Why do so many reformed believers use the ESV?

Does it come from a Presbyterian or Reformed background?

 

"Claims to be Reformed."?!

The revisers didn't complete their job.

Only in places? How about throughout the translation? The parts that are best are in Paul's epistles. The revisers actually did some revising in that section of the text.

It's sound and serviceable.

I'll take it over the RSV -- but how you could say it is vastly improved over the NASB is a puzzling remark. For the most part -- though the NASB has its awkward encounters with English -- it reads better than the ESV.

Affirmative.

 

I have said it before and will repeat again, I personally belive that the ESV's sole purpose in life was to give reformed believers something other than paying royalities to Zondervan for the NIV. Really, there was/is no real necessity for a new english translation of the Bible at this time.

In my opinion, the ESV is a good translation. It is good like the NIV is good. It is better than the RSV and way better than the NRSV. In my opinion the ESV is not as useful for deep study as either the NKJV or the NASB. The ESV is a good solid translation that also happens to have a teremendous marketing effort behind it and Crossways does a slightly better job binding the book than Zondervan or Thomas Nelson, although I personally do not care for the Bible covers in strange colors and embossed celtic crosses.

Why some people rave about this translation is a mystery to me.

 

There is dynamic equivalence philosophy is all translations. Translation of the idioms represent that.

 

That is my point. What I find rather strange is that I am unable to ever see one case of a first class conditional sentence ever start with "since" but rather they are translated as though they were third class conditional sentences and begin with "if." How does one get if out of a first class conditional sentence other than to appease someone.

The same thing happens with prohibitive imperatives.

 

Sigh. The NIV is not in the Dynamic Equivalence side of the ledger. It is a mediating translation along with the likes of HCSB,ISV,and NET Bible. The NIV uses functional equivalence at times -- but it can not rightfully be claimed as a dynamic-equivalent translation.

Compare a true dynamic version such as the TEV or CEV with the NIV and you'll quickly note the contrasts.

The NIV can certainly be compared with the ESV. Aside from the poor English modeled in the latter -- it differs only in degree,not in kind with the NIV.

 

You are quite mistaken Dr.Bob. What do you base that claim upon? It's utterly false.

Your totally formal equivalence stance with respect to those translations quickly had to be modified in your very next sentence!

I could point out many "dynamic" choices in the ESV. Totality is apparently not too complete. Even its marketing arm says "essentially literal" -- not in totality formally equivalent.

 

The ESV and NRSV are very close. They are quite similar. Pss, don't tell Leland Ryken.

Mass hypnosis within the English Reformed community. I got an immunity shot beforehand.:thumbs:

 

Have you seen a doctor regarding the side effects of that medicine?


:smilewinkgrin:

 

You can be really venomous, Rippon. When God saved me out from Modalist Pentecostalism, He did so through a Reformed Baptist preacher. I am New Covenant and also Reformed, and there is no sickness to being Reformed, just a solid knowledge that man is sinful, a hater of God, and does not seek God. God chooses salvation and it is His work, not ours.

I am not going to turn this into a Reformed defense thread, but I would like to think this would not be a humanism defense thread either.

 

God used a charismatic (knocking on doors and praying for people) to lead me to Christ. God will use those who are His if they will obey.

 

Not sure what you are talking about...Rippon's reformed as you are.

 

Soon the reformers will be seeking another venue.

 

Claims wasn't meant to be perjorative. I claim to be Reformed, too. Now, I can see how someone would take that to mean that someone says they are so but aren't really Reformed. For that, I apologize. I've never seen you say you subscribe to the LBCF or WCF or Abstract, so I don't have firsthand proof. But even more convincing than that....you defend Reformed theology in debate rooms. That's worth more than any signature on a confessional statement :tongue3:

Agreed that the ESV folks didn't do enough to break away from the RSV. Agreed that the ESV has some awfully stilted language, but I don't think it's 90% of the translation like you intimate sometimes Truth be told, I'd love for an ESV 2.0, this time with clearer structure and more improvement over the RSV (the latter would take care of the former).

A great number of scholars, even some on the NIV translation team, would disagree with you. Some NLT translators also refer to the NIV as DE. I'm unsure DE is quite appropriate as a label (Master's Seminary uses Literal, Free, and Paraphrase, which is a bit more helpful. Offhand I forget Fee and Stuart's categorization), which was also helpful I thought, but obviously not so helpful that I remember it )).

As demonstrated, the ESV is at times identical to NRSV, NIV, TNIV, and in my mind it's more than just coincidence. Every translation is formal and dynamic in places. Some are just more one over against the other.

I don't think you're reading Rippon right. His gripe is with the ESV, not with Reformed theology.

 

No my friend, I'm not un-informed and the NIV is actually a mediating translation, this according to Gordon D. Fee in How to Choose a Translation for All It's Worth. The NLB is an example of a dynamic* translation, FYI.

My point was not to make a stand on dynamic vs. "essentially literal" comparisons (whatever that means), but rather to point out that before the ESV, the NIV was the default translation for reformed readers (laymen) and they resent the dispensational bias of works such as the NIV Study Bible. A thoughtful review from 2004 of the ESV by Rodney Decker at BBC in Clarks Summit PA can be found by googling his name. There are 2 reviews, the basic is 23 pages and the unabridged is 60 pages. I will admit that Deckers review had a major influence on my attitude but, I actually bought a copy of the ESV and Rykens book on the same before I stumbled on the above mentioned review. And before you poo poo Decker, let me re-state this, the review is 60 pages long, this is a small book in some quarters.

By the way, I bought and read the informative book on the ESV by Leland Ryken on the translation and I have the ESV Reformation SB, the ESV SB and a few other copies. I'm thinking about getting the ESV MacArthur SB. Again, It's a good translation but not any better than the dozens of other modern translations.

A couple of years ago I was in my local Bible Bookstore and overheard two elderly gentlemen just gushing about the ESV, how it is something like dynamite or TNT, almost too good to be handled by mortals. I had to bite my tounge, it good, but it's not dynamite or anything other than "good".

When all this ESV hype started to take hold, I started to actually believe it and thought that the NIV, my translation of choice for 20 years was now only suitable for children. Always being interested in translations, I began to look into the mechanics and politics of the ESV and was finally able to clear the decks of my mind. The result is that I'm still a fan of (1st) the NKJV, 2nd the NASB and 3rd the NIV. The ESV and all the hype has actually increased my appreciation for the NIV. Talk about unintended consequences.


* actually fee calls it Functional Equivalence, he gives ample arguements in the above mentioned book for discarding the term "dynamic equivalence".