I’m having a hard time convincing myself to buy an ESV Bible.
I think I’m pretty much over the old war between the ESV and the TNIV. It’s not always the easiest thing to let go of, but it’s less and less in my thought process these days. I’m trying to look at the translation for what it is, not for what its supporters did to another translation.
But when I get right down to it, I’m having a really hard time convincing myself that I should buy one. The fact is that I do own one, a hardcover pew Bible I picked up for something like $11 back when the ESV first came out. So I can read it whenever I want, except that I understand the translation has been updated a little bit since the original ESV. And you know that I really don’t care for hardcover Bibles.
So why am I even considering getting an ESV? Well, you also know that I have that old NASB that I used so hard for several years, and it’s falling apart, so I want to replace it. But I’m also realizing that I’m not only replacing a NASB, but I’m also trying to replace a formal translation Bible that was my main Bible for quite some time. I could get another NASB, but I’m not always happy with the NASB translation and it’s style of English. So I could replace it with an ESV, or maybe a NRSV. I have copies of both, but only hardcover. I’m also using the NIV and TNIV more these days, but I’m not always happy with either of those versions, either.
I figure I could use the ESV, and it would be closer to the old RSV than my NASB was, so it would be relatively easy to use in my church where the pew Bible is the NRSV, yet it would be a more “evangelical” translation, a little more in my comfort zone, so to speak.
Or…I could go with the NRSV, the pew Bible and default translation in my church; an easy-reading translation by comparison, but whose liberal scholarship makes me a little bit uncomfortable. I could live with it, but there are precious few NRSV Bibles available with a large font for easier reading, and with a nice, soft genuine leather/bonded leather/soft imitation leather cover.
I know, it’s a consumer mentality. I’m curious about the upcoming NIV next year. I’m quite happy with the NIV/TNIV translation, though not always! I’ll probably be looking to buy the new NIV when it comes out. I’m also very curious about the CEB. From what I’ve seen of it in the two downloads I have, Matthew and Genesis, it will have some rather, uh, controversial renderings, but it also will not be a simple Bible for simple-minded people. It looks like it will be a mediating translation much in the mold of the NIV/TNIV, maybe even a little more formal.
So I may just hold onto what I’m using for the time being, and check those two out when they come along in the next year or two.
But I’m still trying to like the ESV.
The Sundry Times 
I’m growing more and more dissatisfied with “essentially literal” translations. Though the HCSB is far from perfect, I’ll stick with it for now.
LikeLike
Generally speaking, people who read the ESV and/or the NASB take the Bible far more seriously than people who read the NRSV. Generally speaking.
The next time you see someone denying miracles, the virgin birth, justification by faith, Christ being the ONLY way, six day creation or the inerrancy of Scripture (among other crucial doctrines), see what translation they prefer.
I’m sure the ESV and NASB have their share of heretics using them too but I suspect the NRSV has a larger percentage.
May not be a popular comment but I suspect most know it’s true.
Go for the ESV. When the new NIV comes out you can get a copy for reference. That’s my plan.
LikeLike
You do have a good point about the NRSV, Stan. However, I don’t think we can lay too much of the blame on the NRSV. It’s really a very good translation in spite of those who sponsored it and use it. The biggest problem is that because it was sponsored by the very liberal National Council of Churches, it automatically became the darling favorite of liberal academia, and that’s why you see liberal mainliners using it so much. I don’t think it’s so much a problem with the translation itself as it is with those who use it.
LikeLike
Stan: So six-day creation is a crucial doctrine?
LikeLike
Yes.
If we are off just a few degrees in interpreting In the beginning we will be way off the mark by the time we get to the final Amen.
I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments… See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. (Colossians 2:4-8 TNIV)
LikeLike
Stan: I guess we’d need to define terms and interpretations and such, but I assume you’re referring to a literal six-day period of creation? If that’s your take, why is it essential to the Gospel and salvation? Quite curious I am!
LikeLike
Yes. A six-day period of creation which is what Scripture states very plainly. I take God’s word as truth and to deny the Scriptures is, quite frankly, to make God out to be a liar (1 John 1:10 TNIV).
I did not say belief in a six-day creation is essential to the Gospel and salvation. I said it is a crucial (important, significant) doctrine. Denial of a six-day creation is often (though not necessarily) indicative of the presence of other Bible-denying baggage.
God’s word is true. To deny its truth, even using fancy theories to do so, is dangerous.
All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. (Psalms 119:160 TNIV)
Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17 TNIV)
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15 TNIV)
Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (Proverbs 30:5 TNIV)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 TNIV)
LikeLike
Stan: Fair enough. I only worded it that way because you lumped six-day creation in with beliefs I would consider non-negotiables: denying miracles, the virgin birth, justification by faith, Christ being the ONLY way. I no longer hold to the literal six-day creation view (which does not equate to being an evolutionist), but I consider myself still to be very conservative and well within any established circle of orthodoxy.
LikeLike
I am with Jason, I have replaced the ESV with HCSB. I hardly ever read or study with the ESV anymore, my fav 3 are HCSB, TNIV & NLT.
LikeLike
I never realized there was a war between the TNIV and ESV. I found out about the ESV before I started reading Christian blogs through Wikipedia. Same with TNIV. I wanted to check out the TNIV because of the controversies. I wanted to check out the ESV because it sounded like a more formal version of the NIV — a happy medium between the NIV and KJV.
At my church we usually use the NIV. Our pew Bible is the NRSV (it is a UMC congregation), but we usually do not use it in services. I have a copy of the NRSV, but I’m not a fan of it. Mainly for the reasons Stan mentions above.
LikeLike
We’re probably close to the point where people will have iPads or similar technology, loaded up with a number of translations, and you won’t be fussed about choosing one particular translation.
LikeLike
John, this is true, and I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing. However, there isn’t anything in the world of technology quite like the feel of that leather cover in your hands and actually turning pages, etc. The physical, hard-copy Bible is not dead by far. I don’t see the techno-Bible replacing it.
LikeLike
” there isn’t anything in the world of technology quite like the feel of that leather cover in your hands and actually turning pages”
There’s an app for that.
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
Gary, get the ESV. I sneak quotes from the ESV into my sermons just to add a little more balance.
LikeLike
Kev, I’m still thinking about it. You know, one of the advantages (or disadvantages, depending on your POV) is the fact that the ESV is a revision of the RSV, and so it’s still clearly within that tradition. It’s actually closer to the old RSV than the NRSV is. Yeah, I’m still considering it.
LikeLike