I have been reading out of the ESV recently and really like it. I was wondering can anybady tell me more about it background. It's not very different from the KJV, but I'd just like to know more about it.
Thanks, Jordan
I love the ESV, fine translation. I use it for my primary reading. As for which bible to get, I recommend this one:
It's real cheap, and the quality of the synthetic leather is very very nice. Good reading bible.
Some other links to read about it:
http://www.esv.org/about/intro
http://www.esv.org/translation/philosophy
Jordan
jordanamo,
I have that Bible and really love it.
It's not very different from the KJV, but I'd just like to know more about it.
It's a lot different than you think it is, trust me.
Krispy
Krispy,
I think he was speaking in comparative form to the other modern translations. The English Standard Version is much like the KJV in this sense. It keeps a lot of the "orthodox church words" etc. Though if you're a dogmatic KJV-er, you will be disappointed :-)
Jordan
The old "church words" is not the issue in the KJV debate. Fact is, The ESV is translated from the same manuscripts as the modern versions, which is completely different from the manuscripts used for the KJV... therefore, it is different from the KJV and just like the modern versions, with the exception of the modern "paraphrases" such as the Living Bible.
It may sound and read like a KJV... but it aint a KJV. Not even close. It's more like a high sounding NASB.
Krispy
I know. It isn't a KJV in that specific translation sense. I don't think that's being contested here. But, let us not get in a debate over this, please... :-P
Jordan
jordanamo wrote:
I know. It isn't a KJV in that specific translation sense. I don't think that's being contested here. But, let us not get in a debate over this, please... :-PJordan
Yeah, I read some of the other thread about Bible versions, let's not get into a debate about that again. :-(
Jordan
Oh, Bro. Krispy!
Getting wound up on the KJV-only thing again?
;-)
New versions tend to scare me... perhaps I'm too much of a traditionalist. Or too careful?
Peace in Jesus,
Whoa guys, lets slow down here. Not gonna speak for Krispy, and it's not as though he needs someone to defend him, but he has not said anything to try and turn this into "another one of those threads." A comment was made about the ESV being similar to the KJV, and he simply pointed out that it's not, nor can it be. jordanamo, that "specific translation sense" is the very thing that makes it completely different. No matter what the language "sounds like", it is fundamentally different from any Bible translated from another manuscript family.
Now that being said, so that I am not responsible for creating "another one of those threads" :-P let me respond to the original post.
The ESV was created to be as literal as possible without being as literal as the NASB. But we already have a bajillion of those. What's the point? Personally I don't get it. If you want a literal translation for study, why buy the version that tried to settle for the 2nd best? If you are buying an Alexandrian translation for literal, get the NASB. If you want an Alexandrian dynamic (read: interpreted for you), buy the NIV. The ESV accepts that NASB is more literal, and intentionally created one that's not quite the NASB. It's like saying, "I want real eggs, so I'll go out and buy the newest egg substitute that claims to be closest to the real thing." I just don't get it. Just my opinion :-)
This discussion is locked.
