_________________
Jeff Mollman

I am wondering what everyone thinks of the ESV? Also, the Geneva Bible is a very good translation, and thankfully it is available now for affordable prices.

I use a KJV, and find it to be a wonderful translation, yet nothing beats being able to look at the Greek and see what is "really" being said.

_________________
patrick heaviside

I recently bought a copy of the ESV journaling bible and have had fun writing all over it, since that's what it was made for.

You know, sometimes it's hard for me to put a pen to the page of one of my oxford or cambridge bibles... DL Moody would say that unless you're willing to write in a bible you shouldn't buy it.

Anyways, ESV is very good for studying the word, since it's editor was JI Packer it has a very strong reformed bend (words like propitiation might as well have been highlighted). I think JI Packer has a very strong affinity for the KJV so it shows in the final edit of the ESV.

ESV claims to be in the line of KJV and not a 'new' translation as such, I haven't run into anything that has made me think badly of it as of yet.

I traded an extra cambridge bible that I owned directly to RL Allan publishers for a copy of their ESV1. Now that's customer service -even accepting trades!

The ESV1 from RL Allan has a wonderful binding, but the typesetting and paper didn't meet my expectation.

I've heard that crossway bindings are mostly crummy, and the journaling bible's font is microscopic, but I have young eyes.

I think that ESV is a good alternative for the NIV, but not a replacement for the KJV.

_________________
Ian Smith

_________________
Jeff Mollman

ESV is the English Standard Version. You could probably liken it to the conservative evangelical response to the NRSV.

ESV claims that they stand in the line of bibles that come out of the KJV, you can read more about that here: http://www.esv.org/about/kjv

More information here:
http://www.esv.org/
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=47

_________________
Ian Smith

Another way that I've described it is 'like the NASB, but prettier... and reformed.'

_________________
Ian Smith

I just read the suggested website concerning the ESV. They are being a little bit dishonest... or they are at least not telling the whole story.

The ESV is NOT in the same vein as the KJV because it is not based on the same underlying manuscripts as the KJV. It is based on the exact same underlying text as the NIV, the NASB, the Message, etc etc etc.

It is not a Textus Receptus Bible... and they leave that out. They dont tell you that part. Instead, they make it appear to the reader that all that has changed is the language has been updated. However, when they say "[b]and significant corrections were made in the translation of key texts[/b]", that is code for "where the TR (KJV) doesnt agree with the Alexandrian Text (NIV, NASB, etc)... we went with the Alexandrian."

It does not mean they fixed translation errors... it means they superceded the TR with the AT.

While it may be in the same vein as the KJV in that they used the same translation techniques... they are [b]not[/b] translating the same thing. I could translate a John Grisham novel into French using the same translation techniques... and rightfully claim that it's in the same vein as the KJV. But it isnt the same book.

And this is why I reject the ESV. It is an excellent translation of the Alexandrian. But I reject the Alexandrian Text... so to me, that means nothing.

I found that web page to be dishonest and deceitful. They are not giving you all the facts. That to me is a red flag. Why cant the publishers just come out and tell people "Look... this is not based on the same thing the KJV is based on." They refuse to do that. And the average Christian is ignorant that there is even an issue.

But why do they hide these facts? Makes one wonder.

Krispy