Talk:English Standard Version

From Theopedia

Critical link

Please note that I am always up for links both pro and con, but I would like to call into the question the quality of the recently added link that is critical of the ESV. In a nutshell, it is not really a critique of the ESV as it is a critique of anyone who does not solely use the KJV and reject the Westcott-Hort texts used in non-KJV Bible translations. Such an argument is more appropriate to the KJV or Textual Criticism article, despite the fact that the person wants to use these arguments against the ESV. Any other opinions? Jordan Barrett (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a KJV only person myself, and it's a little bit alarming for me to read "God has preserved His infallible, inspired, pure and complete words in the King James Bible" in the review. But the ESV, endorsed by Piper, Grudem (my favorite theologians) certainly has liberal tendencies, and differs somewhat from the NASB and KJV (I'm not a bible translation expert... I don't know Greek or Hebrew, but I read my ESV, and every now and them I say, hey that's not how I remember that verse from my NASB bible, and I check the strongs numbers and say hey that's a pretty liberal translation - I don't know how you could translate it like that from those words). I just think that the ESV is overrated. And I put the link not for the KJ-only part, but because of his list of differences between the ESV/ NASB/ KJV. He does understand the translation process, and how various manuscripts read, and points out liberal tendencies in the ESV translation (relative to the NASB and KJV)... and its really there. I mean the critical review on the NASB page, pointing out a few passages, listing it as weaknesses of the NASB, doesn't even come close to weaknesses in the ESV as far as accuracy and (liberal) bias is concerned (again, relatively speaking, compared to the NASB and KJV). - avielh 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I have no quarrels with pointing out the differences between the ESV and other translations. However, what bothers me is that the article presumes the superiority of the Textus Receptus, and thus most other translations that do not use this in the same manner during their translation process (this includes the NASB) are supposedly wrong from the beginning. Can we find an article that argues that the ESV is sometimes too liberal in their translations and yet also avoids the needless arguments about why we should all stick to the KJV? Jordan Barrett (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)