Is the ESV gaining steam.

I usually hate it when people try to argue a universal because of a few antadotal (sp) experiences, but that said. . .

Does anyone else see the ESV gaining steam? Is there hope for it yet? When I first moved to Texas I spent a few Sundays at a moderatly chasamatic independent church and while I believe the NIV was their pew Bible at the moment, the pastor went out of his way to mention his growing respect for the translation in an email exchange and a few of the elders were carrying ESVs (thinlines I might add, God's true word). I think it might have been sparked by an email exchange between the pastor and Wayne Grudem.

And then my wife and I seddled in a Independent Reformed Baptist Church and the ESV was already the pew Bible there! I once started a thread on whether anyone noticed that the ESV seemed to be more popular in more reformed circles but I don't believe it went anywhere.

But then . . . (yes there is more), my brother came to visist with his wife. We were talking about a whole host of Christian subjects when somehow the subject of translation came up and my brother commented that they had heard of this new translation that was supposed to be pretty good (being pretty anti-NIV, he has always used the KJV). Well I was able to quickly correct him in that the ESV is not good but excellent and I think my reccomendation will probably be acted on.

Oh oh oh one more, I was in another independent reformed baptist church (this one with about 15 membors) and one of the other quests commented about me carrying the ESV. Her husband then chimed in that he was soon going to be standardizing his family on it.

So what do you guys think? Has anyone else noticed or is this just that continued crawling along that has plauged it since its inception.

 

Piper is preaching from it so it should be in his books soon. I think it might become the translation of choice for more serious commentary series. Of course, each commentary writer usually basis all of his comments on original translations of the text, but when a standard version is quoted (unless otherwise noted) it seems to be the RSV over all other translations. Except for the Pillar series I don't know of any series that uses the NIV (oh, and the NIV application commentary). I think the RSV is used DESPITE its liberal leanings here and there just because it is a literal translation so I would expect the conservatives scholars to jump at the ESV. Piper and Grudem continued to use the RSV until the ESV was written.

Interesting. I am the exact opposite. I have always found the verse by verse distracting (for reading narrative especially) and since it wasn't in the original I am not a fan of it now. Of course the paragraph divisions arn't in the original so it is arguable where authors change thought and perhaps a verse by verse is better for allowing the reader to determine it themselves. I had a professor who advocated getting a text with no verses or paragraph breaks but just one long book and you should do all the breaks and flow of thought yourself. THAT WAS A DAUNTING TASK! Anyway, to bring this point back, the main reason I never favored the NASB is because I could only find it in verse by verse form.

 

You know, I have never figured that one out either. I guess the moral that I am learning is that the RSV wasn't THAT bad though improvement was needed. Historically speaking it was burned by the same people who would burn the ESV today, and it is easy looking back from our vantage point with quite a few literal conservative translations to easily condemn it, but at that time there was less choice. But then again, the NASB arrived roughly the same time (both revisions of the American Standard Version) so you would think that is where they would have gone.

Here is an interesting note about the NASB. Why don't they make a MacArthur study Bible. I heard (and this is second hand so it might just be rumor) that MacArthur preaches from the NASB and wanted to publish his study bible there but that Lockman (they do the NASB?) didn't want it so he found a publisher with the NKJV. I think if NASB wants to pick up sells they should publish his Bible. Perhaps the ESV should pick him up??? I heard they were doing there own study Bible, but I don't see harm in having two.

I thought "We Are Not Professionals" was an older book then that. My time perspective is off here.