Is the ESV a good translation?
Please briefly critique the ESV in comparison to the KJV. Is it a better or worse translation and why.
Please show me an example of why its bettor or worse.

I appreciate the help

__________________
Rock Hill, SC
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte

From what I understand it is a very good translation of the Critical Text.

__________________

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"On land, at sea, at home, abroad, / I smoke my pipe and worship God." -- J.S. Bach

Here is an interesting 'sermon' by Howard King: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=52003224955

The ESV is a fine translation, done by evangelicals, of the standard Nestle-Aland text. It is an evangelical revision of the RSV. I highly recommend it, although, being a word-for-word translation, it often gets a bit non-English.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I think it will depend on who you ask. The AV folks are likely not going to argue as much with the method of translation but the selection of manuscripts.

I'm torn between agreeing with them on one principle and disagreeing with them on another hand.

On the one hand, I do find it troubling that committees of mostly secular scholars make the decisions on what manuscripts contain additions or subtractions from the Word of God. If this enterprise simply contained men who were self-professed Christians who believed in the Providence of God and prayed with the Church for the wisdom for the task I wouldn't be so uncomfortable. As it is, though, all the arguments (even from men I respect) are "...well you have to understand the science of this stuff and, look, science makes it plain that this manuscript has this addition and this one doesn't. We know that this is something a scribe added to make the Gospels match...."

In my estimation, the Scriptures are something that is recognized by the Church because she hears the voice of her Bridegroom. It ought to be the enterprise of the Church to select manuscripts and I simply am not comfortable with a pagan "scholar" telling us all what our Bridegroom said.

That said, I don't necessarily buy the idea either that the scholars that met to write the King James were under Divine Inspiration when they collected their manuscripts for the purpose of translation. The Textus Receptus is not a manuscript but those that they chose. I'm willing to grant the idea that the Church could gather together again and potentially choose manuscripts that might be different than those chosen.

In the end, though, the TR has going for it that it was the work of the Church. That can't be completely dismissed. I guess I'm of the opinion that the Church could theoretically meet and choose a different set of texts and profound injury wouldn't be done to the Body of Christ by their selection. I guess I've never bought completely into the doomsday scenarios that are sometimes painted.

Finally, I'm not a big fan of the English in the AV. I know, I know - what else has such a majestic style? Maybe I'll be persuaded otherwise someday but it's just too "foreign" for me. I know that's even sort of an argument that we should use it because it was sort of a "transcendent" style even in its own day. I'm still working through whether I buy into that completely and whether or not I even believe I should pray that way.

I'm usually sort of a hard nose on certain topics but I guess I'm being politically correct on this one.

Enjoy your can of worms.

__________________
Rich
Okinawa, Japan

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

This article is misleading in that it consists mostly of an attack on the critical text of Nestle-Aland (at least in the first portion of it), upon which all modern translations are based, not just the ESV. Secondly, the article glosses over the intense problems associated with the Septuagintal text-critical matters, which are complex, since the LXX can quite often be a witness to a different Hebrew parent text than the Masoretic. Thirdly, it attempts to use the poisoned well argument with regard to the RSV. I find that much less than convincing. Fourthly, the comparisons used to prove that it is only a "light revision" are texts that there is little difference among all translations. Fifthly, the issue of plural "you" and singular "you" is a highly problematic issue to bring up, since people do not know of these distinctions, by and large, in the KJV. Therefore, it is just as confusing for someone to read the KJV in this respect as it is to read any modern translation. It is the job of the pastor to point out when these changes in number are significant. But he would have to do this regardless of which translation he was using. I don't like to disagree with Andrew Myers on much, but I found the article underwhelming.

I had been using the NASB until it started to fall apart. At that time the ESV arrived on the scene and I received a sample of Marks gospel in the ESV. I liked the sample and bought the ESV to replace the NASB. By and large I think it is a good translation but there are one or two instances of obscure English words which appear in the translation which I find a bit off putting. Who today would use "necromancers" (as in 1 Sam 28.3) surely 'mediums and spiritist' (NASB) or 'familiar spirits and wizards' (AV) is on more familiar territory.

That apart I like it. There are key test verses Virgin or young girl? (Is 7.14/Mt 1.23), Propitiation, expiation or atonement? (Ro 3.25; Heb 2.17; 1 Jn 2.2) and the way it translates the likes of Ro 9.5 etc and it passes the tests of its Christology and accuracy.

__________________
Stuart
Elder, Lambeg Baptist, Northern Ireland, UK

In Him the fulness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form and in Him you are complete (Col 2.9-10)

The sacrifice of a broken heart doth please Him but the sacrifice of a broken Christ alone doth satisfy Him (Richard Steele)

As a KJV person, what I've heard and read, the ESV is probably the best non-KJV version there is. It seems to be not watered down like the NIV (liberal lovin bible translation ), and it flows better that some of the other modern translations, i.e. readability. The texts that they use are better than most others, but I must confess not as good as the KJV. (P.s. I got me a Geneva a couple of months ago, there's something to be said about the title page which reads: translated out of the Greek by Theodore Beza! But I digress.)

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

But "necromancer" is familiar to anyone who has read The Hobbit.

I love my ESV. I fully agree with Rich's post, although I do enjoy reading the KJV on occasion.

The New King James Version is not based on the Nestle-Aland manuscripts, but on the TR.

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

The ESV is a fine translation of the wrong set of Greek texts.

If you want a good modern translation, check out the New King James Version.

__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________

"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
-- John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.

"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
-- Martin Luther, Table Talk

I thought that's exactly what the translators did with the ESV, but I could be wrong. Isn't that what the ESV Board was for? The one with people like Piper, Packer, Mohler, and Grudem?

__________________
Dan Pemberton
Vacaville, CA

Member, First Baptist Church San Luis Obispo
Formerly ABUSA (We left, so I guess that makes us American Baptists Unleashed!)

Dan,

No, they went with the Nestle-Alland text as Lane noted.

I argue it is a bad translation as well as based upon an inferior text. In study and sermon preparation I use numerous translations, including the ESV, and I'm often left shaking my head as to where the ESV would lead an unsuspecting reader.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Well then. There you go.

Would you agree, however, that your primary objection is the manuscript selection or no?

That would be the first objection, just as what is translated is the first question; then secondly, a unified profession of faith from the translators; thirdly, a means of securing uniformity of translation and good quality control, thereby filtering out idiosyncratic preference; finally, the fourth question is the production itself.

Matthew,

What are your objections on points 2, 3, and 4 with regard to the ESV. I question the "filtering out idiosyncratic preference" with most translations where different scholars are assigned a book to translate.

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

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

My original post was started because of my dilemma from this thread.

I have a question for those of you that believe the AV is a superior translation.
considering what was posted in the above link (its only one post), what translation would you give to your friend?

Hello Rich,

These are some insightful comments. Several months ago my elders asked me to put together a series of lectures on this subject (biblical criticsm in general). I completed week four this past Lord's Day out of 16 weeks of proposed lectures.

This last week I presented Erasmus work and concluded as follows:

"Overall I believe it would be correct to conclude that Erasmus, in 1516, did to the Roman Church in terms of the common received text, through his Latin translation, what Wescott & Hort did to the Protestant Church in terms of the Egyptian text 365 years later. The former was Reformational in its scope, the latter Counter-Reformational."

You've hit on one my biggest concerns regarding this whole debate. In 1516 the publication of a new translation based upon a different Greek text was precipitated by heresy in the Church. The Romanist's were clear in their declaration - "learn to believe in the Church not in the Gospel", and their persecution of believers, who simply didn't recognize the outward forms of ecclesiastical authority as salvific, was injury upon insult.

Today, however, the public life of the Church has been made a battle ground re-introducing the very textual line upon which the Reformation was born opposing. There is no heresy taught in the Protestant Bible, in fact the proponents plainly claim they are not engaged in altering Protestant theology. But that is disingenuous because just because an orthodox interpretation can still be obtained from a different text doesn't mean that the changes won't lend themselves, once exegesis and interpretation is applied, to new and novel doctrines.