<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Available editions
Review: For those who have relied upon the Revised Standard Version and have shuddered at the results of the New Revised Standard Version, this new version should be greatly appreciated. It reads very similarly to the RSV, but smoother and without the archaic pronouns and verbs in the language addressed to God. For those who desire a more conservative translation, for example Isaiah 7:14 - the "maiden" versus the "virgin" argument, the ESV serves as a more conservative version. I find it more dignified than the NIV, retaining that quality from the RSV.
I have read virtually every English translation that has been published, and this has become my favorite - one that satisfies every quality that I desire in a Bible.
Rating: 
Summary: The Bible that Jesus would read
Review: I have read through the entire ESV now, and really appreciate it as mix between a study bible and a reading bible. The word-for-word translation makes it very accurate, and yet it's translated in such beautiful language that it reads wonderfully. However, it is not a great Bible for memorization. And therefore, I plan on keeping my NIV version.
Rating:
Summary: RSV Beauty with Evangelical Accuracy
Review: I was given the English Standard Version Bible for Christmas 2003 and have been reading it daily throughout this year. I admire it for achieving two important goals in Bible translation which are not often successfully accomplished. First of all, the ESV, since its English wording is derived from the RSV, retains as much of the King James wording in a modern style as is possible. Since that is the style that many of us have memorized and learned since childhood and it is a style that lends itself to memorization, that is a good thing. Secondly, the translating committee has striven for as accurate a translation as possible. They have not opted for "dynamic equivalency", but have attempted to stay as literal as they felt English usage would allow. Now, since I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, I cannot attest to their success, but in some verses where I had been told that other translations did not achieve such accuracy, the ESV appears to have done so. And they did it in a way that makes it superior to the NASB, in my opinion. The NASB, in attempting its literalness, unfortunately also achieved an awkwardness of English style that the ESV has marvelously overcome. Thus this Bible is good for reading style and for accuracy of understanding. It is likely to replace my NIV as my standard usage Bible for the future.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding translation
Review: I've spent quite a bit of time with the ESV by now, and it is indeed one of the finest versions available, competing with the NASB for accuracy. There are indeed plenty of passages where the ESV provides a superior rendition than the NASB. But there are still plenty where the NASB is still superior to the ESV. Either way, Christions should look at either of these two translations I believe. I'll give one example of the NASB's superiority, John 7:31, ESV "When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?", NASB, "When the Christ comes, He will not perform more signs than those which this man has, will He?". In the ESV, it appears to be an open-ended question. Will he do more signs?? The NASB brings out the truer sense of the Greek construction, that surely he WON'T perform more signs. I guess this is part of the ESV's greater readability, but for this verse I'll take the NASB's accuracy. However there certainly are passages as well where the ESV wins out, so either of these two excellent translations should be bought and read.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding translation
Review: It seems that we have entered the age of designer bibles. Bibles to suit the tastes of each group or sect that finds fault with the established scholarly translations or those commissioned by churches. The NIV is making big $$$ for Zondervan, the HCSB will undoubtedly do the same for Holman and Crossway in the US and Collins in the UK will be hoping that unsuspecting purchasers will fall for their ESV translation.
So what is the ESV? Nothing more than a suitably (for some) altered and somewhat modernized version of the RSV - the very translation which was condemned and burnt by those of the same political colour as those who worked on the ESV.
In the introduction we read that "significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts". In other words, the texts have been changed to suit the tastes of a group of people. Of course, Isaiah 7:14 has been "corrected" to suit it's use in Matthew.
Quite honestly, if you want an accurate translation that is widely accepted both academically and ecclesiatically, go for the original RSV. Especially now that it has been reissued by Oxford. If you are happy with a translation that takes into consideration the whole population, then the NRSV would be a good translation.
It is strange that this translation is aimed at just those people who might tend to use the King James Version. They manage to cope quite admirably with the very archaic language of the 17th century. Strange that those for whom the ESV is intended have problems with a few thee's and thou's and a few more formal verb endings, as found in the RSV.
Everyone is free to give a framework to their belief as they see fit. Doctoring a once condemned translation of the bible is nothing short of hypocrisy.
If you really need an ultra-literal version, there is always the updated NASB.
[At the beginning i mentioned a translation commissioned by churches (rather than by individuals or groups). That is the Revised English Bible, which many Americans might find too British as far as language goes.]
Rating: 
Summary: By no means a "standard"
Review: It seems that we have entered the age of designer bibles. Bibles to suit the tastes of each group or sect that finds fault with the established scholarly translations or those commissioned by churches. The NIV is making big $$$ for Zondervan, the HCSB will undoubtedly do the same for Holman and Crossway in the US and Collins in the UK will be hoping that unsuspecting purchasers will fall for their ESV translation.
So what is the ESV? Nothing more than a suitably (for some) altered and somewhat modernized version of the RSV - the very translation which was condemned and burnt by those of the same political colour as those who worked on the ESV.
In the introduction we read that "significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts". In other words, the texts have been changed to suit the tastes of a group of people. Of course, Isaiah 7:14 has been "corrected" to suit it's use in Matthew.
Quite honestly, if you want an accurate translation that is widely accepted both academically and ecclesiatically, go for the original RSV. Especially now that it has been reissued by Oxford. If you are happy with a translation that takes into consideration the whole population, then the NRSV would be a good translation.
It is strange that this translation is aimed at just those people who might tend to use the King James Version. They manage to cope quite admirably with the very archaic language of the 17th century. Strange that those for whom the ESV is intended have problems with a few thee's and thou's and a few more formal verb endings, as found in the RSV.
Everyone is free to give a framework to their belief as they see fit. Doctoring a once condemned translation of the bible is nothing short of hypocrisy.
If you really need an ultra-literal version, there is always the updated NASB.
[At the beginning i mentioned a translation commissioned by churches (rather than by individuals or groups). That is the Revised English Bible, which many Americans might find too British as far as language goes.]
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Translation; Poor Quality Bible
Review: The English Standard Version is the RSV with about 7% changes in it, all in a conservative manner. It is an excellent Bible for reading and study. I find it ironic that the same folks who are clamouring for the ESV and how wonderful it is, would probably have set a torch to the RSV when it first appeared in 1952. The ESV is, of course, in the tradition of the Authorised Version, and one can still hear the echoes of the old KJB. It is my hope that the ESV---or the HCSB---will replace the gawd-awful NIV, and the horrendous TNIV, which has just now appeared as the completed Bible. Or, better yet, the Revised Authorised Version, or, New King James Version, which, in my opinion, excels them all. Be aware that most Crossway leather Bibles, (excepting the Deluxe Reference Bible in Genuine Leather, which is smyth-sewn) are of extremely poor quality---glue bound, and the bindings will very easily split. The British Version(Harper Collins) appears to be of better quality.
Rating:
Summary: A vast improvement over the NRSV
Review: The New Revised Standard Version has been rightfully villifed for its' poiltical correctness. It substituted "brothers and sisters" and "men and women" where the text only says, "brothers" or "men." It also did not translate Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus according to the New Testament understanding of them. The result was that the OT passages seemed to have been misunderstood by the NT authors. The result is a profound attack on the inerrancy of the Bible and the inspiration of the NT authors. It was no surprise the the NRSV was adopted widely by Episcopalians - a church in deep trouble.
The ESV aimed to remain in the poetic tradition of great English translations while maintaining orthodoxy. The result is a grand rendering of the texts. While the NASB and Christian Srandard bibles are also very accurate, they do not lend well to memorization or public reading. The ESV succeeds quite well. If you love the KJV for its high literary value but struggle with its archaicisms, the ESV is for you.
<< 1 >>
|
