Comments on: Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version, by Mark Strauss

By: A Standardized Test for Communicative Koine Greek (Needed Resources) | καὶ τὰ λοιπά

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 08:23:17 +0000

[...] it’s all in English, and primarily tests knowledge of metalanguage and ability to translate into Biblish. Indeed, one of the problems with such a test is that it is not metalanguage-neutral, meaning that [...]

By: avengergt12

avengergt12 — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:27:29 +0000

For those that missed it, part two is found using the link near the top right which says
ESV #2, by Mark Strauss

By: Brandon

Brandon — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:58:54 +0000

Charles seems to be pretty active online in his fight for the KJV…you’re fighting the wrong battle friend…maybe try some love for fellow and caring for “the least of these”, and putting Christ first in your life (I’m pretty sure your KJV teaches that). Just a thought!

By: Which Bible do you use? | The Emerging Scholars Blog

Which Bible do you use? | The Emerging Scholars Blog — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 14:44:51 +0000

[...] ESV Study Bible. Some folks have strong feelings about the ESV, both for and against. Quite frankly, I use this Bible because it had just come out when I was in the market for a new [...]

By: GDP

GDP — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:11:18 +0000

Several concerns. First, the ESV seems to go back in some measure to the “literal” of the KJV; not a problem but an indication that the modern debate arising from a lack of appreciation for the distinctives of male, female, submission, “authority”, etc in favor of ideological gloss (mostly egalitarianism), seems to have accomplished or caused more than intended. And that leads to the second point of “another version” which signals the “imperfection” of all previous and there to the devaluation of the word to everybody. It should be noted that the Bible’s language, particularly the more literal, should not be sacrificed to modernity’s vulgarism, but should be extolled as the teaching device it is, and there to the understanding of its value as literature in terms of developing a Godly mind, capable of articulate distinction having overcome the “difficulty”, and there to its own melody, which has been left out of most of the academic discussion, particularly its language and tenor of law, something imbedded in our jurisprudence, now waning in the face of a sadly ignorant emergence of “philosophic” interpretation.

By: Nev Spencer

Nev Spencer — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 22:04:15 +0000

I think I will buy an ESV. enjoyed the debate, take the point that most of the aids are based on KJV but find it better to preach from modern versions.

By: Les

Les — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:25:03 +0000

Good for you CHarles. After all, the crowd is almost never right anyhow. Stick with the Real Deal.

By: Michael Nicholls

Michael Nicholls — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:49:12 +0000

Charles:
It also took me a long time and effort to write what I did , post links for you, and give examples of the effect the King James Bible has had on the world.

Charles, thank you for the link you posted. I did have a look at it.

Also, I appreciate the anecdotal examples you listed. They show me where you’re coming from and how you feel about the topic.

If you can’t see the obvious,

Then perhaps it’s not obvious? Generally, I like to examine the facts of an issue (studies, statistics, annotated examples), otherwise unverified experiences can be refuted by other unverified experiences. It’s not a good way to arrive at a conclusion. So I’ll just quote Peter Kirk and leave it at that:

Charles, you are entitled to your opinion, but in this case it is contradicted by the well established facts.

By: Jonathan Morgan

Jonathan Morgan — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:24:52 +0000

The biggest concern with the KJV is not that it is “too hard”, but that people interpret it wrongly. Many words have changed in meaning, and so people have three options to interpret a passage:
1. Determine the correct meaning of the word in the context and understand it.
2. Use the wording of the KJV with the meaning the word has now.
3. Pick a random meaning from a lexicon / dictionary and say that it should be translated that way.

(1) will be the correct interpretation, but takes time and often wastes time that could be better used understanding the real meaning of the passage and how it applies. Using a translation in our language saves that time.

(2) and (3) will sometimes be right, and sometimes very wrong ((3) does happen with modern translations too, but in my experience it’s not as common). (3) even gives the speaker or writer a sound of authority (they know and understand the original), which is often unjustified.

As for the ESV & Co, I find it fairly natural sounding (less NASB), but I freely admit that that’s probably because I am used to it (like many people are used to the KJV).

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:49:57 +0000

Charles, very few modern Bible translations have been translated by “people who were practically atheists”. Plenty of them have been translated by committees made up entirely of good evangelical Christians, more than can be said for the KJV translators. Westcott and Hort are irrelevant as they have not translated any modern versions and their textual work is only marginally involved. Why don’t your enquire about the spirituality of Nestle, Aland, Karavidopoulos, Martini and Metzger? They are the editors of the UBS Greek New Testament, which is what modern translators actually use.

I accept that there has been a lot of good fruit from KJV, but also a lot of bad fruit, as we can tell from the wars and breakdown of society in the 20th century, not to mention previous centuries.

If you can name famous missionaries that have accomplished great missionary works and miracles using the NIV, NASB, NRSV, the
Message etc,. please do name them.

Of course I can’t, because cross-cultural missionaries usually cannot use ANY English translations, they need translations into the language of the people they are reaching. As for miracles, can you tell me of any miracles performed in the name of KJV, rather than in the name of Jesus?

But I agree with this part of what you wrote:

The wording funny and unnatural, sounding more like English that is dubbed into Japanese movies. Especially the ESV and NRSV also the NASB. Very difficult to follow, and many of the words, instead of being simplified, have been made more difficult to understand.

Good modern translations are written in good modern English, not in the pseudo-archaic form sometimes found in these three versions.