18 Comments


  1. Earlier this week,  I posted about how translations deal with nearly parallel text.  I just added the ESV to my comparison.  Unfortunately, as with other translations, the ESV has identical English where the Greek is different.  (The impetus for the comparison was John Hobbins’ excellent analysis of the importance of minor differences in the texts.  I wondered if any translations made it possible to follow along without knowing Greek.  So far I haven’t found any.)

    Reply

  2. Thank you, thank you, thank you.  I love it when someone else realizes/admits/ states that sometimes the translations are not 100% literal.  (and that there are translation errors & differences between different versions)!

    Reply

  3. Joel,
    Great questions. More literal translations like NASB and ESV preserve differences more regularly than less literal translations. Also, check out the new ISV.
     

    Reply

  4. The ESV is mostly the RSV. Since I grew up with the RSV, it has a familiar ring to me. But I prefer, as you know, to go back to the originals. Ad fontes, as the Reformers said.

    Reply

  5. Not a problem, Jennifer. I have my translation preference, but I wouldn’t disparage other honest ones to secure an onlyist place for it.

    Reply

  6. Thanks, John. For some reason, I have never really liked the ESV – nothing wrong with the translation, nothing sinister or evil – just that it has a committee feel. But, on the same side, I do use the NASB for literalness. For my daily talks with my children, etc… I use the NLT

    Reply

  7. See, I like the RSV a great deal myself – which is odd since the ESV only changes it minimally – but you are right, the originals must be the source.

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!