Does anyone recommend the ESV

I don't like it. You can buy my copy!

It is basically the RSV warmed over.

If you want a "literal" translation that is accurate, we have the NASB.

If you want a "dynamic" translation that is accurate, we have the NIV.

The only reason for the popularity of the ESV is the backlash towards the publishers of the NIV who pushed the TNIV.

The ESV was a quick alternative rushed to publication in response to the TNIV controversy. But it reads very awkwardly and is stilted.

So?

Stick with the NASB and the NIV.

 

:thumbsup:

NRSV is a good one too!

 

But it reads very awkwardly and is stilted.

Not my experience, notwithstanding a few clunky translations here and there, and what Bible doesn't have those?

 

Does not a soft word cheer the heart :flower:

 

If you get an NRSV, I'd suggest one with the apocrypha. That way you'll have a modern translation of those books.

 

I have the New Interpreters study Bible NRSV with Apoc, its a interesting Bible and I use it a lot but I have many plus original Greek and Hebrew books.

http://www.cokesbury.com/software.aspx?subSection=28&pid=068702496X

 

I don't particularly care for it. When it first came out, there was a lot of hype, and so I bought a hardback copy. The translation seems a bit weak to me, and that's an opinion based on having sweated through six hours of Greek, which, obviously doesn't make me an expert, but it is a concensus about the ESV that is shared universally by the professors at the Divinity school I attended. There are places where it seems to me to be slanted in favor of a particular theological position rather than toward the intent that is fairly clear in the original language, and again, that's an opinion shared by my former professors.

I'll stick with the NIV and the NRSV.

 

I like the Esv and read it fairly often. Rather then buying a copy you might read it on E-Sword for free.:wavey:

 

I am not an expert, but I have read the NRSV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, NIV and ESV essentially cover-to-cover. I have read many, many passages in the NLT and HCSB (and continue to do so, particulary the HCSB).

Overall, my favorite is the ESV. It seems to me to be as concordant as any of them. In many instances it retains the original idioms where sometimes even the NASB paraphrases. It tends not to over-translate. It is "harder" to read than the NIV, NLT and HCSB, but I think this is due to the translators desire to try to stay close to the literary lineage of the KJV-RSV tradition. For that reason, I think many, who may prefer the NIV and HCSB, find it more difficult to read.

The ESV reads most closely to the NRSV, which I think is a good translation, except for the NRSV's annoying "neuter at all cost" mentality.

--- my two cents --- :thumbs:

 

If the ESV is as concordant as any of a number of English Bible translations -- it doesn't place the ESV in a distinctive spot . Do you think that concordance is a good idea ? In Leland Ryken's : " The Word Of God In English " he says the following .

"Instead of translating the same Hebrew or Greek consistently in the English , the King James translators loved the principles of synonymity ( using synonyms instead of verbatim repetition for the same Hebrew or Greek word ) and variety ; so they multiplied the number of English words used for a given Hebrew or Greek word ." ( page 50 )

Ryken is not in favor of the above though he certainly appreciates the KJV overall . For a "modern version" to stay close to the lineage of the KJV/RSV wording is a misplaced priority . Conveying the meaning of the original effectively while communicating it in natural speech is key . No version should be a slave of another while improvements are clearly called for . I think the HCS Bible is to be much preferred for exactness and naturalness . It should not be suspect because it is put in understandable contemporary speech .

But I remain optimistic with the upgraded ESV to be released in the near future .

 

If they (the translators) turn it into the HCSB II, then they should not have bothered.

I am also optimistic about the ESV upgrade. I hope they can smooth off some of the rough edges and inconsistencies, which have been mentioned here and other places. However, if they try to turn it into another modern English version with modern "natural" English, then it will be just like the myriad "hot" (hip?) translations and paraphrases that will probably soon become dated and fall by the wayside.

If our goal is to have a Bible to read that children and "English as a second language" adults find easy to read, then the whole point of the appeal of the ESV is missed. Some of us appreciate that the ESV, along with other formal translations, attempt to translate, rather than interpret. We appreciate the ESV's ties to the English literary tradition and do not necessarily view this as slavery, but as respect for the literary excellence of the elders.

Before the ESV was published, I used the NASB, NKJV and NIV. I always found myself thinking "If only, somehow, the strengths of these could be combined, that would be an awesome Bible translation." In my mind, the ESV, warts and all, comes the closest to fulfilling that goal.

 

I have read various places on the net where there are "rumors" of an update anywhere between 2007 and 2009.

The piblishers, obviously, will not commit publically to a date, as it would probably hurt sales if potential buyers thought they should wait for the update.

Crossway has announced they are planning a study bible in 2008. I do not imagine they would publish an update before then. Again, this is more rumor an speculation. Take it for what its worth. :thumbs:

 

The HCSB and TNIV are not written in modern street-style slang . They're written in contemporary English . Their usage of English is not what used to be called hip-talk . Their English is fairly dignified . I do not own The Message -- I have seen excerpts though . I think it qualifies as using much more casual language .

I think some have confused notions here . In a number of threads I have been addressing awkward language and obsolete lingo in the ESV and NKJ . If a modern translation such as the HCSB eliminates those elements which weigh-down the NKJ and ESV -- that's a good thing .

All translations interpret to some degree . If someone wants to believe that unwieldly phraseology represents a better way of translating -- more power to them and their constituency . Yet , cumbering , aye , outdated English does not formal equivalence make . Yea and forsooth !

The term "literary excellence" is ambiguous . It is in the eye of the beholder . What rendering is better ?

1) Muster a host .

2) Mobilize an army .

I'll take option #2 in a heartbeat .

 

I like the ESV. I resisted buying it when it first came out, but then I found the hardcover on sale. I got it and read through the NT completely and began with the OT. It seems to me that the ESV was made to sound good when reading in public like the KJV. Now I realize that how a bible sounds when read aloud is up to the one listening. Nevertheless, I like the way the KJV and ESV sound when read aloud.

 

I do recommend the ESV and i use it for personal study and preaching. And the comment was made about ESV users being Calvinist...i'm not.

 

I pray you'll come around BobbyD . If you read just about any Bible (aside from the NWT and items of that ilk ) it is difficult to come to any but Calvinistic conclusions . Afterall , the ESV is basically a modified KJV . The KJV team was Calvinistic to a man . The ESV team was headed up by Packer -- a Calvinist among the Calvinists .