Featured Revision Complete - ESV Permanent Text Edition 2016

You, in particular, would benefit from an easy-to-read version. I would suggest the NIrV.

 

Nonsense. The NASB is not available in the 1977 form. The NLT isn't available in in the 1996 and 2004 editions. The Jerusalem Bible isn't available etc. The original HCSB is no longer available. Countless examples abound.

 

NASB77 is still available in the "Hebrew Greek Keyword Study Bible".

Of course the NIV84 is as well. Along with the Thompson Chain reference Bible being NIV84.

Agree the argument you responded to was nonsense. It would be more cost effective for Crossway to keep updating the ESV vs launching a brand new translation, based on different Greek text or underlying English text. Money was not the motivation behind this. How does this make them more money?

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Duh, I have an ESV, no need to replace it. But if a "new" and "improved" version, the NESV comes out I would consider buying it as a replacement.

 

So selling you a $35 Bible will cover the cost of developing the translation and make them more money? Crossway likely locked the translation in place so books and commentaries can be written using the ESV and not have to deal with the updates that may effect the books/commentary. Not to mention the variety of Study Bibles that will no longer have to continually update the study notes to reflect the text change. The ESV is still a top selling translation, and the ESV Study Bible continues to be amount the best selling Study Bibles. Coming out with a new translation will not help them make money. The ESV is a staple amount top 4 selling Bible translations. Coming out with a new translation will only pull from the ESV sales. The NIV, KJV, and NKJV will be unaffected by a "NESV".

If there is any money to be made by the translation lock, it is to encourage use among academia without fear of text change. A major text change is why I think the NIV2011 got such a bad rap among SBC leaders/academics. They most common use commentaries where all NIV84 based. Such as NiV Application and the NAC series. The SBC education system it self was heavily based on the NIV 84. When the new edition came out, they had to rework all their material.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

The issue is not that the ESV is full of errors that need fixing. It is. No the issue is why did they freeze it without fixing all those known errors. Nothing wrong with creating stability, by avoiding revisions every few years, but as discussed a revision every 15-25 years seems required by changes in language and possibly in the underlying text. The NASB is set to release a revision after 22 or so years.

 

And i would suggest either the 1901 AV/1977 Nas for you my friend, in order to use a more literal bible!

 

"More literal" does not necessarily mean more accurate.

 

True, but it does when comparing the Nas to the Niv!

 

You contradicted yourself. You said "true, but."

I have given many examples in the past wherein the NASBU has not been so literal--despite its reputation. However, I think its renderings have been good despite the fact that it was more dynamic than it is generallyy thought to be.

Ultimately each pericope has to be taken on a case-by-case basis to see whether or not it is more accurately rendered in one version versus another.

 

FYI. The digital copy of the permanent text has been rolled out.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Hopefully the future will bring us a new ESV based on the NRSV.

 

No thank you, already have inclusive gender version covered by the 2011 Niv!

 

Crossway has reversed their decision to make this final.

 

I hope you are right, but I could not find corroboration with a quick search. What is the basis of your scoop?

 

Thanks for the informative link, although I disagree with most of it, I have no trouble with the translation Cain rose up for Abel.

 

The publisher of the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible has reversed its controversial decision to finalize the text after tweaking 29 verses.

“We have become convinced that this decision was a mistake,” stated Crossway president and CEO Lane Dennis in an announcement released today. “We apologize for this and for any concern this has caused for readers of the ESV, and we want to explain what we now believe to be the way forward. Our desire, above all, is to do what is right before the Lord.”

“Good for the ESV,” tweeted Scot McKnight, who had criticized the decision to make the text permanent.

“I’m glad Crossway made this decision about the ESV, and I’m glad to see them change their minds in an admirable way,” tweeted Desiring God editor Bryan DeWire.

Last month, Crossway announced that after changing 52 words in 29 verses—out of more than 775,000 words across more than 31,000 verses—the ESV text would “remain unchanged in all future editions.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gl...ecision-esv-bible-text-permanent-mistake.html

 

I fully endorse their change of heart on this matter.

 

Thanks Revmitchell, your scoop validates many of the views expressed here.