Which is best between ESV and the NRSV versions?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Sep 15, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    For serious bible studying?
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,135
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    I believe the ESV is slightly better than the NRSV. But neither one of them is anywhere near the top of my list for choice of bibles.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Is that due to their textual basis for translation, or how they translated?
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,135
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Both. I prefer a Byzantine based bible translated using a verbal and formal equivalency.

    That would include neither of those mentioned, although the ESV is more verbal and formal than the NRSV.
     
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,135
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    My bible of choice would be one I redacted (big word meaning "edited" - I am educated (for beyond my intellect) and the scholars union forces me to use such words to maintain my good standing) from all the English versions.

    The only modern bible in English I can find that properly translates John 3:16 is the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which I reject as a good translation for many other reasons.

    "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

    HCSB is the only bible translation wherein the translation committee had the courage to reject tradition and translate ουτως as "in this way" rather than as "so." (Of course they completely blow μονογενη as "one and only" when it means "only (divinely) generated" or "uniquely generated" as opposed to the many sons who were "regenerated.")

    "So" was a perfectly acceptable way to translate ουτως when "so" meant "in this manner" (we still say "Do it so, and so" to indicate the manner or way something should be done) but in modern English the average reader will see "so" and think "so much" rather than "in this way" or "in this manner."
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    986
    I must be old then as 'so' always came across as 'in this way'. :Laugh

    I use the ESV BTW for all purposes, but employ several other versions in study. In fact I consult many differing versions.
     
  7. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    264
    I was thinking the same thing. :)
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    No, TC. There are other translations that render it in your desired manner. The ISV and REB among others --don't have my notes or the time now. Maybe the NET too.
     
  9. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    986
    Good point.

    ISV: For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.

    LEB: For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.

    GW: God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.

    WUEST NT: For in such a manner did God love the world, insomuch that His Son, the uniquely-begotten One, He gave, in order that everyone who places his trust in Him may not perish but may be having life eternal.

    NET: For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,135
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Sorry should have said "commonly used, printed, versions."
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    TC, do not try to spoil the nitpickers glory, they found something they could exploit as a fault. :)

    In order to say the ESV or NRSV is better, one should provide some examples.

    Genesis 3:16 ESV "contrary" should read "for" as per NRSV.
    Matthew 23:13 ESV "would enter" should read "going in" as per NRSV
    John 1:9 ESV "gives light to" should read "enlightens" as per NRSV
    2 Corinthians 2:20 ESV "hostility" should read "selfishness" as per NRSV
    Ephesians 1:5 ESV "purpose" should read "good pleasure" as per NRSV
    2 Thessalonians 2:13 ESV "to be saved" should read "for salvation" as per NRSV
    Revelation 13:8 ESV "before the foundation" should read from the foundation as per NRSV.
     
  12. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    454
    IMO the NRSV renders itself useless for serious Bible Study by its endeavours to be 'Gender Neutral.' :Thumbsdown
    I am not a total fan of the ESV either, but it's better than the NRSV. The NASB is better than either if you want a Bible based on the Critical Text.
     
  13. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,072
    Likes Received:
    101
    I hope I am not the only one to find irony in this post.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    That is silly of you to say. It is actually gender-specific. It uses inclusive language when warranted.

    You prefer using the outdated words of "brothers" and "brethren" instead of calling them brothers and sisters when it is obvious from the context that it does not refer to only adult male believers.
     
  15. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    454
    No it doesn't. It uses gender-inclusive language constantly.
    'Brothers' or 'brethren' has been used for many years to apply to people of both sexes and I see no desperate need to change that. However, I would have no objection to a Bible version saying 'brothers and sisters' so that the words in italics show where the translators have added words not in the original.

    My main objection, and the one that makes gender-inclusive Bibles unsuitable, is the changing of singular 'he' into plural 'they.' There are several instances where this practice obscures a possible reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. I have given examples of this in previous threads.
     
  16. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    That's falsehood MM.

    In Matthew alone it uses "brother" or "brothers" with no sister(s) attached. See 1:2,11;4;18;21; 12:46,47,48,49: 13:55; 20:24; 22:25 and 28:10.
    In the epistles :
    1 Cor. 9:5;16:11 and12.
    2 Cor. 8:23; 9:3,5
    1 Tim. 5:1
    Times change --languages change. That's why we don't use thee, thou, thy and thine any longer.
    How generous of you.
    You are a classic prescriptionist. Chaucer, Shakespeare and Jane Austin didn't feel the need to follow your antiquated rules.
     
  17. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    454
    Rippon, dear brother, we have had this discussion too many times before.
    You read your Bible and I will read mine. Have a lovely day! :)
     
  18. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,128
    Likes Received:
    33
    No....I see it too :)

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,135
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    But the word of God never changes. The Greek uses masculine nouns and pronouns to refer to people of both genders when being used in an inclusive or undetermined manner.

    We have no warrant to change the word of God. To do so is to blaspheme He who inspired those sacred words.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    The irony is that those who cannot discern the difference between finding fault with people and finding fault with doctrine, are those who find fault with people who find fault with their doctrine. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...