Falling in love with the ESV

[Stomata leontôn]

I don't understand having an attachment to a translation, especially to the KJV.

On a related note, I have even less understanding for attempting to PRAY in KJV English. Why is there a need to say "and Thy glory, and glorify Thee" as opposed to "and Your glory, and glorify You."???? A few people I know do it, and I'm almost certain they use the pronouns incorrectly.

I see this as an issue of how we take salvation. Does God come down to us and leave us there, or does he come down to us and bring us up? Put a few other ways, does our commitment to Christ stop there, or does the Holy Ghost sanctify? Did the Lord come down to the dirty fisherman and preach only, or did he also bring them to heaven? Is the Lord's purely incarnational or is it also resurrecting?

So when I read the Bible, it is not just for intellectual information but also an act of worship. I think that's why we all here read our Bibles everyday; we already know what it says, but each time something new hits us, and that is worship. That's why knuckleheads like me still think the KJV is best; the language gets me to think in God-focussed ways, the language uplifts my soul, and sets it on higher things. Language can play music when rightly tuned. We get prose everyday, but poetry, such as the KJV's language, is something transcendent. It sets apart, it is sacred, and the glory cloud draweth nigh.

On the other hand, of course I ordered a copy of the ESV study Bible from Ligonier, he he!

 

[kvanlaan]

Originally Posted by tellville
I love The Message. It's inerrant translation, it's majestic beauty, it's brilliant prose, it's memorizing cadence, it's flawless textual tradition. It makes the more formal translations seem like cheap copies. I hear that The Message even corrects the original Greek and Hebrew. Even John Calvin foretold of a great translation which would enter the English tongue and that it would be called "The Message". I am in tears right now at how precious The Message really is.

Why read the ESV when one can be enveloped by the comforting and awesome force of The Message?

Wait....you were joking right?

Yeah, I don't know what brought it on I've read so many of these "I love the ESV" "I love the NKJV" "I want the KJV to have my children" type threads (I might have even written one way back some time, though I'm not sure) I thought I would rebel and write one about The Message.

I'm not against dynamic translations but I think The Message fails even by its own standards of a paraphrase. Because the English is so "today" (early 90s) it is already becoming out of date even more than the KJV is! (well, maybe not that much, but you get my point).

Anyway, it was just meant as humour and not against anyone or anything.

Such a shame; I was already gathering firewood...

 

[GTMOPC]

I don't understand having an attachment to a translation, especially to the KJV.

On a related note, I have even less understanding for attempting to PRAY in KJV English. Why is there a need to say "and Thy glory, and glorify Thee" as opposed to "and Your glory, and glorify You."???? A few people I know do it, and I'm almost certain they use the pronouns incorrectly.

I see this as an issue of how we take salvation. Does God come down to us and leave us there, or does he come down to us and bring us up? Put a few other ways, does our commitment to Christ stop there, or does the Holy Ghost sanctify? Did the Lord come down to the dirty fisherman and preach only, or did he also bring them to heaven? Is the Lord's purely incarnational or is it also resurrecting?

So when I read the Bible, it is not just for intellectual information but also an act of worship. I think that's why we all here read our Bibles everyday; we already know what it says, but each time something new hits us, and that is worship. That's why knuckleheads like me still think the KJV is best; the language gets me to think in God-focussed ways, the language uplifts my soul, and sets it on higher things. Language can play music when rightly tuned. We get prose everyday, but poetry, such as the KJV's language, is something transcendent. It sets apart, it is sacred, and the glory cloud draweth nigh.

On the other hand, of course I ordered a copy of the ESV study Bible from Ligonier, he he!

Reading your comments got me to thinking. I know this has been covered elsewhere probably more than once but I believe it is relevant based on the topic of this thread. At what point do we stop worshipping the Christ of the Bible and start worshipping the Bible...or worse our favorite translation? Jesus Christ being the Logos, the Eternal Word certainly ties in here but I won't venture to theologize. What of it? Is it idolatry to read a particular version because makes us feel good? Because it stirs our soul?

 

[Rangerus]

I have been "faithful" to the New King James Version for several years now. To me it is just like the KJV, but without the ye, thee, and thou's.

I find it helps to study other translations for a different perspective. To me the English language tends to be somewhat prohibitive in availability of word choices and some authors interpret word meanings differently.

That is why we have smiley faces.

 

[Hamalas]

Wait....you were joking right?

Yeah, I don't know what brought it on I've read so many of these "I love the ESV" "I love the NKJV" "I want the KJV to have my children" type threads (I might have even written one way back some time, though I'm not sure) I thought I would rebel and write one about The Message.

I'm not against dynamic translations but I think The Message fails even by its own standards of a paraphrase. Because the English is so "today" (early 90s) it is already becoming out of date even more than the KJV is! (well, maybe not that much, but you get my point).

Anyway, it was just meant as humour and not against anyone or anything.

Such a shame; I was already gathering firewood...

 

[Whitefield]

As long as one remains reformed, God willing, he will most likely see the ESV for years to come. The great influence it has had in such a short span of time is unparalleled as far as I know. I think it's to ingrained in reformed culture to die quickly like other translations. That's my prediction anyhow, and it wasn't even a 'word from the Lord'!

I await the ESV Only movement.

 

[Stomata leontôn]

I don't understand having an attachment to a translation, especially to the KJV.

On a related note, I have even less understanding for attempting to PRAY in KJV English. Why is there a need to say "and Thy glory, and glorify Thee" as opposed to "and Your glory, and glorify You."???? A few people I know do it, and I'm almost certain they use the pronouns incorrectly.

I see this as an issue of how we take salvation. Does God come down to us and leave us there, or does he come down to us and bring us up? Put a few other ways, does our commitment to Christ stop there, or does the Holy Ghost sanctify? Did the Lord come down to the dirty fisherman and preach only, or did he also bring them to heaven? Is the Lord's purely incarnational or is it also resurrecting?

So when I read the Bible, it is not just for intellectual information but also an act of worship. I think that's why we all here read our Bibles everyday; we already know what it says, but each time something new hits us, and that is worship. That's why knuckleheads like me still think the KJV is best; the language gets me to think in God-focussed ways, the language uplifts my soul, and sets it on higher things. Language can play music when rightly tuned. We get prose everyday, but poetry, such as the KJV's language, is something transcendent. It sets apart, it is sacred, and the glory cloud draweth nigh.

On the other hand, of course I ordered a copy of the ESV study Bible from Ligonier, he he!

Reading your comments got me to thinking. I know this has been covered elsewhere probably more than once but I believe it is relevant based on the topic of this thread. At what point do we stop worshipping the Christ of the Bible and start worshipping the Bible...or worse our favorite translation? Jesus Christ being the Logos, the Eternal Word certainly ties in here but I won't venture to theologize. What of it? Is it idolatry to read a particular version because makes us feel good? Because it stirs our soul?

Which version gets you to focus more on God? Which gets you to be more worshipful of Him?

 

[DMcFadden]

I knew an ABC (Baptist) pastor for youth who only preached out of the KJV because he said that it got him a higher rate of "decisions."

[Actually that is a TRUE story. The man's widow lives in my retirement community]

This has been talked to death on the PB in many threads. But, here is my "cut to the chase" version.

If you want a Critical Text, then go along with Al Mohler and stick to the ESV, NASB, or HCSB.

If you want a Majority Text translation, go with the KJV or the NKJV (or Geneva).

Yes, the ESV is a "revision" of the RSV, but not a cosmetic one where you put the lipstick on the proverbial pig. The RSV was afflicted by a plethora of scholarly guesses and second guessing as to the "original" word in a text (i.e., "conjectural emmendations"). It was also translated by some with a rather liberal bias. The ESV cleans up the mess while following the RSV tradition of updating the language of the KJV while maintaining the dignity and cadances of the lyric poetry in it.

Last month Mohler reviewed Bibles prior to Chirstmas. In the Study Bible category, he recommended the following: ESV Study Bible (newest and the bestest of the bestest), NASB MacArthur Study Bible, or the HCSB Apologetics Study Bible.

My personal preferences for CT based translations run as follows:

1. ESV Study Bible
2. Reformation Study Bible (ESV)
3. Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible (even though it is NIV)
4. Apologetics Study Bible (HCSB)

Despite the fact that "methinks he doth protest too much" and probably is a secret "Good News for Modern Man," "Living Bible," "Celebrate Recovery Bible," "Maxwell Leadership Bible," or "Self Help Bible" (NLT) devotee, our Grymir (aka Timothy) (who probably reads Barth by flashlight under the covers) earns my respect for his KJV/NKJV devotion.

Bottom line: ANY Bible is better than NO Bible. But, among the many good English translations, we are blessed to have the ESV, NASB, and HCSB among the Critical Text types, and the KJV, NKJV, and Geneva among the Majority Text types.

With the ESV and Reformation Study Bibles on the market, we are amazingly blessed!

 

[Grymir]

Thanks, but I read Barth by candlelight, it's more spooky that way.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

I'm anxiously awaiting the "l33t sp33k" translation.

(If you think I'm kidding about that translation existing, I'm not. I am kidding about waiting for it though.)

O noez!

 

[Grymir]

Oh yes, and here it is. A link to the "l33t sp33k" translation, in case anybody wants to read about the ceiling cat!

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

 

[discipulo]

Oh yes, and here it is. A link to the "l33t sp33k" translation, in case anybody wants to read about the ceiling cat!

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

If wouldn’t see for myself….....I just hope that those dudes from ceiling cat or whatever it is, after all that stupid work, by God’s Grace may tremble at His True Word and convert.

There is here in Lisbon a man, who when he was a Catholic, copied an entire Bible in his Handwriting, when he finished, somehow God lead him to a Conservative Baptist Church and converted him.

sorry clearly off topic above

so I just add a couple of sites with resources on the Bible and Translations that eventually will be helpful.

http://www.ccel.org/olb/tolbss/components/commentaries/com-ofc.html Geneva Bible Footnotes and several Commentaries

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1&version=47 Bible Versions

http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm Bible Versions

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0001417 Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

 

[GTMOPC]

Oh yes, and here it is. A link to the "l33t sp33k" translation, in case anybody wants to read about the ceiling cat!

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

Grymir - I meant to quote you but I accidentally thanked you!!! I read through some of Genesis and all I can say is...."I twat I saw a poody tat."

Are you serious? Does this guy just have nothing constructive to do with his time?

 

[tellville]

Oh yes, and here it is. A link to the "l33t sp33k" translation, in case anybody wants to read about the ceiling cat!

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

I talk to my youth all the time on MSN. Thus, I am fluent in lolspeak. That is exactly how many of them talk on MSN Lolspeak is even begining to enter everyday conversation with some of the youth. I wouldn't be surpised if a 100 years from now it was a lot more common to talk that way. Of course, that's assuming the QWERTY keyboard stays the standard way to communicate over the internet.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

My reservations concerning the RSV/ESV are not primarily textual (though I have issues there as well), but whether or not it is the perorgative of a publishing company to produce a Bible.

The Scriptures are the particular treasure of the Church. Consequently, to place the translation of the Scriptures into a para-church organization, a publishing company, or a Bible Society is contrary to the Church's mission to be the pillar and ground of the truth. It is the responsibility of the Church to translate the Scriptures, and to abrogate that responsibility and turn it over to an organization outside of the church is irresponsible to say the least.

The RSV translation a brief history:

The International Council of Religious Education (ICRE) used the 17th edition of Nestle-Aland for its Greek Text. There are about 8,000 differences between Nestle-Aland and the Textus Receptus. For its Hebrew text ICRE used the standard Masoretic text supplemented by readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The ICRE would later merge with another group to form the National Council of Churches of Christ.

The RSV was accepted among liberal scholars as an excellent translation. It was almost universally rejected by conservatives and far right wing "KJO" radicals as corrupt. Because far right wing radicals were so pugnacious and vociferous in their condemnations legitimate criticisms of the RSV were essentially rebuffed.

In comparing the RSV to the Greek and Hebrew there is little doubt that the translators were on a liberalizing trend. The original RSV left out the last verses in Mark, John 7:53-8:11, and Luke 22:19b-20. These were the major redactions from the Greek text. What stirred conservatives and the radicals even more was an apparent trend on the part of the RSV to deny the Virgin Birth of Christ. Passages such as Genesis 22:18, Psalm 16:10, and, especially, Isaiah 7:14 were weakened by the RSV translators as support texts for the Virgin Birth. In 1971 the translation committee restored most of these verses, but they took out Luke 22:43,44 and placed it in a footnote.

The damage had been done, however, and the RSV is generally looked upon as a liberal translation. Among liberals it is considered "scholarly," and it is often referred to in such a manner. As far as the translation goes the RSV tends more towards Formal Equivalance than to the Dynamic theory. In many places it tends to be more literal than the KJV.

The NRSV was an attempt to satisfy the critics of the RSV, but it never really made much of an impact. The hyper-literal translation showed the inadequacies of Nestle-Aland Greek text in too stark a fashion.

The English Standard Version:

The ESV is a revision of the RSV - it is not directly derived from the Hebrew and Greek. The revision was done on a deeper level, and on more conservative grounds, than what was done before. Essentially, Crossway Books purchased the rights to the RSV from the NCCC for about $625,000. They then turned the text over to some conservative scholars in order to "fix" obvious errors in the text. Here is a section from the ESV website:

The Historic Legacy of the ESV
The ESV stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression.

The words and phrases of the ESV grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for the ESV text. Archaic language was brought to current usage and significant corrections were made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, the translators’ goal was to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries. From KJV to ESV: A Historical Legacy

This is not entirely true. The Nestle-Aland Greek text does not stand within the mainstream of Greek texts in the English translations of the Bible. Tyndale certainly would never have recognized it, and the King James translators never used it either. However, this first paragraph makes you feel nice and warm and cozy does it not?

They then tell you that the words and phrases of the ESV grew "out of the Tyndale-King James legacy." What they then say is that "archaic words" such as "thou" and "thee" were taken out. They did do this, but it makes their translation less specific to the Greek text. In Greek there is a second person singular as the object of the verb or preposition which is correctly translated into English as "thee." For example, "We beseech thee O Lord." The difference between using "thee" and "you" is admittedly slight, but there is a difference. "Thou" is also used in reference to the singular subject of a verb, and is specific in Greek.

To be less obtuse: "thee" and "thou" are in the singular, and are used in Early Modern English in the singular "Thou hast said so." The word "you" was understood in the plural, and would be correctly translated today in the Southern accent as "You all" or "Y'all" Thus, if the author was using the singular it would be correctly translated as "thou" or "thee," and the plural would be "you." To now translate all the instances of the singular into "you" is to step away slightly from the Greek. The magnitude of the implications of this difference between the KJV and the ESV I leave in your hands. To me it is mild at best. However, I think we should be aware that there is a difference here, and that difference does not recommend the RV/ESV as being completely accurate.

As far as Letis is concerned - here are his comments on SermonAudio:

SermonAudio.com - The So-called English Standard Version

Personally, I find it very disturbing that Crossway Books purchased from the National Council of Churches of Christ the rights to the RV. The NCC is the most liberal Protestant group in the United States. They support the NSTA in promoting the teaching of Evolution in public schools, and the suppression of Creationism. They are openly committed to Gay rights. They are in the forefront of the Ecumenical movement. They promote feminism in its wrong application of "egalitarianism" and actively support female pastors. They are in the politically left, and refuse to criticize communist countries especially when such countries violate their own code of civil rights!

In everything the NCC teaches and promotes that which is contrary to the Scriptures in society today. I cannot in good conscience support such an organization, even indirectly, by purchasing the ESV. Here is a pro-NCC article describing the fact that Crossway Books actually helped the NCC to stay solvent:

New funds boost NCC | Christian Century | Find Articles at BNET

We do not need the ESV - there are better translations out there.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[matthew11v25]

I think the Spirit Of The Reformation Study Bible is by far the best SB available on the market. Mainly for the fact that it includes the confessions, etc. And the size is still manageable. The ESV SB in my opinion is TOO big...I keep it on my desk and that as far as it goes.

 

[GTMOPC]

Rob - I hear what you are saying and I agree that some of the things you have said are troubling. But there are others who have countered these arguments to some degree I think. I don't have the authority or knowledge to judge your arguments, nor the opposing arguments. So with that said I'm not going to call my side on the issue.

You seem to have given this some serious thought and research. Based on that assumption, why do you feel the ESV has been so well received in the reformed community? I've asked this question already within this thread but I'd like to hear what you have to say. With the concerns you have raised it seems odd that the ESV has been so warmly embraced. If there is warrant in what you argue I don't see how we can chock it up to great marketing. The reformed community surely is one of the least susceptible people groups when it comes to advertising. I qualify this last statement by limiting it to matters of faith and academics. I'd like to think we reformed folk usually see the error coming and rarely get surprised by such things as sub par translations or shoddy theology.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Call me contrarian or paranoid or conspiratorial but I think some in the evangelical and Reformed world have a lot personally invested in the "success" of the ESV and act accordingly.

 

[Galatians220]

Rob, thank you. A thousand thank-yous.

I was thinking earlier today that it's really too bad about poor schlubs like Owen, Edwards, Dabney, Bunyan, Spurgeon, M'Cheyne, Bonar, et alia. They only had flawed, badly written Bibles like the Old Geneva and the 1611 KJ to read and to preach from. Unfortunate, misguided, unprofitable souls.

We've also discovered that God did not preserve His every word, as He promised. For 2,000 years, He left His church without a reliable, readable text - until 1881, when the RV came out, and then God did a new and blessed work in 2001, when the ESV was copyrighted and published.

I can't help but notice the remarkable reformation of western civilization that's happened since 1881. What gigantic moral leaps our culture has taken since then! What astounding revival there's been! Especially since 1978 (the NIV). And since 2001 - what frank and beautiful exaltation of Christ has occurred in this country, in the U.K., and in all of Christianity! And we have the NCCC to thank for all of this.

I'm overwhelmed.

I feel (an operative word) now that as long as I'm reading the same Bible that anyone born after 1930 reads/has edited, I'm cool. So words have been changed... It's how they sound or read that matters, not what they say. Words don't mean things and we can get whatever meaning we want out of whatever words. (Hence the disposition of my earlier post on this thread into the discursive hopper.)

Bottom line: there is way too much money to be made by tweaking the Bible (which Bible?!) to get a new copyright and in having certain organizations throw their weight and marketing potential behind such tweaking.

I've said enough.

Blessings to all,

Margaret

 

[GTMOPC]

Call me contrarian or paranoid or conspiratorial but I think some in the evangelical and Reformed world have a lot personally invested in the "success" of the ESV and act accordingly.

You are not insinuating that it's "all bout the Benjamin's" are you?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

to Margaret.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 10:52:01 EST-----

Call me contrarian or paranoid or conspiratorial but I think some in the evangelical and Reformed world have a lot personally invested in the "success" of the ESV and act accordingly.

You are not insinuating that it's "all bout the Benjamin's" are you?

They certainly play a part.

 

[Grymir]

 

[GTMOPC]

Grymir - You must be dieing to add something here. Shall you sit idly by when you could so easily insert a KJV plug?

------

For the record, as I mentioned earlier, I still love the KJV. I just have come to find a place for the ESV to. I agree that if the Geneva, KJV, etc were good enough for the puritans then they ought to serve us just as well. But does that necessarily command that we be KJV only's (or whatever trans. we prefer)? Or put in another way is historicity the best argument?

 

[Galatians220]

When "historicity" has the Holy Spirit and centuries of God's church on earth being blessed to back it up, yes, it is part and parcel of "the best" argument.

If there's anything I've learned over the years, it's that anything that my rank generation (Baby Boomers) and those that followed us do is suspect in almost all aspects as compared to anything (especially Bible translations) that our truly Christian forebears accomplished.

Margaret

 

[kvanlaan]

I can't help but notice the remarkable reformation of western civilization that's happened since 1881. What gigantic moral leaps our culture has taken since then! What astounding revival there's been! Especially since 1978 (the NIV). And since 2001 - what frank and beautiful exaltation of Christ has occurred in this country, in the U.K., and in all of Christianity! And we have the NCCC to thank for all of this.

This comment seems a parallel to the general trend in Christianity/'spirituality of a Christian nature'. It used to be that such movements would take pains to distance themselves from the true visible church. But now it seems much more expedient to muddy the waters with every Tom, Dick, and Harry that starts a spiritual community as a 'church' with some tenuous link to Christ (ie Joel Osteen). Today we have a lot more people (for example, the Emergents) saying "well, I'm Christian too, and I think that the bible says lots of good things about a committed homosexual relationship". "Well, I'm Christian too (insert heresy/heterodox statment here)" is a lot harder to weed out than Richard Dawkins or Islam commenting on Christian doctrine.

Same with the myriad translations coming out (Living Bible, NLT, etc. is what I am thinking here). It is much more effective to obfuscate (even in a tiny way - think tiny tugboat pushing a supertanker) and confuse than it is to outrightly suppress the truth.

Sorry, a little

Also:

(who probably reads Barth by flashlight under the covers)

just about killed me!

 

[DMcFadden]

My reservations concerning the RSV/ESV are not primarily textual (though I have issues there as well), but whether or not it is the perorgative of a publishing company to produce a Bible.

Interesting point. However, regardless of the merits of the case, publishing houses (e.g., Zondervan, Crossway, et. al.) publish our Bibles today. As far as translations, even the ones done under quasi ecclesiastical auspices seem to be done by para-church organizations. Hmmmm.

The RSV translation a brief history:
The International Council of Religious Education (ICRE) used the 17th edition of Nestle-Aland for its Greek Text. There are about 8,000 differences between Nestle-Aland and the Textus Receptus.

I thought your concerns were not primarily textual??? For the benefit of those on the PB who have not taken Greek and Hebrew, the same argument about the differences from the Textus Receptus could be made against the NIV, NASB, and virtually EVERY English translation other than the KJV, NKJV, and any "majority text" English translation. So, unless you want to turn this into a KJVO or TR superiority thread, the 8,000 differences between the Nestle-Aland (the text behind virtually ALL of the English translations on the market OTHER than the KJV and NKJV) are irrelevant to the "brief history" of the RSV.

The RSV was accepted among liberal scholars as an excellent translation. It was almost universally rejected by conservatives and far right wing "KJO" radicals as corrupt. Because far right wing radicals were so pugnacious and vociferous in their condemnations legitimate criticisms of the RSV were essentially rebuffed.

Again, it depends on how you define conservatives. People like Grudem and Piper used the RSV often. They did NOT approve of the liberalizing tendencies nor the proclivity for willy-nilly conjectural emmandations. Hence, the ESV.

In comparing the RSV to the Greek and Hebrew there is little doubt that the translators were on a liberalizing trend. The original RSV left out the last verses in Mark, John 7:53-8:11, and Luke 22:19b-20. These were the major redactions from the Greek text.

Again, you can only call this "liberalizing" if you apply it to almost all modern English translations OTHER than the NKJV. Regardless of the liberalism in the NCC (which I fully agree with you about), how can we blame them for doing with the Marcan ending what the "conservative" translations also do? If would be like suggesting that eating steak is a liberalizing trend since people in the NCC also eat steak.

As far as the translation goes the RSV tends more towards Formal Equivalance than to the Dynamic theory. In many places it tends to be more literal than the KJV.

Exactly! That is why Packer, Grudem, and Piper got so excited about the ESV project and why Mohler cites it as one of his three trusted translations (ESV, NASB, and HCSB). It took the traditional beauty of the KJV, carried out the task according to the opinion by the vast majority of textual critics of both liberal and conservative stripe that the Nestle-Aland Greek text was an improvement over the Textus Receptus, and removed the liberal bias that "corrupted" the RSV.

The NRSV was an attempt to satisfy the critics of the RSV, but it never really made much of an impact. The hyper-literal translation showed the inadequacies of Nestle-Aland Greek text in too stark a fashion.

The NRSV never made much of an impact for different reasons. 1. The market was full of conservative Bibles that appealed to the people who actually buy Bibles these days (i.e., "believers" not apostates); 2. The primary purpose of the NRSV was to create a gender neutral "update" to the RSV.

The ESV is a revision of the RSV - it is not directly derived from the Hebrew and Greek. The revision was done on a deeper level, and on more conservative grounds, than what was done before.

Yes, but . . .
The RSV was a careful, albeit somewhat tendentious, rendering of the original Hebrew and Greek. The ESV was aimed at cleaning up the places where liberal bias corrupted the translation, updating it in terms of scholarship done since the original translation work, and casting the whole into language both traditional and contemporary (e.g., during the decades since the RSV, certain words can no longer be used in English without creating misunderstandings, for example try using "gay" today with the meaning of happy as it was in my youth).

Essentially, Crossway Books purchased the rights to the RSV from the NCCC for about $625,000. They then turned the text over to some conservative scholars in order to "fix" obvious errors in the text.

Much of the RSV was a VERY good work indeed. However, it needed "fixing." As much as I hate to pay a penny to the heretics and apostates in the NCCC, purchasing the rights to what they legally owned was an honorable and legally necessary thing to do. My guess is that the ESV was produced for a far smaller outlay of money because of it and in a MUCH timlier fashion.

The fact is, the RSV was not the God honoring translation that the ESV is. Praise the Lord that we have such a fine formal correspondance translation on the market that is blessing God's people. Talk about "spoiling the Egyptians." Here is a Bible that languished in the clutches of the mainline until orthodox (mainly Reformed) folks rescued it and fixed it for us all.

 

[bookslover]

The ESV is a revision of the RSV...

Just to pick one little nit: the ESV is a revision of the 1971 revision of the RSV.

 

[DMcFadden]

Rob, thank you. A thousand thank-yous.

I was thinking earlier today that it's really too bad about poor schlubs like Owen, Edwards, Dabney, Bunyan, Spurgeon, M'Cheyne, Bonar, et alia. They only had flawed, badly written Bibles like the Old Geneva and the 1611 KJ to read and to preach from. Unfortunate, misguided, unprofitable souls.

Yikes, Margaret! One could just as easily apply your logic and say that "it's really too bad about poor schlubs like" Augustine, Boethius, Benedict, Boniface, Bede, Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas, Luther (he quoted from the Vulgate throughout his life and ministry) that had to content themselves with "flawed, badly written Bibles" like the Vulgate to "read and to preach from. Unfortunate, misguided, unprofitable souls."

I'll bet you can even find people genuinely converted to Christianity who used the Living Bible! Since when did an imperfect translation keep God from acting in a sovereign manner?

That is no excuse for not continuing to work as hard as possible to produce the best Bible translation possible. Those who hold to the CT view sincerely believe that they are doing just that. Just as the KJV was (in your view) evidently an improvement over the Vulgate and even the Geneva Bible, isn't it possible that the ESV is an improvement (at least in our generation) over the KJV? And, might we have an even more faithful translation in decades to come than any of them produced so far?

Frankly, I find the arguments for the majority text more powerful than they taught me in college and seminary (thank you Jerusalem Blade for confusing me so good!). So, my 1599 Leather Bound Geneva Bible (Calvin Legacy Edition) sits comfortably between my ESV Study Bible and UBS Greek New Testament on my desk. And, a framed leaf out of an original 1599 Geneva Bible adorns the wall behind my desk next to the Synod of Dort poster.

 

[GTMOPC]

Dennis - Thanks for leveling the playing field of this exchange. I've obviously stepped off into the deep end with out swimming lessons. I have hardly begun to study the original texts or the controversy behind them.

To all who are contributing to this thread, thanks for useful information and viewpoints you are sharing!

 

[Grymir]

Grymir - You must be dieing to add something here. Shall you sit idly by when you could so easily insert a KJV plug?

Hail and Well Met GMcClain20!

I don't want to run afoul of the TR/CT ban.

But my usage of the KJV and experience is different than most. I get to meet alot of liberal/barthians who are college trained and higher-ups in the church. Alot of the discussions usually degrade to them/someone saying something to the effect of "Well, what does it say in the original Greek/Hebrew". I used to look up the words, but now I usually make them look them up. It almost always agrees with the KJV. That gives the version dependability. Especially when I make them tell me what it means. (They know Greek/Hebrew too, and usually don't have to look it up. They just sigh and say what it says.) With it's more 'technical' wordage, it hasn't let me down or made me look like an idiot. Which is what the libs/barthians look like because their theology isn't supported by the Bible, and I don't want people in my church to be fooled by their 'apparent' niceness.

No, historicity isn't the best argument. Like I said above about the siren's song of the Geneva, but it's not the KJV. I need something that is dependable. It's like when Elric of Melnibone draws Stormbringer. When I use/teach from the King Jimmy, people listen better and argue less about what the 'original Greek/Hebrew say' I'm a lay-person, but something about using the KJV gives my stuff more authority. Hence my Stormbringer comparison. It makes libs run for cover and the cultists are amazed that I use it.

I could wax eloquent about my love of the KJV all day, but I'm also not of the KJV only camp. I like to call myself a 'Real KJV User'. It's not 100% perfect, no translation is. But it's 99.999999% perfect. I mean, in all the squabbling, there are so few verses that are maybe possibly slightly questionable, that it would fill 1/4th of one page. And getting what the Bible says out is more important. If a person isn't going to take the time to learn how to read the KJV for all it's worth, I'd rather they stuck to a plainer version. But even with those, they still need to spend time learning how to read and interpret the Bible. Just look at all the hacks and liberals. And when I weld my trusty KJV, I (A lowly lay-person) am able to confound them

Any translation has it pluses and minuses. Knowing them is important. I just think (and know) that my KJV has more pluses and fewer minuses than any other.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.