Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, May 21, 2011.
just how accurate is it considered to be?
It depends on what you're looking for in a Bible translation.
Not by me.
Do you even have an ESV Steve?
Study, no...reading...maybe, thought the ESV is easy to read. I do most my study from the ESV/NASB.
It (and its family members) are great to read from and consult during the study process. However, consensus is that it's best (assuming one does not know original languages) to begin with literal translations for study (note the emphasis). Even Fee and Strauss who are champions of the NIV family recommend a literal translation for the study process in order to balance translations that are more free.
Again, "study" is a loaded term. So is "accurate." There is nothing inaccurate by default when we're talking about translations that are more free. However, literal translations are great starting points unless you can start with the original languages.
The NASB should be used with the ESV to balance each other out. Use the NIV '11 as well. The NET is worthy of consultation, too.
Not a chance OP. But I have to give credit where its due, the 2011 NIV is a drastic improvement. The more I read it the more I like it. But its still not the NASB but it is more on par with the ESV in terms of literalness, maybe a few notches below.
To just sit and read, use the new NIV all the way. I like it enough that I'm going to fork out for a good print copy now.
Seriously? There are sections especially in the Epistles that read considerably better than the rest of the Canon -- but no. It certainly is not,on the whole,an easy read. Quite the contrary.
Yes. :tongue3: I refer to it from time to time and prefer it, I think, to the 1984 NIV. I prefer my trusty NKJV to either, however.
So you have a physical copy of the ESV. Interesting. And you prefer it to the 84 NIV. I know you are against so-called inclusive language. I call it gender-specific language. The ESV has much more inclusive language than the 84 NIV. As a matter of fact,there is a greater percentage difference in that regard between the ESV and 84 NIV than between the ESV and 2011 NIV.
That is one (but by no means the only) reason why I prefer the NKJV. My preference for the ESV over the NIV is that it is Formal Equivalence. Also, it includes the term 'Propitiation' which is one of my litmus tests of a good translation.
You know, I find it interesting that when anyone says that they find the ESV easy to read, you disagree with them every single time. You say it is not. That is your opinion. But then again, I've not seen you say much positive about the ESV so maybe you have an ax to grind?
Wow,is it that often? I do try to keep tabs on false statements though.
I think I have made a decent case with all the threads in which I have established the fact. But I am not alone in that certainty.
I have said some positive things about the ESV,but you are right --not much. I'll have to dig up the positives for you some time.
isnt the basic problem witht he ESV thatit tries too hard to be a mediate Bible between say NIV/NASB?
that by doing that, it doesn't read as 'smooth" as NIV, nor as accurate as NASB..
KJV fans would tend to stick with NKJV version...
Think best plan would have been for ESV to have been based on the Majority Greek text and THAT version would have appealed to the KJV crowd and to those who would want another 'good" study version!
The main problem with it is that it doesn't use proper English. It has Yoda-speak,inverted negatives,stilted and contorted sentences, plus the conjuction "and" out the kazoo.(Among other problems.)
The excessive "and" is removed from the 95 NASB but the "Yoda speak" is present I agree. But thats just the way the Greek is.
I have a couple of copies of the ESV including the ESV Study Bible, the Reformation Study Bible and a few paperback copies plus e-sword. None of those would I want to drag to church or Bible study. Anyway, I basically avoid the ESV on principal but for some reason my pastor has decided to read it (the ESV) from the pulpit. I received a 35% off coupon from my local Bible Bookstore so I decided to see if they had a copy of the New Reference ESV in black genuine leather. Reason: it is a sewn binding and real leather and made in the USA. I really just wanted to actually hold a copy of this edition in my hand before I made a decision.
Anyway, the store had just 1 copy of this edition so I took it out of the box to examine it. I found about 20 pages folded over at the bottom opposite the spine. This enabled me to get another 5% off for 40% total, meaning I get this Bible for about $42.00.
Over all, for the price I paid the Bible is nice. But what really has me buzzing about this particular ESV edition is the endorsement on the back of the box from John Piper; John states that this is the Bible that he has been "dreaming about". How I ask, you can it possibly get any better than that?
So far the emphasis has been on the exterior. How about the interior --the actual translation?
I respect John Piper very much. But just like John MacArthur --on the subject of Bible translations they are out of their element.
Piper may have been dreaming about a certain edition of the ESV. But when you get down to the particulars --no matter the special wrapping -- it's not the English Standard,nor should it be.(Pardons to Mark Strauss.)
As stated in the past, I'm not a big fan of the ESV as I don't see the purpose of the translation. However, it appears that there is a move to get evangelicals away from the NIV and into the ESV. Personally, If I had to make a decision for what ever reason to change from the NIV to something else, that something else would be the NASB.
You could be right about the Piper quote but my reading indicated that it is for the ESV in general, not the New Reference Edition in particular. I have a large collection of Bibles and I wanted an ESV to take to church. I wanted a reference edition with a good sewn binding but I didn't want to pay $130.00 for a premium binding. I use a thinline NIV when I teach SS class but have the ESV for worship services.
About a month ago, I bought the NIV 2011 Zondervan thinline reference Bible with bonded covers. So far so good with the revised NIV but this particular Bible will not last years with hard use. BTW, the best deal that I have found on a good leather bound smyth sewn Bible if translation is not an issue is the ultrathin NASB (95) genuine leather published by Foundation and sold on amazon $32.00 w/free shipping. The covers are stiff out of the box but once broken in is as good as any $100.00 + Bible that I have seen. Pages lay flat, print font is clear and crisp, pages wrinkle free, covers dull with a consistant color. This Bible is a joy to read.