SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : ESV ?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )
PosterThread
Delboy
Member



Joined: 2004/2/8
Posts: 199
Worthing UK

 ESV ?

I'm sure the thread on the NASB will continue with gusto !
I read on a day to day basis NASB and KJV but do look at others for study/interest and preaching purposes
I wanted to start a new thread;Does anyone have thoughts on the English standard version
I read in an add in christianity today John Piper saying
" The ESV satisfies the preaching,memorizing,studying,reading needs of our church,from children to adults.We are building all our future ministry around it"
april 2004


_________________
derek Eyre

 2004/5/19 9:44Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: ESV ?

I have used the ESV a little. It comes with built-in support from the likes of J.I.Packer and others and has been heralded as the version we have all been waiting for.

I have been disappointed in it. The blurb says "It sits in the classic stream of word for word Bible translations, using the Revised Standard Version as a base but incorporating all the most recent advances in scholarship and changes in modern language use". I fail to see how anyone can regard the RSV as a word for word translation, and the ESV is not 'word for word' (literal equivalence) to anything like the extant of the NASB. However it is very readible which was one of the strengths of the RSV. The ESV claims to be an 'essentially literal equivalence' translation. It cannot be if it is based on the RSV.

If you look at footnotes in the book of Ezra in an RSV you will see it has decided that the Septuagint is preferable to the Masoretic text. (see my comments on the NASB thread). The ESV follows the same line. This means that when we say the all translations begin with the Masoretic text except the RSV we should now add and the ESV.

I have four simple tests for any new version. I look up these verses

Acts 20:28 which refers to the blood of God. If it says 'of the Lord' or tells me in the footnotes that some manuscripts have 'of the Lord' I know it is giving more weight to the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus than I like, and is following, (although at a distance) the line of the 1881 RV/ASV.

1 Tim 3:16. If the version has 'He' was manifested in the flesh rather than 'God' I know the translators have followed the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus again. (the ESV has 'He'!)

Rom 6:6 If it says anything other than 'our old man' I know that I am reading a theological interpretation rather than a strict translation. Any other translation breaks the link and contrast with 'the new man'.

1Pet 1:13 If it doesn't have a reference to 'girding up your loins' it has lost the link with the Passover (Ex 12:11)and Covnenant which is the essential foundation to 1 Peter.

The ESV fails on all these. However my version is beautifully produced with good clear text, and the text in blocks rather than separated verses (which I prefer)

just my thoughts on the matter.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/5/19 13:43Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re:

Ron,

I've recently been reading on the KJ-only (or KJ-superior) issue, and I've come to the conclusion that it's a simple matter of which text is more faithful to the autographs. I've yet to determine that, though. For the OT it's obviously the Masoretic text, but for the NT it seems a bit harder to defend the Textus Receptus. What evidence convinced you of the reliability of the TR and conversely what evidence convinced you of the unreliability of Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)?

 2004/5/19 15:00Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Received Text v Wescott & Hort

I've recently been reading on the KJ-only (or KJ-superior) issue, and I've come to the conclusion that it's a simple matter of which text is more faithful to the autographs.

Keith
You are absolutely right. This is the key to the whole discussion. Your question is the key one too; "what evidence convinced you of the reliability of the Received Text etc?"

I read the David Otis Fuller books (Which Bible and True or False) many years ago and the have tried to follow the English end of the battle. The Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are priceless but their very survival is questionable. Why did the Vatican Codex lie unused on a shelf for centuries? Why did the Sinai Codex end up in a basket of waste kindling for the monastry fires? I think the speculation that they were unused because they were untrusted is feasible.

The thought that the Church was without the true text for 1800 years and had it restored by Westcott and Hort, I find unlikely to say the least. Westcott and Hort were obsessed with things Catholic and saw the Roman Church as the purest stream; I have problems with that too. W&H concluded that the Vatican Codex was the touchstone by which all others should be judged, but it shows evidence of more than 20 editors. W&H also conlcuded that 'older' necessarily meant 'better' an illusion that is continued in the footnotes of many a modern version which say 'the best mss say...' This means the mss which are in closest agreement with the Vatican Codex say...

I have seen the Sinaiticus close up at the British Library and it is interesting to note that the copyist clearly knew of the longer ending of Mark's gospel. He has left a space of exactly the right area before he moves on to Luke. This shows that a Roman copyist made an editorial decision, and knowing that the Roman church had by this time sunk into dead tradition I am not surprised that he chose not to have the verses which spoke of the continuing work of the Spirit. But these are the mss that W&H venerated.

I have a lot of respect for the champions of the Received Text eg Christopher Wordsworth and Scrivener and have tried to follow their defence of the Received Text. Their reasoning seems logical and unstrained. I accept their views.

I have no 'killer fact' that has convinced me, rather the arguments of the Westcott & Hort camp leave me unconvinced. Their work coincided with the rationalism of the day and I think was infected by it.

I am unconvinced by the transmission philosophies of Westcott & Hort and am comfortable with the sense that the text I use has come down the centuries whole.

Is it likely that the Lord would leave the Church with inferior texts for 1800 years? Is it likely that the rationalism of Westcott & Hort would be the tool by which He restored the text to the Church? When it comes to such a major change I think the burden of proof lies with those who want to change. Westcott & Hort's 'evidence' leaves me unconvinced, so I remain 'unchanged'.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/5/19 15:44Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re:

Thank you for the detailed reply, I've encountered much of the same arguments, it's certainly a good case.

Have you read James White's "The King James Only Controversy"? He takes the anti-KJ-only side (doesn't bash the KJV, really, just refutes KJ-only), whether or not it would convince you, it has probably the best arguments on the other side.

 2004/5/19 17:36Profile
ravin
Member



Joined: 2004/5/6
Posts: 309
Washington st. u.S. A.

 Re:

Yes there is all kinds of new versions, new ones coming out every year it seems. I've read the Kingdom is in power not in word. how many of the new one's are bring out the power of the kingdom?

 2004/5/20 0:35Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Keith
No I haven't read James White. I could not support a KJV-only stance, although I do think the 1611 translators had a respect for their handling of the word of God that has never been equalled.

If you compare the KJV to the Geneva Bible (there is an e-sword module available) which is very close to Tyndale's 1536 version you can see some the changes the translators made which I could not support. In particular the changes in the monarchy seem to have caused a reverence for the status quo which has persisted in later translations to the detriment of accuracy. EG Acts 20:28 has the elder 'over' the church in Ephesus in the KJV. Tyndale and the Geneva have them 'with' of 'of'. The NASB as them 'among' the church. The preposition is 'en' in Greek which means 'within'; it could never mean 'over'. The KJV is much more authoritarian than Tyndale. There are several other issues where I think KJV is inferior to Tyndale.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/5/20 11:54Profile
KeithLaMothe
Member



Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354


 Re:

Yes, KJ-only is a good bit more than the evidence justifies.

The main reason I'd suggest reading White's book is the arguments he makes for the non-Byzantine text-types and Aleph and B in particular.

 2004/5/20 12:07Profile
Delboy
Member



Joined: 2004/2/8
Posts: 199
Worthing UK

 Re: ESV ?

Hi Ron and Keith,
thanks for the replies thers plenty to chew over keep it comming :-)


_________________
derek Eyre

 2004/5/21 4:42Profile
Chancellor
Member



Joined: 2004/7/13
Posts: 19


 Re: ESV ?

I like the ESV; though it's not as good as the NASB or the Spanish-language Reina-Valera. The fact that J. I. Packer is behind it is a significant plus. Someone suggested that the Masoretic text is preferable to the Septuagint, even though the Septuagint is what Greek-speaking churches would have used in the first century for their Bible. It's good to use several different translations (all of them formal equivalence, of course: avoid dynamic equivalence translations like the plague) and to use references such as Strong's and Thayer's.


_________________
Chancellor Carlyle Roberts, II

 2004/7/13 23:27Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy