Why do so many reformed believers use the ESV?

:laugh:That sounds a lot like:

Merriam Webster, sv perfect:

 

You don't like me do you Dr. Bob? All this over an opinion on a translation of the Word of God, which I have said is a good work.

I dont remember personally insulting you. If you were to go back to the beginning of this thread and read what I have written and what a few others have also you might see the sillyness of your making this personal. But what do I know, I'm just a commoner and mouth breathing NIV reader.

May God richly bless you today my beloved.
Tom

 

Thank you Tom.

I don't remember giving percentages -- it's just that a substantial revision is very much needed for the ESV. It really doesn't live up to its Preface.The ESV doesn't bring archaic language to current usage, nor does it maintain clarity of expression.

Yes sir.

I appreciate Master's Seminary very much -- I know some students -- mainly grads, and have met some Profs.

But three groupings is too restrictive.

How about:

1)Very formal/2)Formal/3)Modified Literal/4)Mediating/5)Idiomatic/6)Free

Numbers 2,3,4 and 5 are where most English Versions are positioned.Number 4 would be my personal choice overall. Numbers 2,3, and 5 would have their place in my library for reference and study.

 

The English Standard Version:A Review Article ...

...by Rodney J.Decker. Here's a snip.

Contrary to some,I do not view the NIV as a functional equivalent translation as to its basic nature. It is far closer to the KJV/RSV than it is to the "classic" functional translations such as the CEV,TEV, or Phillips. The NIV has used functional equivalents more often than the NASB and even more often than the KJV/RSV.

...I think it is fair to conclude that in terms of translation philosophy the ESV is closer to the NIV than to the NASB.

 

He then goes on to give numerous examples and in the unabridged review ample explanations. If there is going to be a dispute on this comment, it should be based on his comments backed up by examples. All the while Decker reminds the reader that the ESV is a good version (translation it is not, rather it is an update of the RSV). He compares the actual text with the information about the version supplied by the publisher.

Also, Decker points out by use of example why the NIV is closer to being a formal eq than the reputation it has among some within evangelicalism. All and all he is a good read, informative and not something you can just blow through during commercials.

I have personally noticed that the ESV uses in at least some places a lowercase personal pronoun (like the KJV) when referring to the diety whereas the NASB uses uppercase. I have not compared these to the NIV and of course the Hebrew may imply lowercase. However in some cases the uppercase is warranted when within a single verse or paragraph there are personal pronouns describing the diety and another person. Just an observation.

 

Fair enough, I will keep this tucked in the recesses of my cranium for future use. While probably not as old as you, I have come to the point in my life where I try to live with the attitude that I don't have to win every arguement. Most of my "theological" learning is self study (ie: self-inflicted). Do I think I have any special knowledge? No but I try my best to fully understand both sides in an unbiased way when making a dogmatic stand. I'm surprised that you have labled my attempts at debate as the straw man method as I don't feel that this is really true of little old me.

During the period of time from about 2001 to 2004, I stepped away from the loving fellowship of my Savior. It was during that time that the subject in question made it into the limelight. It's like I woke up from a long nap and found that someone rearranged the furnature in the room. So I have been playing catch up ball with regards to the ESV. My personal opinion based on really having no preconceived notions is that the ESVs main claim to fame is that it isn't the NIV. Looking at it from the perch I sit on there is a lot of hype but that is simply my opinion.

I have in my collection a copy of the Believers Study Bible NKJV. This is actually one release of the Crisswell Study Bible. On the fly leaf is an endoursement from Billy Graham which was actually written before the SB was released. In other words, Graham endoursed this work before he actually read a copy. If you read some of the endoursements on the ESV website you find everything from "this is now my only Bible" to people saying nice things without mentioning anything about having read the work or having plans to replace their current translation of choice with the ESV. If things had been different and I hadn't spent 4 years out of fellowship I very well may not be able to make this distinction.

Another thing, slightly off topic, everything I heard about the TNIV was negative. But when I actually put a copy of the TNIV in my hands and read the words I found out that it's not the Satan inspired work I had heard it was.

So this is just a few words of introduction into the mind of thomas15.
Tom

PS on edit: While I read the NIV, I don't read the TNIV very much and I'm not a big fan of the NLT. Having said that I believe there is a place for both of them on my bookshelf. My main objection to the NLT is not really an objection per se, rather I like to challange myself when I read and that is one of the reasons I read the NKJV. That may seem funny as the NKJV isn't graduate study material but it is sufficiently challanging with respect to some of the vocabulary and it's selection especally in the Old Testament.

 

Tom V's friend, Rick Mansfield, had an article in the past called:TNIV More Literal Than The NASB?

Here's a snip:

All in all,a translation like the NIV or TNIV is neither wholly formal equivalent or wholly dynamic. The translators attempted to strike a halfway point. This also essentially the same method used in the HCSB (called "optimal equivalence").In the end, those kinds of translations get the best of both worlds -- the preciseness of the formal and the readability of the dynamic.

 

Instead of trying to make a buck off a new translation in America I wonder how many would be blessed by God if they gave the money away to somebody like Wycliffe who is in the mission of coming up with a Bible for language groups for the first time and making the Gospel known?

 

Take these in the jesting spirit they're offered in, Rippon.

Isn't that what you called:

:tongue3:

You've said it's full of.....permeated by...that kind of thing. But true, you haven't given a hard and fast number.

I'd love to see this have its own thread and us discuss this. I think it would be immeasurably helpful. I'll save my comments (which are very much in line with yours) for that thread.

 

TOMV: Is Rick Mansfield merely some guy? Or is he indeed amply qualified rather than that the guy Dr.Bob offered? I still didn't get a response from him for the poor support he gave from web sources to demonstrate that the NIV is dynamic.

 

No, as a matter of fact you didn't say that. You said:"Here are other unrelated sites all of which agree that the NIV is basically dynamic."

And,of course that assertion is wrong because the Wikipedia article supported my understanding. "Swapmeetdave" lumped the RSV,NRSV and even the NASBU into the dynamic category along with the NIV. That hardly supports your view Dr.Bob.

You said: that you had NEVER heard that the NIV was considered formal. You then said that you were intrigued why I held that view.

So you have to get you stories straight. You really need to get out more. I have shown that a number of biblical scholars have indeed demonstrated that the NIV should not be considered a dynamic translation.

I have not insisted,contrary to your claims, that it is a formal-equivalent. I have said that it is a lot closer to the ESV and NASB than many are willing to admit -- either that, or they really haven't done any comparisons.

"Light-years away from the FE of the NASB or AV or ESV." Really! I never made any claims about its relation to the AV. But you are deceiving yourself if you continue to insist contrary to reason -- that the NIV is so far removed from the NASB and ESV. There are far more similiarities than significant differences. Some authorities have claimed that the NIV isn't that far removed from the KJV itself!

When you take absolutist stances on things which are not absolute ...well, it's not wise.

 

Contrary to Rick's belief, he is a mere mortal, despite his Superman costume prominently displayed on a social networking site :tongue3:

Seriously, I'd say he's more qualified than Alan Rouse. That said, some folks with credentials equal or greater than Rick have referred to the NIV as DE. Whether we agree or not, to ignore thus is to ignore reality.

Back to Rick...I should let his wife answer the question about whether or not he's just "some guy" :smilewinkgrin:

 

LOL ! But I didn't think being "amply qualified" meant he could leap over tall buildings in a single bound.

I have acknowledged that not only foes, but friends of the NIV have called it DE. I would would like to see some quotes from Bible scholars who have called it DE.

 

Rippon, I referred to the NIV as DE right up to the time I actually took an abjective look at things. Now I know better.

Back when I was saved in the mid 70s in a reformed setting I carried a RSV Bible. I had no real concept of translation methods, my main reason for having a RSV was because it reminded me of the KJV but was easier to read and was a good all purpose translation to have when visiting churches, which I did quite a lot. That was my reason for selecting the RSV then but I have been buying Bibles of all variety for many years and have well over 100 Bibles today.

You and I are not like most people. We want to be technically correct. We don't enter an arguement unless or until we have an adaquate background in the topic. We do not accept the endoursement of others without personally researching the mater on it's merit no matter how much we appreciate the one making the endoursement. Most people, even those deep in the faith simply do not care to be this accurate. And it's ok because it's not like they are way out in left field because they believe such and such is a good accurate Bible translation because with rare exception most modern translations are very good.

We are not getting a satisfactory answer to the OP question. It is frustrating because the people we are asking the question are well informed and experienced christians and know their Bible. I have the same kind of frustration when a theology question is answered by referring to the WCF and not the Bible. The WCF may answer that question 100% correctly however I want to get my theology directly from the Word of God.

So we learn to live within this paradox. Just know that you are not alone my friend.

Tom

 

Thanks thomas15. We are of kindred minds. Bless be the tie.

 

The only thing is --it doesn't use modern English.

 

I would like you to try and substantiate that bold assertion Dr.Bob. Leave the AV out of it though. Hardly anyone uses it these days. Attempt to prove that the NIV is radically different from the NASB and ESV. Take a couple of verses or a whole chapter and ascertain your position.

 

I would like to ask a core question related to the OP. Can a minister of the Gospel be considered actually Reformed if he uses the TNIV as his primary English text?

Another discussion board,which shall go unnamed, would give an emphatic "No!"to that question.

D.A.Carson preaches, but is not a pastor. His Calvinistic credentials are unquestioned yet he preaches from the TNIV.