English Standard Version ?

As far as I have heard it is quite good. I think its layout is a little different to most styles.

 

from http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html (click on URL for full story):

J. I. Packer, ed., The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Containing the Old and New Testaments. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles (a division of Good News Publishers), 2001.

This is an evangelical revision of the Revised Standard Version that corrects the non-Christian interpretations of the RSV in the Old Testament and improves the accuracy throughout with more literal renderings. It also updates the language somewhat. The makers of this version undertook the work with the idea that there was a need for an evangelical version that was more literal than the New International Version but more idiomatic than the New American Standard Bible. The Revised Standard Version seemed close enough to this middle ground that it might be suitably revised in a short period of time. ..."

--Ralph

 

I have not studied this version yet, but it looks worthy of a visit.

--Ralph

[ December 27, 2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Author ]

 

I would highly recommend it. It is a great balance between the NIV and the NASB. I have been struggling over which translation to use out of the masses of them, and I think this is the one. I just switched from the KJV to the ESV. I think there are places where the ESV is more accurate than even the NASB. Such as the translation of the Hebrew word for 'seed'. The KJV is the only version I had known of that translated it properly until the ESV. Many of the other translations use descendants or something else plural, but it is a singular word. The ESV uses 'offspring', which accurately captures the meaning. See Gen. 3:15, 9:9, 12:7, 15:5, 17:7, 22:17 for just a few examples (also in 22:17 the ESV correctly translates the singular "the gate of his enemies" rather than many do, "the gate of their enemies". I think the ESV is worth a serious look and I feel that it may be the standard of the future. It is very accurate yet readable in today's language. I have not found any liberal lean in it thus far, in case you fear that it is based on the RSV as I was. I have never looked at a RSV, but from my understanding it is a pretty accurate version to begin with, other than some liberal tendencies. Any other input as to that would be welcomed. I would highly recommend the ESV to any and all, even new Christians or younger ones. Hope all this rambling helps some.
Neal

[ December 27, 2002, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

The ESV is an excellent translation in
the stream of English translations that
began with William Tyndale. It is accurate,
beautiful, and very useful for devotional
reading and study. I use it as my
default translation in the study, when
I teach, and when I preach. I love it.

Clay

 

I have been reading through the Bible this year using the ESV and am almost finished reading it in its entirety. In my opinion, it is an excellent translation. Although there are few places that I would have preferred a different translation or textual-critical choice (which is true of any translation I have read -- no translation is perfect or can satisfy every one!), I think the ESV is one of the best translations available. I would rank it in my top three (the other two being the NKJV and NASB). It is my hope that it will replace the NIV as the translation most favored among evangelical Christians.

Pastork

 

I agree with Pastork. I think the ESV
holds great promise for the church. I
think it is one of the top four translations
around. It is one of the two or three best
for study purposes. I use it as my
default translation and then compare it
with the NASB and then move on to others.

Clay

 

Hey all,

I have a question about the ESV. In Zechariah 7:13 they have "As I called...." and in the footnote it notes that 'I' is actually 'he' in the Hebrew. What do you think of that? Is that okay? I know looking at the context it appears to be referring to God b/c it does in the rest of the verse. But could it not also be referring to one of the former prophets from verse 12? Just wondering because I have seen this a number of times, such as 2 Sam. 6:22. Doesn't it change the meaning of the verse and isn't it an interpretation on the translators' part? Just wondering........ Also, the NIV does the same thing in Zech. 7:13 too.

Neal

 

ESV: Quality of the translation- A+
Quality of Bibles currently available - C-

Hopefully the latter will improve with time and newer editions being released.

 

I would like to bump this thread to the top and ask if anyone has information regarding when the new larger print wide margin ESV Classic Ref Bibles will be available?

I am very hopeful that this publication will be of a higher quality (at least the print font size will be improved) and thus more worthy of this excellent translation.

Any info is greatly appreciated.

 

Hey there all. While this thread is bumped back up, I had a question. What do you think of the ESV's translation in the OT, especially in the books of Moses, of "people of Israel" rather than the literal "sons of Israel" or the broader "children of Israel"? This has been bothering me some, seeing how the Hebrew word 'ben' means son. Is this an example of inclusiveness at the sake of accuracy?

Just wanting some insight from others who use the ESV because it has really been bothering me since I came across this.

Thanks,
Neal

 

The ESV although contaning some inclusiveness, seems to have done for the exact opposite reason. It was done by conservative Evangelicals to combat efforts like the TNIV and NLT. So it doesn't bother me. But, i don't know Hebrew, yet : )
I recently translated Phil. 1:1-10 and found the ESV's treatment to be my Fav among KJV,NIV, and NASB. it's nice.
reub

 

A "deluxe" edition of the ESV will be
published in March. It will have larger
print and wider margins.

Clay

 

The ESV is good--but it sounds so much like the NKJV that it really isn't needed. Plus, it has the usual missing 2886 words. If you like the rhythm and accuracy of the NKJV, then going to the ESV is a step backwards.

 

I purchased a copy of the ESV back in October. So far I have used it for verse comparison, but I really have not gotten into a real study of the ESV. My opinion is positive, though. Of the passages I have read, I think I like the ESV better than the NIV. Just my opinion...

 

I like the ESV. It's my most used version now. Plus, it doesn't have all of those added words that the KJV has.

 

Just wanted to let those who read this thread know that I still wholeheartedly recommend the ESV. The more I think of the issues that I have posted about the ESV, the more I realize every version does it. The ESV is by far my mosted used version and I enjoy it more and more as I use it.

Neal

 

I use KJV as my English translation (no, I'm not a KJVOnlyer, we support the Trinitarian bible Society becos of its stand on the Received Texts), but if I was to go over to a new translation, the ESV would be it; I like it - though the publishing values leave a little to be desired at the moment. I have even written to the publishers asking them to consider a parallel KJV oriented translation of the NT, using the RT; that way there would be some parity in the English speaking evangelical world. Don't suppose they will though.
However, I like its literalness, without being wooden. I never took to the NKJV, and people over here tend not to use a Bible with American in the title!!

peace in Him