Why Is the ESV "Better" Than Other English Versions?

Several reasons, IMO:

1. Although all of the most used Bibles are good, none are w/o weakness.

The KJV is outdated; the NKJV is based upon the TR and is still archaic in some wordings; the NASB is too dificult to read in some instances; and the NIV is too free in its interpretations.

2. The ESV combins the accuracy of the NASB with the readability of the NIV, making it the "best" all-purpose version available.

3. The ESV corrects the errors of the RSV while maintaining its literary excellence and understandability.

4. It is highly accurate in rendering the Gk and Hebrew (more accurate than the NASB, IMO).

5. It was worked on by the best of evangelical scholars.

See all the ESV info at its homepage, www.esvbible.org

 

In my opinion, the ESV has only one glaring fault, its underlying Greek text.

 

I agree with everything Chris said, with one caveat: Currently the ESV does not have the study and reference Bible availability of the other versions mentioned, especially the NIV. Hopefully, as time passes (and as other publishers jump on board) this situation will correct itself.

 

Doc, is this from the critical text? I have heard a lot about it, but have never seen one to compare it to the others. I still currently use the KJV. I have tried to use other versions, but always have come back to the KJV.

Brother Tony

 

MM and rsr: Agreed and agreed!

 

Chris is absolutely correct in his appraisal of the issue. The ESV is the best Bible currently available translated from the best mss available. Forest Gump would say "That's all I have to say about that"

[ June 18, 2002, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

[ June 19, 2002, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Curtis ]

 

Yes. I, and a growing number of textual scholars, believe the Byzantine textform is superior to the Alexandrian textform which serves as the basis for the ESV.

 

Where did you learn the word neologysms? I've gotta stop limiting my syntax to three syllables!!! See? Even syllables has only thee syllables!! Darn it!! I'm so trisyllabic!!

 

I have to agree with DocCas on this one. I am hoping for a better Byzantine textform translation than the NKJV in the near future, but in the meantime I will keep it as my personal Bible. It is also the Bible I preach/teach from every Sunday. However, I am reading through the Bible this year in the ESV so that I can get to know it, and so far I think it is an excellent translation on the whole. Lately when people ask I usually tell them that the three best English translations I know of are the NKJV, the NASB, and the ESV.

 

ESV is hands down the best translation on the market. As far as the study bible notes and such go..it comes with a cd-rom with enough notes to fill 10 books. Go buy one today you will not be disappointed. Especially if you grew up like I did, hearing, reading nothing but the KJV. The phrasing will be familiar and the really "big" words are still there. It is great!

 

The ESV is a pretty good translation of a deficient underlying Greek text.

 

The Byzantine text is so tied to the KJV, I doubt very much that there will ever be a fresh, quality translation based on this platform that will ever replace the KJV (KJV II, KJ21, NKJV are just a few examples). I don't use the NKJV because after reading it for a while I am left with the thought "They didn't change enough and then the stuff they did change, they didn't make any better, so why bother?!"

That is one of the reasons why I prefer the "less superior" text. Although I would hardly call it that.

 

I recently bought a ESV and have enjoyed it so far. It mostly avoids the bane of gender-neutral language and has a "literary" feel to it. Too many modern versions try to dumb-down supposedly difficult theological terms, and the ESV avoids this tendency also. All in all, a praiseworthy translation. As for the Byzantine/Alexandrian debate, we'll probably never know which is closer to the original. It's good to have versions based on both, in my opinion, especially for those like me who don't read Greek. I doubt that anyone will be lead astray by reading either. Is it outrageous to believe that God preserved both?

 

From the ESV website:

http://www.gnpcb.org/home/esv/

 

While I use other translations (NIV, NASB,
NKJV, and others) the ESV is "tops" for me.
It has a very good literary style, is accurate,
and I think it is the best choice available
for study. A good translation to use with it
is the NIV, a translation in good contemporary
English. I'm looking forward to the One Year
Bible in the ESV. I'll use it next year.

 

It really would be interesting to see a new Byzantine-text type version...perhaps a thought-for-thought translation. Of course, as go2church just stated, every version with this text seems to have "King James" in the title.

Perhaps no publishers have wished to "break the ice" by making a new Byzantine translation?

 

if substantial differences among the text types/MSS range between 2% (most scholars) n 7% (D.A. Waite's), which to me seem rather tiny in the overall scheme of things, is a fresh translation justified?