Hi Brothers and Sisters,I was wondering if anyone had comments regarding the ESV and/or the Holman Bibles?I currently use the New Living Translation, the Amplified, and the CDB Parallel Bible for study. I have heard many good comments about the ESV and the Holman, and am considering them to use as my study Bible this time around the Bible. Any insight/comments would be appreciated.
We have touched on the ESV in a previous thread. Click here to see the thread.
Thanks for the link. That was alot to digest, but I get the core ingredients of the arguments.I own a RSV, which I bought early on in my walk when a "Bible was a Bible" and I didn't know of the differences. I read up on my translations about 18 months ago, and put the RSV down when I found its Catholic slant.I can see the reasons for treading lightly with the ESV.The NASB seems to have been put in the pile for consideration for my next study Bible.Any comments of the Holman?The ASV sounds like one I must look into, but honestly, I have never heard of it before today.ASV/Holman/NASB...any comments/comparisons on these to further the discussion?
ASV/Holman/NASB...any comments/comparisons on these to further the discussion?Possibly we could throw the KJV into the mix. Here is a small blurb on the ASV:The American Standard Version of 1901 is an Americanization of the English Revised Bible, which is an update of the KJV to less archaic spelling and greater accuracy of translation. It has been called 'The Rock of Biblical Honesty', and is the work of over 50 Evangelical Christian scholars. ---I know many bible teachers in the days when there was primarly only used the KJV that many adopted the ASV as a good upgrade in language and translation. I am not too paticuliar between the KJV and it, I would like to know if anyone knows if there are any large differences? I am personally using the KJV primarly and find that most tools I use such as Crudens concordance use the KJV version.Holman, ESV, NIV and others past the KJV, ASV, NASB seem to worry me to its being true to the text. Most paraphrase passages as far as I can tell and at points can easily miss what intended to get across.Here is a small excerpt from a book called: "Gold by Moonlight" by Amy Carmicheal, that brings out the fact that yes there can be paraphrasing and elboration on Scripture but only when the original testifies to that, every jot and tittle of scripture is important, every VERILY and THEREFORE:For He is with us "all the days and all day long." The words come from something Bishop Moule said to the boys of Sherborne School: "A point of grammer can carry to us sometimes the very message of the Spirit. A tense, a case, a preposition, just because they are, in their measure, registers of the lightning-play of thought, may make all the difference to the force and fulness of a Scripture sentence. I do not think that I refine too much when I say that the original of 'all the days,' by the extending power of the accusatives may justify the paraphrase, 'I am with you all the days, and all day long.'"
I know many bible teachers in the days when there was primarly only used the KJV that many adopted the ASV as a good upgrade in language and translation. I am not too paticuliar between the KJV and it, I would like to know if anyone knows if there are any large differences?I would be very interested in hearing the answer to this question as well. THE KJV is a little too thick for me. I often study on the road at very odd hours of the day with less sleep than I should be getting, and weeding through the KJV's English can strain my brain. I know this sounds trivial, but I want to maximize my time with the Word.If the ASV has few substantial differences from the KJV, I just might give it a read.I don't know much about the NASB, but it seems to be receiving kind words from most.Thanks in advance for the input and the guidance to those of us who are newer Christians, or who know little about translations.
The American Standard Version of 1901 is an Americanization of the English Revised Bible, which is an update of the KJV to less archaic spelling and greater accuracy of translation. It has been called 'The Rock of Biblical Honesty', and is the work of over 50 Evangelical Christian scholars.The RV was a very mixed blessing. The Old Testament used the same basic manuscripts as the KJV, but with developments in linguistics they were able to produce a very useful tool in the RV. However for the NT they abandoned the Received Text family of manuscripts (mss) and focussed almost entirely on the Vatican and Sinai codices. Some Textual Critics (students of this discipline not necessarily bad) are very uncomfortable with the Sinai and Vatican mss and feel them very unreliable. They created an 'eclectic' Greek text using similarity to the Vatican and Sinai as their criteria for 'better' or 'older' mss. This new Greek text had thousands of differenced to the text behind the KJV. Spurgeon once commented that he feared the RV would become the main version of the day 'carried on the back of the Old Testament'. The American Revision committee used the work and philosophy of the English revisers and produced the ASV which has the same strengths and weaknesses as the English AV; the Old Testament is excellent and probably the best that there will ever be (I can expound this statement if necessary), but the NT relied almost totally on the Vatican and Sinai family of manuscripts. I am surprised to read that the 50 American advisors were evangelical.Those following my Abraham series will know that I frequently prefer the OT ASV to the KJV, but I am much more cautious about using the NT ASV. The American advisors preferred the word Jehovah to the English RV's LORD, and always used 'Spirit' instead of 'Ghost'. These are useful improvements.The RV/ASV will be very good at tenses and prepositions and usually to be preferred to the KJV, but they reject the later verses of Mark and the first part of John 8 not regarding them as inspired scripture.The NASB is a descendent of the RV/RSV but is slightly less dependent upon the Vatican and Sinai codices. It is much more 'literal equivalence' than the KJV, ESV but occasionally interprets rather than translates terms.One of my main reasons for still using the KJV as my main reading and study tool is the continued distinction between 2nd pers singuler (thou etc) and 2nd pers plural (you). This is not a poetic preference but a vital disctinction in many parts of scripture. I would go so far as to say I don't think I would ever have understood whole sections of scripture in modern versions which obscure this vital difference.Here are a couple of examples:And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. (Luk 22:31-32 KJV)And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. (Exo 3:12 KJV)Notice in each example how the Lord switches from 'you' to 'thee' to make a point. This is completely lost in any version which does not use 'thees and thous'.
seekinggod wrote:I would be very interested in hearing the answer to this question as well. THE KJV is a little too thick for me. I often study on the road at very odd hours of the day with less sleep than I should be getting, and weeding through the KJV's English can strain my brain. I know this sounds trivial, but I want to maximize my time with the Word.I have found that listening to the likes of Keith Daniel (particularly The Book of James and Sermon on the Mount, where he recites massive chunks of scripture) because he makes the KJV come alive. Earlier today, I read an article about Family Worship, where the writer stated that we need to be careful to give life to scripture when reading, otherwise it becomes stale.I was always a NIV reader, due to difficulties in language in the KJV, however since listeneing to the likes of Daniel, I've switched to the KJV and am receiving a depth from scripture that I have been missing for my entire christian walk.
I was always a NIV reader, due to difficulties in language in the KJV, however since listeneing to the likes of Daniel, I've switched to the KJV and am receiving a depth from scripture that I have been missing for my entire christian walk.When ever we get to this point I always say the same thing but I do genuinely mean it... currently I am using the KJV as my main devotional/study bible. It is only a temporary measure... until I can find something better.Tozer once said that he had conducted a lifelong flirtation with various translations. He would begin to use a new one and was quickly anamoured by its improvements. Then as he continued to use it he became aware of its deficiences and took to using his KJV to check the new version. Ultimately he would stop using the new version and revert to the old. This has been exactly my own experience. One of the strengths of using the KJV for me is that I know its weaknesses. If it likely to be a bit skewed on a topic I am aware and can compensate as necessary.Having said this I regularly use up to a dozen different translations, but mainly to provide extra comment or clarity to my KJV. The e-sword free bible programme is a great asset in this.
The American advisors preferred the word Jehovah to the English RV's LORD, and always used 'Spirit' instead of 'Ghost'. These are useful improvements.Hi Ron, why do most versions have "the LORD" instead of Jehovah?I used to read the NIV :-o, then went onto the NLT :-? , then went onto the NKJV :-D, now I use the AV :smart:However, I never really feel comfortable studying without some Greek & Hebrew available :-)
Hi Ron, why do most versions have "the LORD" instead of Jehovah?It was a continuation of the Jewish reluctance to use the proper name for God. The biblical name for God is YHWH; it is four Hebrew letters (Yod, He, Waw and He)and it known as the tetragrammaton. The Jews tried to protect the divine name from too common use and hence the danger of blasphemy by inserting the vowels from the the Adonai into the spaces. Whenever they found the word in their reading they would substitute the word Adonai meaning Lord. IF you try it you get YaHoWaiH, or Jehovah which is where we get the word Jehovah as the proper name for God.There was officially no known proper pronunication for the word JHWH but the Samaritans did not have the same reluctance to speak God's name and they pronounced it YaHWeH (try to pronounce those aitches). MOst scholarly work would know refer to Yahweh (yar-way) but the proper pronunciation, though still speaking unknown, is probably Ya-h,We-h.The name Jehovah is only used in its full form 4 times in the KJV - Ex 6:3, Ps 83:18, Isa 12:2, 26:4. The word LORD is used 7970 times in the KJV.Although they was a Greek transliteration of Jehovah the LXX usually used God or the Lord. It is interesting that the word is never used in the New Testament (and I think, highly significant).
Do you think modern translators are "scared" to use Jehovah because they think people might think it would be a JW bible?:-( These days, when I read (in my head) the words "the LORD" I always say (in my head) Jehovah.
Do you think modern translators are "scared" to use Jehovah because they think people might think it would be a JW bible?I think the KJV has had such an impact on our subconscious thinking that it would take enormous effort to change some of its expressions. It may be more that scholars are divided as to whether to use Jehovah or Yahweh. Yahweh would be the most appropriate but then what are you going to do with all those wonderful old hymns? Guide me O thou great Yahweh' is just not going to catch on.In the Abraham narrative I have constantly pronounced LORD as Jehovah in my own thinking. The word Jehovah is a little like the word Jesus; that is a mispronunciation too. But 'yay-soos' is never going to replace 'Jesus' in our memories or our affections.
where the writer stated that we need to be careful to give life to scripture when reading, otherwise it becomes stale.I can appreciate his point, but most active readers of Scripture have Christ as their life, and attack Scripture with a passion because of this.Those who are not "sitting at His feet" will tend to find Scripture a bit dry, and giving it "life" may seem forced to them.
I have been using the ESV a little recently and have posted some initial comments in the ESV? thread.
This discussion is locked.
