was rushed! Why? The Holman Bible and TNIV were on the way, Bible publishing is a business, a big one in North America. It is felt that there was a lot of haste to achieve "Market Penetration" before the debut of the Holman and TNIV. Crossway has had to backtrack and fix quite a few mistakes that were in the 2001 edition, some mistakes still linger. For a CT based translation I DO think the ESV is good, it is not my intent to bash it at all. I will say the NASB has had MUCH longer to evolve and be corrected.

__________________
~etexas~

Again, it really depends upon what you want from a Bible. If your purpose is preaching and teaching, you might want to consider how the thing sounds when read aloud. If your concern is as a study Bible, that is another matter entirely. Then, there is the issue of CT vs. TR.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Stephen,

How do you arrive at this conclusion, or what do you mean by the statement?

Cordially,

Thomas

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

I would imagine that he means that the ESV purports to be in the Tyndale-King James tradition and one in a series of revisions that include the RV, ASV and RSV. Of course many will disagree with that to varying degrees, from the textual issue to other issues. On the other hand the NIV made no such claims and explicitly stated that it was a new translation and not a revision of any existing version.

__________________
C.P. --Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"Where is the young man who fears the judgment to come? What is the breath of an enemy of God to the blast of the soul by the breath of the Almighty? If you fear the frowns of a fellow worm, how will you stand in judgment with an angry God?" --Asahel Nettleton

Click to get: Board Rules--Signature Requirements--Suggestions?

Pilgrim, I think you have committed a logical fallacy or two (esp the Ad hominem fallacy). Whether it is like the RSV or not is not the issue. The fact is that the ESV is an evangelical revision of the RSV - I don't know of any major theological (liberal) problem with the ESV as such.

On the whole it is more readable than the NASB. That is beyond dispute.

I tend to agree with you on the NKJV vs ESV. I hold to the Byzantine priority text so like the NKJV here (though its TR base is problematic), however the ESV is more accurate than the NKJV. The NKJV tends to follow some of the translation errors of the KJV, unfortunately.

__________________
Stephen Smith
Reformed Baptist
New Zealand

The NIV has no historal legacy. Today's culture does not appreciate history (today's values are more superior to the past etc) so I think a translation that shows a historical lineage is a good antidote to modern culture and shows the Christian heritage to have a great lineage. The ESV has this heritage going back to Tyndale etc.

I should add to my last posts - I think using both the ESV AND NKJV gives a good balance. The ESV is slightly more accurate than the NKJV abd the english flows slightly more smoothly. On the other hand the NKJV uses the Received text with footnotes showing where there are differences with the Byzantine text.

I always thought the footnotes in the NKJV were pretty good, as far as modern translations go I think it is one of the more under-rated translations.

O.k., etexas, I've tried to stay away from this thread....trying....trying....trying....

But I've actually got something valuable to add. I know why the NIV is tops in sales over the KJV.... There are more lost people than saved...... Yes...I added something without insulting the new (per)versions. Aren't y'all so proud of me...

For my next amazing philosophical trick....I've solved the age old question - 'which came first, the chicken or the egg'

Oh yea, I heard on many threads someone has a birthday tommorow...hmmm....I wonder who it could be??

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

NO!!!! Tim! Man! THE 6th!

By the time most people read this thread, it will be tommorow, which would mean that tommorow will be the 6th. (I've only got 36 min till midnight my time zone) Which will be tommorow tommorow. The 6th.

DOH! Stupid Time Zones. Only Central counts!

My thoughts ESV vs NASB, after getting feedback, looking at online comparisons, textual deviation charts, and plain old reading from the two: My conclusion: AS FAR AS CT BASED BIBLES GO.......I feel the NASB is superior to the ESV. It is not as "pretty" in regard to the English, but it has an amazing fidelity to the Hebrew and Greek. Someone stated more Reformed Scholars worked on the ESV, TRUE! But, I feel the NASB team were (overall) fair and unbiassed with this in mind, and the overall accuracy, the Reformed position can be defended quite well from the NASB. In short, after some research, I feel the NASB edges out the ESV.

How does any modern translation have a heritage going back to Tyndale? All of them depart from the Reformation text. The NIV is based upon the critical text, the ESV is based upon the critical text - they are both orphaned siblings.
How do you see the ESV having a lineage back to Tyndale?

Etexas, I think the ESV does a better job of readability vs. accuracy than the NASB. This is important for the average member in the pew. The ESV is a good 'overall' bible. If accuracy is the main issue, then the ASV [1901] is the most accurate. Further, the NASB update is less accurate than the original NASB - these factors led me to use the ESV as having a good balance.

As for bias, the NASB has a premillennial bias in a few places - eg, how it translates Daniel 12:1-2.

I am not bashing the NASB. It is an excellent translation and I certainly use it for serious bible study.

It means in regard to translation philosophy, not textual criticism but that is

And let's not forget that even Edward Hills admitted the Reformers did not always agree with the "Reformation Text".

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/
The Regulative Principle of Worship: Explained and Applied (Xulon Press)
A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government (Reformed Worldview Books)

Two points:
1. The ESV is a revision of the RSV, which was a revision of the ASV, which was a revision of the KJV ........
2. The biggest changes in the text of a particular translation are not textual but translation methodology (ie, dynamic equalivent vs. literal). Also, the changes in the text of Received text vs. Critical text are about 6% (if you add in the OT, it becomes a much lower variation). Also, Tyndale's bible was not based on the same precise text as the KJV anyway (Tyndale was before Erasmus). My point is that the Critical vs Received text debate becomes a minor issue in the historical legacy debate. If you look at the actual text of the ESV, one can see a legacy back to older translations.

THE ESV IS SUPERIOR BECAUSE...RL Allan makes an edition of it in Highland Goatskin with full leather linings and two ribbon markers!!!

RL Allan only binds the NASB in a pitt minion ed. with red letters (gasp!!!)...too small for me to read.

Too be honest I really like the literal features of the NASB but I get the willies if I take the NASB to a bible study and some one calls on me to read a long passage out loud (bad memories trust me)...the feeling afterwards makes me want to call up and order "Hooked on Phonics".

__________________
Matthew Morales
Santa Rosa, CA
Redeemer Presbyterian Church
"Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" John 17:17 (ESV)

"Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for his grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face"
-William Cowper

"with . . . two ribbon markers!!!"??? No kidding? Does R.L. Allan produce a mainstream denom edition with multiple markers to differentiate Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah? Or maybe one that includes the Gospel of Thomas just before John?

In all seriousness, you may be winning me over. Your previous posts about the Allan got me salivating a bit.

OK, thank you. In my view the departure from the sacred criticism of historic Reformed orthodoxy and its replacement with enlightenment criticism and the Alexandrian text cannot properly be considered a "revision" of the Authorized Version. In other words, once one enjoins Simon in the Tridentine attack upon Sola Scriptura through enlightenment criticism, as the RV and its American counterpart the ASV, then one is no longer engaged as a descendent of the Reformation. The departure is an independence, a shift in allegiance, no different than the way in which the high orthodox polemic against Rome altered the Protestant reaction to the problem of the vowel points in the debate over the Hebrew text and turned a textual issue into a highly charged doctrinal one.

For the orthodox, especially after Trent, the issue of authentic texts becomes a critical argument in their defense of Sola Scriptura through the doctrine of Providential Preservation. Since Erasmus had already dealt with Vaticanus and rejected it, and both Calvin and Beza had dealt with Colines text and rejected it, the Westminster Confession of Faith was drafted and confessionally defended only authentic texts in Greek and Hebrew. These were the foundation of the Received Text.


I believe the text is prior to a translation. Tyndale studied under Eramus at Cambridge, he didn't finish his English translation until 1525, it is derived from both Erasmus editions and Luther's Bible - as far as translational methodology. His "germanisms" are still present in the Authorized Version. Also, the textual issue is a major issue in the historical legacy debate - there would have been no Reformation without it.

Well, let's start a letter writing campaign to Zondervan and convince them to introduce a NASB Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (that would about be the perfect study Bible)!

The congregation I serve uses the NIV so that is what I currently use on the occassions that I am called upon to preach. There was a point where a decision was made to move to a modern translation from the AV which was being used for the lectionary readings. I had hoped to shift towards the ESV but most all use the NIV so that is what we ended up with.

As far as what I use to study with, it is a toss up between the ESV and NASB. I have a ESV RSB but I find myself frequently drifiting back to the NASB (which