What about the ESV

Just curious if anyone knows anyhting about the ESV bible?

okay. that's all i really needed to know. i'll stick to my motto. "textus recptus be the bestest" :-P Thanks Krispy.

KrispyKrittr wrote:By the way, this is a friendly challenge for a friendly debate. Any and all overly emotional hot-heads will be ignored. (You know who you are)What do you mean? :-x You are one of the kingjamerite giants in the promised land of us dear believers. This giant that needs to be slain. :-P Unfortunately I do not care enough to waste my time faffing with this stuff. Calling all Calebs and Joshuas.

I have read my ESV twice now, (cover to cover). I am reading it the third time now, though it isn't my "main" study bible. I have two "main" study bibles - an NASB, and a NKJV. I haven't limited myself to just these versions of course, having also read the KJV and the NET bible.I have had a KJV for the last 30 years or so, and love the prose - it is a wonderfully accurate and poetic rendering of the Textus Receptus - and I prefer it to the NKJV, using it to memorize scripture (I like the Shakespearian English!) In fact, my church uses only the KJV and the NKJV in the pulpit, or for any church related studies.Yet for all that, and as much as I cherish these particular translations, I do not consider the underlaying texts of the KJV/NKJV to be superior to the Greek compendiums that also include the Alexandrian texts (NA27/UBS4).Which is why I think the ESV is one of the better translations out there, though I consider it to be inferior to the NASB.It is a near literal rendering of the underlaying texts, but in some places it renders the translators "best impression" as to the "meaning" the author was intending. I don't care for that line of thinking - but since I don't rely on any -one- translation, I am not affected by it either. I don't think I would want the ESV as my only bible - but I do use it since I have it. I usually study from four or five translations simultaneously, so take that for what it is.As a person who prefers more literal translations, I would suggest getting a more literal translation to study from/compare to. The ESV bible is - nevertheless - more than fit for instruction in the Christian faith, and if it were the only bible a Christian had, he or would not suffer from doctrinal error on account of it.I do not agree with the KJVO crowd, or their close brethren the TRO (Textus Receptus Only) crowd. Having personally (and I believe thoroughly) studied the manuscript issue, I agree with the overwhelming majority, that the corruption (or lack thereof) of the Alexandrian body of texts in no way impacts the accuracy of the Nestle/Aland (27) or the United Bible Society (4) Greek compendiums, from which all modern (NT) versions are translated.One has to understand how textual criticism works, and is applied to the underlaying texts to get a full appreciation for my opinion, but such a study is easily done if one is really interested/concerned.I will be the first to say that there are godly men on both sides of this issue - which is why it behooves us to diligently examine both positions before we adopt one as our own - and certainly before we entertain discussion about supposedly "corrupt" versions of the bible.Bottom line - the ESV is a good translation - one of the better ones, but I would put the NASB above it. Dan/\\/\\/\\

ESV? was the last time we looked at this topic.

Yet for all that, and as much as I cherish these particular translations, I do not consider the underlaying texts of the KJV/NKJV to be superior to the Greek compendiums that also include the Alexandrian texts (NA27/UBS4).This sounds good if you have a hole in your head. Think about it, if both are good and accurate, both can't contradict each other! But they do contradict each other. Can both be the Word of God if both contain conflicting information?I do not agree with the KJVO crowd, or their close brethren the TRO (Textus Receptus Only) crowd. Having personally (and I believe thoroughly) studied the manuscript issue, I agree with the overwhelming majority, that the corruption (or lack thereof) of the Alexandrian body of texts in no way impacts the accuracy of the Nestle/Aland (27) or the United Bible Society (4) Greek compendiums, from which all modern (NT) versions are translated.What a smooth tongue you have. Great for politics. But a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.Do you really want to ride the fence on this one?RT

What a smooth tongue you have. Great for politics. But a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.RTYou know I share your preference for the Byzantine textform, but I think this comment is somewhat extreme. I know that doublemindedness is the source of much instability but I also like Churchill's definition of a fanatic as being someone who 'could not change his mind and would not change the subject'. ;-)

(I agree with RT, there was a lot of fluff in your post...)And there is a tremendous amount of antagonism in your and RT's! What is your point? What is your motivation? You ask him to defend his position? Against what? Your attacks? How could this discussion possibly honor God at the rate it is going? Tone down the rhetoric and maybe we'll listen.

To RT, and Krispy,I know and appreciate the respect you two have for the received text. I am of the same mind as Ron B. is when it comes to the Byzantine text. However brothers what end are you seeking to achieve when the tone of your posts may be closer to the facts but lacking Grace? I say this in love.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

You know I share your preference for the Byzantine textform, but I think this comment is somewhat extreme. I know that doublemindedness is the source of much instability but I also like Churchill's definition of a fanatic as being someone who 'could not change his mind and would not change the subject'.I agree with Ron here. I also side with the Byzantine textform and the KJV version. Yet the reasonable thing I see is to draw from the source that best conveys the meaning of the particular passage of phrase in question. I have followed Ron's works and he quotes from several different versions when the version best conveys the meaning. It may be a Alexandrian based version also. It seems to me that wisdom would have it that the best version for the passage should prevail. This is not an "either or" position. It is 'both' depending on what is being discussed. It would be quite unwise to limit ones self to one particular group of manuscripts or translations when the other may have the better accuracy. There are much better ways to express your faith than to draw swords with everyone you find using what you deem as a "corrupted" text.

...is just how the plain speaking to the heart gets missed."If the Church is the salt of the earth, this holy righteousness imparted by God to give us holy living would help us to turn the other cheek. Have you ever seen someone do that? Touch a man’s theology and see if he turns the other cheek. Oftentimes there is something sinful in the way he defends his doctrine."Keith Daniel What will it take if even a "corrupt" version which still has even the most basic of basics preserved doesn't penetrate the heart? If it only sits in the mind and then ends up being denied by the truth it brings by how it is represented?What good is a perfect translation if it doesn't translate the reader? And how can one argue with someone who has read a 'poorer' version but has a purer understanding?

I have started a thread called "Textual Criticism" which I hope explains my position with regards to that matter. It seemed inappropriate to post it in this thread.Link to threadGrace,Dan/\\/\\/\\Edited to add link...

crsschk,Touch a man’s theology and see if he turns the other cheek. Jesus never commanded us to "turn the other cheek" in our theology. What is this supposed to mean?Oftentimes there is something sinful in the way he defends his doctrine."Please give an example of this.What will it take if even a "corrupt" version which still has even the most basic of basics preserved doesn't penetrate the heart?Answer: The Truth. Or we could reply with a question,"What will it take if even a "poisioned" chocolate cake which still has even the most basic of basics (flour, butter, eggs, etc) preserved doesn't bring enjoyment to the eater?Answer: A Real Chocolate Cake.If it only sits in the mind and then ends up being denied by the truth it brings by how it is represented?I don't get you here. What does this mean?What good is a perfect translation if it doesn't translate the reader?The Bible always translates (or effects) the reader. It will either propel them or draw them.And how can one argue with someone who has read a 'poorer' version but has a purer understanding?If someone has a "purer" understanding from a "poorer" version, it wasn't really the "poorer" version that is responsible for this "purity." We must give the credit to special grace from God and give Him glory. We must not use legitimize the fault of a translation based upon the grace of God. This would produce treachery of the highest degree.RT

This is not an "either or" position. It is 'both' depending on what is being discussed. It would be quite unwise to limit ones self to one particular group of manuscripts or translations when the other may have the better accuracy. If Vaticanus, Siniaticus, or Alexandrinus have any "better readings" that contain "additional information", the additional information is "new information" to us, since they necessarily would have been absent from the Christian world for about a thousand year period. Did God's words get lost?It is necessarily "either, or" because of the necessity of preservation. Was the Bible always available in it's purest form throughout history?Do you believe a pure Bible exists today? If so, please let us know where you think it is.RT

This sounds good if you have a hole in your head.