ESV Use and Future

I have been using the ESV for about 2 months now. I use the ESV mostly for daily reading; it's a very smooth read. I still bring my NAS to church.

My ESV came with an E-bible program that has lead me into computer bible study, something that I never got into before. I'm afraid that my ESV bible may look new for a long time since it doen't travel far from my chair.

 

My primary version of choice is the NKJV. I do alot of my reading with the ESV though. I think it will become the premier version of scholars and pastors.

I think with the tNIV, alot of people are leary of the NIV. Of course, I can't stand the NIV anyway, but that is another discussion.

 

I began reading through the ESV on April 1 (my goal is to read through the Bible every three months), so I should have a more informed opinion by July.

As I posted on another thread, the ESV really hasn't taken off around here (central Illinois), at least from what I've seen. As I believe it to be an excellent translation, quite possibly the best, I do hope that changes over time.

It would help, IMHO, if the quality of the ESV Bibles available would approach the quality of the translation available. I sincerely hope, for example, that the upcoming wide margin larger print reference Bible will be of significantly higher quality than the original reference Bible. Perhaps this is one reason why the ESV hasn't really caught on with a large share of the market yet?

 

I consult the ESV from time to time, but my primary translation of choice is the NKJV. It is from my obervation that the ESV is more popular in Reformed/Calvanistic churches than in others.

 

The ESV is my primary Bible. I believe it will take a lot of time for it to truly catch on. It took a long time for the KJV, NKJV and NIV to do so. The NASB hasn't gotten the foothold it should've thanks to the poor marketing and support by Lockman. Crossway appears to be using Lockman's playbook! They need to step it up and put better bindings on the Bibles.

 

www.esvbible.org is the place to go for updates.
College Church in Wheaton (Kent Hughes, Pastor), and First Presbyterian Church in Augusta, Ga. (Ray Ortlund, Pastor) are two notable churches that have switched to the ESV. As I stated earlier, I think Piper and Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis did the same. And didn't Back to the Bible switch over to ESV, or some other national ministry? Maybe Key Life?

 

Hey, I used to the live caty-corner to College Church in Wheaton. The first (and I think only) time I went there was the night after I decided to marry my wife!

I am not suprised that Kent Hughes has adopted the ESV. He is on the oversight committee.

As to the guy who thought the ESV was more popular in reformed/calvinistic circles, I think that can be validated in that almost everyone on the oversight committee and most scholors and teachers consulted are reformed/calvinistic.

 

Up til now, Piper has used the RSV. So since the ESV is the update with the liberal bias removed, I'm sure Piper is eager to switch. He is listed under the consulted teachers section for translation.

 

Do you think that this might be perceived in a negative way by those who do not hold to reformed/calvnisitc theology? I have no idea whether it does or not, I am just curious if this might be a factor in why the ESV has not caught on in more main stream evangelical circles.

 

Liberal bias?? Where in the RSV is liberal bias? The ESV updated the 'king james language' found in part of the RSV (in prayers to God)and has taken-advantage of more-recent scholarship.

 

I don't know a whole bunch about the RSV so I could be wrong. I think the "liberal bias" was generally old testament passages that predicted Christ that were translated without that direct link. The largest example would be "the young woman will give birth", instead of "the virgin will give birth" in Isaiah 7:14. But anyway, the RSV couldn't have been all that bad if Piper continued to use it.

 

Not really. I have found that if there is anything that doesn't polarize with Bible versions, it is Calvinism/Arminism. I have heard stauch KJVO argue pro Calvinism (saying of course that the KJV shows the doctrine the strongest) as well as stauch KJVO Arminians argue the exact opposite. I know people on both sides who's favorite version was NIV, NASB, ESV, and even NLT. Since the Geneva Bible was translated by a group who would later been the core of the Puritans, I have heard it said that one of the reasons it got replaced by the KJV was for its bias towards Calvinism, yet I don't think that is true, especially considering all those who believe the KJV retains the doctrine the strongest.

I think it is a genuine fact that most scholorship done at the majoirty of more conservative seminaries is dominated by Calvinists, so a project such as this will invaridly been translated by more calvinist then not. Yet any team who is a true as possible to the original should not let their prior theolical beliefs influence them and usually they do not.

 

I use the ESV for study and reading, but have to use other translations because the ESV is not the basis for many study materials such as commentaries and study guides. That will change, but it will take time. Concerning the Reformed question. I wouldn't consider myself Calvinistic in any shape or fashion and find no problem with the ESV for whatever that counts for. Of note the RSV is now available in a 50 year anniversary edition of pretty good binding quality, not an accident I am sure.

 

I imagine that commentaries would pick it up pretty fast, since a good deal of them use the RSV for their text now. It seems to have survived in the academic world.

 

The Geneva Bible was despised by some not because of the text itself but because of the Calvinistic footnotes. As a result, the 1611 KJV had very few footnotes, in order to avoid any perceived sectarianism. Also, it is usually Bibles produced by individuals that are the most obviously biased (e.g., note the pronounced Arminianism in the LB). When a translation is done by a committee, there is usually a more concerted effort to avoid theological bias.

 

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. Yes, there are some identifiably reformed folks as translators and consultants. But by no means is this "almost all". However, I would say that all are conservative evangelicals.

John Piper and Wayne Grudem are both examples of Reformed folks who once used the RSV in their works and preaching. I think it probably has to do with familiarity than approving of the liberal bias of the RSV and its translators.

 

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying these men aprove the liberal bias. Most of my favorite Bible teachers (including the two above) have used the RSV in their writings and non of them are liberal in any strech of the word. Even so, the RSV had noticable translation "errors" that we changed when the more evangelical crowd got reigns to update the RSV into the ESV. The National Council of Churches held the publishing rights for the RSV, but gave it over to Crossway since they don't even publish it anymore, but use their flagship the NRSV as the natural update to the RSV.

I will try to find the website where all the examples of more conservative translations apear in the ESV. Give me a little time.

P.S. Wayne Grudem was on the oversight committee so naturally he should be a fan.

 

Here is a site with some comparisons

http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html

there is a side by side of Romans chapters 1-3 but at the bottom it has some of the Old Testament passages I was talking about.

 

I wasn't implying that you were accusing Piper and Grudem of approval of liberal bias, Pete. Thanks for the link!