ESV

Currently, I am using both the ESV and updated NASB in my personal study time. My primary Bible is still my NASB side column wide margin reference, mostly because of its high quality (as I've noted on another thread).

I am anxiously awaiting the release of the ESV Deluxe Classic Reference Bible, with its larger print and wide margins. If its quality is comparable to my NASB (Big if), I'll probably switch to it.

 

I have recently gotten both a hardback Classic Reference ESV (the first ESV Bible that came out) and a slimline bonded leather. I love the refences in the hardback, but I suppose they haven't found out how to include them all and keep it slimline for now ha ha.

 

Use the ESV most of the time. Still preach from an NIV because that is what our pew bibles are. That is going to change once we move into our new building.
One problem I have found, most books and commentaries are based on a version that has been out for awhile NIV, NASB, etc, so I find it easier to just use the translation that the writer used in the writing of the book.Sometimes even I go along to get along. The ESV seems to be a great bridge between the majority of the translations used today.

 

Help me out. It is my understanding, from studying the scriptures, that in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit came upon people, not "IN" them. In other words, the indwelling of people with the Holy Spirit didn't take place until after Christ sent the Comforter, after His resurrection. Is this correct?

While reading in Genesis 6 in the ESV, I ran across this in verse 3: "Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." In all fairness the ESV has an alternate reading in the footnotes, "My Spirit shall not contend with".

My question is, why did they choose a non-standard rendering for this verse? Every other translation I have checked (KJV, NASB95, NASB, NIV, NLT) renders it as "shall not contend". Doesn't the ESV's rendering teach a false doctrine of the Holy Spirit indwelling Old Testament saints?

Any comments on this would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Michael

 

Not of all us would agree that this is a false doctrine. There are different views. Mine is that you cannot account for righteous living in the OT apart from the indwelling of the Spirit. Man did not change from the OT to the NT. If he needs the Spirit in the NT for righteous living, he needed him in the OT.

As for the ESV, I do not know why. The word used is "din" to strive or contend. The word is only used one other time (Job 19:29 -- judgment) so it is a difficult and somewhat disputed idea. I personally think it has a dispensational connotation leading to the institution of human government after the flood. God was saying that his ruling authority over man would not always be the Spirit directly; he was now going to work through human government. I could be persuaded to the contrary but anyone would good arguments. Whatever the case, I think the ESV missed the boat here entirely, or at least clouded the issue.

[ August 07, 2002, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

The KJV states this, Gen 6:3 And the LORD said,My spirit shall not always strive with man,for that he also is flesh:yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. It does not state "shall not contend".

[ August 07, 2002, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

Yahoo! Agreed and an amazing concession by a dispensationalist!

 

I was quoting the "alternate" reading in the ESV - which is actually the normal reading in the other versions (not necessarily word-for-word as you pointed out).

 

Oh, ok

 

That passage of scripture is a very difficult passage to translate. The NRSV follows the ESV but has a note that the meaning of the word is not certain. It should be noted that other translations(NIV, NKJV) have the ESV reading as an alternate reading, so it falls well within the norm of translating procedures. Interesting enough the NASB has no alternate reading for that passage, it says "...shall not strive with man..."

 

The passage in question has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit indwelling or coming upon the OT saints. It is a statement of how long God would wait before pouring out His judgment upon the sins of mankind. That judgment followed, 120 years later, in the Noaic flood. That is the period between Genesis 5:32 and 7:6.

 

I agree with you when reading it as translated in the KJV and most MVs. Striving or contending with man makes sense in the context of the passages. It starts to shed a different meaning when translated as "abide in man". Wouldn't you agree?

 

I haven't conceded anything. I have demonstrated that my version of dispensationalism is an exegetical/theological one. It is how I try to go about reaching all my conclusions. Actually this is the position of the Grace dispensationalists. The Dallas dispensationalists typically believed in regeneration but not indwelling. There are some who believe in neither.

Thomas is right. This passage does not address that issue, either pro or con. There is a tendency among some to shoe horn doctrines into passages and I fear that perhaps the reading of the ESV might give some reason to do that. It probably could have been translated better.

[ August 08, 2002, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Well said. I'd be curious as to what made the translators pick this rendering. I know someone queried the translators about another translational question via Crossway's website. Anyone remember how that happened and if that was effective?

 

BTW to answer the original question, I use the ESV for my devotions and study and use it when I can to preach from. It is my primary version of choice, and I even have it on my Palm PDA I'm not able to use it on a weekly basis right now in my church, but I use it whenever possible at revivals, conferences, youth gatherings, Collegiate Bible studies I conduct, etc.

 

What??? There was a question????

Actually, I don't use it at all. I am not against it in anyway. I have heard that it is a good translation. I just don't have a need for it. The NASB and NIV suit me just fine. This is the second "different" rendering that I have seen cited, the other being Malachi 2:16 which is substantially different (which I mentioned in a previous thread).