Bible Translations

I didn't realize that the ESV was published in 2001.  And that so much has already been said about this translation.

This is what I know so far about the ESV.  It's good.  Everyone says so.
Is it as good or better than the KJV?  I'm not so sure.  The sentence structure and phrasing, at times, sound awkward.  In Mark 3:28, the ESV is the only version that used "man" instead of "men".  Also, in this verse, "children" is used when the Greek word is sons.  Hmmm.  And I thought the translators were trying for a decidely different translation than the gender-neutral ones.  :)
Genesis 12:3 doesn't sound grammatically correct with the word "him" but just weird.

Is it easier to read than the KJV?  I think that depends whether you're used to the KJV.  I am familiar with the KJV and so I don't find it difficult to read.  The archaic words are like any unfamiliar words we come across.  We look them up.

Sometimes it actually hinders to update words.  Here are the verses that the ESV uses "pregnant" instead of the archaic "with child".  I know hardly anyone says "with child" when they talk about a woman who will have a baby.  But that's exactly the whole point.  Our language will keep on changing.  The further we get away from God's truths, the more our language will reflect that.  Do my children know what "with child" means?  Of course they do.  It means that there is a baby growing within the mother.  Is it necessary to update this so that modern readers can understand?  I don't think so.  There are further implications of updating very important terms in the Bible. 

Other times when an updated word is used, the meaning just doesn't quite give the picture that is contextual.  "Awe" doesn't give the same idea as "fear".  For those who don't like it when words become too explicit and graphic?  The ESV handles it much more tamely in Ezekiel 16:25. In I Timothy 4:7, almost every translation uses "old wives' tales" but the ESV chooses to be non-sexist instead and renders it an innocuous "silly myths".  Can a Bible translation be PC? 

The ESV does not use italics to show when words were being added to the text for clarification purposes.  This may not be a big deal, but it makes food for thought, especially in cases like Psalm 53:1.  The fool may be saying, "NO! God," though the translators added, "There is no God."

Philippians 2:6 in the ESV reads, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped".  Sounds ok.  But English could be so much more precise than that.  The KJV translates this verse like this, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God".  What difference does this make?  The word "being" easily can be understood not only to mean the deity of God, but that Jesus has always existed with God.  A mountain out of a mole hill, perhaps.  Especially since most people know that Jesus is God.  Or do they?  Many people acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus, but they definitely don't want to say that He always was and forever is God.  I John 5:7 in the KJV clearly teaches the doctrine of the trinity, whereas the ESV opts out of the very important words, "these three are one" .

Something I found very peculiar was that I couldn't find some verses in the ESV.  No kidding.  I'm not talking about the NIV here.  I thought the ESV was  "the direct descendant of the historic King James Bible."   Maybe I don't understand what I read.  I couldn't find Matthew 12:47 (even the NIV had this verse), Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14,
Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Luke 9:55 (a few words were there), Luke 9:56 (again, only a few words), Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37 (This verse being left out makes me very sad.  Isn't a confession of faith in Jesus Christ so very important before baptism?), Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, I John 5:7. 

It's surprising to me how similar the ESV and the NIV translations are to each other.  In I Samuel 6:19, the number of men differs significantly from the ESV (and the NIV) with the KJV.  The ESV and the NIV also share many of the missing verses from the New Testament.  I take this to mean that the translators used the same texts to translate the ESV as did the NIV, maybe?  I understand that the ESV is based upon the RV, which does not use the same texts to translate from as does the KJV.   I didn't realize how different the ESV is from the KJV until I looked up all those verses above.  I think for me to ditch the KJV in favor of a translation that differs so widely from it, I'd have to be convinced that the translators of the KJV were in error in the texts they used in translating.  How does God promise to preserve His word but then gives different translators different manuscripts to use? 

Is the Bible just another book that we need to constantly update so that it can keep up with us?  What I see happening is different publishing companies coming up with translations catering to certain groups and to humanist philosophies.  Would anyone be surprised if publishing companies wanted to make different Bibles for money?  Why do these publishers tempt little girls to get their parents to spend more? 

The reason for this post is because of the subject matter, of course.  The Bible is God's Word and the treatment of it should be of interest to any believer.  The KJV Bible is the translation I prefer to use so the main focus of this post is in contrasting between these two versions.  The KJV will never fall out of favor, I believe.  It has withstood the test of time as a reliable English translation.  The reason I chose to explore the ESV is because there are so many good endorsements for it.  Sometimes there is a reason to switch to something new.  The reason may be that the older thing just won't serve as well.   This could be the case for the microwave oven.  It can heat and cook foods faster than a conventional oven can.  But has it been proven to cook foods as safely as a conventional oven.  I believe research shows that it does not.  But in the case of mammograms, thermography should replace it since it doesn't use radiation.  But these examples really are irrelevant to Bible translations because the Bible is in a class all by itself.  The main reason for rejecting the KJV is because of the outdated language.  The ESV website claims that, "modern readers find the KJV’s archaic words and sentence structures difficult to understand."  I really don't believe this to be an obstacle that impedes our understanding of the Bible.  The "thees" and "thous" and other archaic terms actually remind me that this is not just another book.  I need to treat God's Word with a seriousness that shows my faith in Him.  Another reason for writing this post is so that I can see that there is merit in good translations other than the KJV.  I am prone to stick with what I like.  But I've come to see that different Bible translations can be helpful.  I regularly use this online parallel Bible.  1 Corinthians 11:5 uses the word, "unveiled" in some translations, which may give a clearer picture of the headcovering in this verse. 

A certain precious young man I know (it's interesting how this little word "know" encompasses so much in the Bible.  God knows His children in the way that He loves them.  A good translation of the Bible isn't just having the right modern words, it's getting to know God through the whole counsel of God.) might say that we'll just agree to disagree about Bible translations.  That is not the point I'd like to make.  It's good to know the strengths and weaknesses of the different translations of the Bible.  And it's interesting to note that different denominations favor different translations.  It'll be funny to be known by what church you go to by the translation you carry, isn't it?  In the end, though, I'm certain that no matter how many translations come and go, God's Word will stand.