22 years ago I became a Christian. The brother who had been witnessing to me gave an NLT. That book was so alive, and verses were jumping of the page and I learned so much about God, I couldn’t put it down! I later moved to the NIV for a short time and then settled with the NKJV. I even spent some time with a group of KJV only, which was not a good experience. Today, I own a copy of most of every translation and currently reading the ESV. My point in all this, read a bible you can understand, for the power of the word of God is in its application. God bless you all!
I use the NASB95 for personal use. My church (Presbyterian) uses the ESV. In my opinion the ESV is the best modern english translation for a church setting. It's accurate, elegant, flows well and is easy to read. Blessings mate.
KJV, NKJV, NASB 95, and Berean Bible are my favorite. The ESV will continue having revisions after saying they would not when they first came out with their first version of the translation.
Whenever i think about the ESV, I always associate it with CSB. The reason is when I was getting my bachelors in the early 2000s, a lot of people who liked the NASB agreed that it gets choppy in places. Around 2004ish, the CSB began appearing among the students and was getting a lot of discussion in local churches. It was about 2008ish, when I remember the ESV coming into conservative churches like a powerful wave. I just remember that whatever attention the CSB was getting was swept aside by the popularity of the ESV. I personally really like the NASB, but I often use the ESV, as well. (Just for reference, I too have experience with Koine Greek. These days, a lot of my NT devotional reading is with my Greek NT.) While I am a Reformed/calvinist-minded believer, I will say that any and every translation does some interpretive leg-work. I will admit that the ESV does more than a little interpretive leg-work, especially in NT passages; and I would say that the interpretive push is not so much Calvinistic, but more of a Covenent Theology drift. Again, there is no translation that is not doing some interpretive work. It's just another reason to put in the time and learn Biblical languages.
@@Sad_Cat_Epiphany great comment! I agree with you, all translation involves interpretation on some level, regardless of how formal the translation may be.
The ESV has been my primary (though certainly not only) translation for several years now. I love its combination of literary elegance with formal accuracy. I confess I've always been a bit confused by its especial popularity with Calvinists, as I don't really perceive any doctrinal bias in the text. I suspect your theory is correct--it has more to do with the personalities connected to the ESV than the actual translation. I rely on several translations, but while I have plenty of love to share with various Bibles, I seem to always come back to the ESV more often than any other. Because of this, I am very disturbed by rumors of a revision which could happen in the near future. I desperately hope this either doesn't happen or is of a very minor nature. Thanks again for a great and insightful video.
As a Calvinist and deacon in a Reformed Church I am NOT a fan of the ESV (among other translations) for many reasons but mainly for one essential point: John 3:16 translates “one and only son” rather than “only-begotten Son”, undermining the cornerstone doctrine of Christiandom namely the eternal nature of the Lamb. Instead of falling into the status quo Believers need to critically think about how God has revealed Himself to us through His Word. NKJV all the way 😊❤️
@@todddale7041 I’ve noticed that with other translations. “Only Begotten of the Father” is the language and proper Christological point. I personally like the NKJV because it’s the majority text and matches the language of the early creeds.
I’m not reformed/Calvinist and my whole family is Baptist so the ESV is the translation I’m the most familiar with and I love it, I love the way it reads and I don’t have any reservations recommending it
My church is near SBTS so the seminary guys always had the ESV. It was the cool people Bible. Now I’m seeing more of the CSB. The proliferations of translations makes it difficult to teach Sunday school .
Loving these "Casual Conversation" series on certain bibles; continue doing them. Make that video about certain passages, Id watch. Also, not sure if you already did but making a video about CBGM would be cool, I hear its pretty important. I primarily use the ESV, but I also like the LSB, and NASB95, and the KJV because of its beauty. You're theory about why Calvinists glaze the ESV is pretty solid, I was just told to read the ESV when I became a Christian and adopted that, and then progressively learned that its a great translation but also learned to use others as well.
Before learning greek, esv is what I would pretty much always read. I still use it in settings where I need to read aloud. I love how formal the esv is. It forces you as the reader to do more work in understanding things like idioms, but that can be a good thing. I have problems in occasional places with the esv, but its still my favorite English Bible, mostly for centimental reasons
All English translations have a bit of interpretation. The fact is, there are Greek words that simply don’t translate to English at all, so you have to try “translate” the best possible English meaning. Some translations have an obvious Reformed slant.
Great video. I'm not a calvinist but I have used the ESV for a decade simply because I grew up surrounded by Calvinists lol. I love the translation. I have yet to see a "calvinist bias" translation decision in the ESV that wasn't also in the RSV. And I dont think the RSV translators had a calvinist bias.
I would very much enjoy seeing a video from you in regards to the ESV translator's choices in the text to fit a Calvinist or Complementarian view. Thanks so much. Enjoying the "Casual Conversation" format, keep it up!
@@ThecrosseyedTexan This thread is not the place to get into a discussion on this. There are tons of videos on RUclips that talk about the Calvinist leanings in the ESV Translation. DO some homework for yourself.
I am in exactly the same place. I have read the KJV and ESV through the most, followed by the RSV. I have read the NASB 1977 through and the NKJV through as well as the NET, NLT, CSB and TNIV. Overall I like the ESV, but the KJV is the one I reach for when doing serious study. I just grew up with the KJV, so it’s my go-to.
I stuck with the NASB for many years. But the ESV has a more artful flow, while retaining a close word for word translation. It's up to pastors to inform their congregations of the theological, historical, and cultural contexts described in the texts.
It is not coincidental that the Young, Restless, Reformed movement of the early 2000s and the introduction of the ESV (2001) occurred at the same time. I would add that the ESV Study Bible's release in 2008 supercharged its popularity amongst the Reformed. I still consider it the standard by which all study Bibles should be compared to. Also, there wouldn't be the success of the ESV if it wasn't for the marketing of its publisher, Crossway. They do the best to offer a great product for a reasonable price in multiple versions. One reason I prefer the ESV is because of the longevity I believe that it will have over, let's say, another excellent translation such as the LSB. The 2016 update is often used as a case in which the ESV translating team puts their theological perspectives first prior to translating. Genesis 3:16b: "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you." The use of the word "contrary" was highly controversial, as some were making claims that they were trying to make a theological point on the Complementarian view. Now, the Hebrew word can be translated as "contrary," but it hasn't been translated this way in most, if not all, versions of the Bible.
The "New Calvinist" movement in the early 2000's through about 2017 is the main catalyst for it's popularity in reformed and calvinist circles. The "celebrities" of that movement almost exclusively used it. Plus, idk a single other publisher that has as many options or editions as Crossway. Side note: most English translations exists because publishers don't want to pay royalties to other companies for constantly quoting the translations in their books.
I am a former Calvinist, and I like the ESV. But I will probably always prefer the NASB 95 because that’s what our pastor preaches from and we’ve been at our church for about 15 years. I’m just so used to the NASB 95. Edit to add: I love the background of this video!
Something that i thought of when you were discussing the use of italics is that while i like them and understand why they are there i could see it being a stumbling block for those who dont know greek and are wondering why these translators are taking the liberty to “insert” words that aren’t there. On the one hand i appreciate the transparency and on the other it could potentially be an unnecessary stumbling block for some
Hi John: Just read the ESV for the first time, in 230 days, last year. Enjoyed this casual video today. But I would indeed like a more scholarly treatment, as you suggest, to follow up on today's.
As a legally blind person my biggest problem with ESV/crossway is there complete lack of large and giant print Bibles. I've had to buy a large and giant print Bibles for 50 years. I have a 13-point font in every translation I own NIV, CSB, NASB both 2020 and 95. The two ESVs I have on the 12 point font in the other one is a 17! I can just barely read the 12 point font in the 17 point font waste almost 6 lb! Lol.
I really like these casual videos! I would like to see a more in depth video on the ESV as you mentioned. I'd like your opinion on the updates to the ESV - it seems to me that it is updated much too often and I get nervous when we start 'changing' the Bible but I get why they happen. Also would like to hear your thoughts on the NET. Thanks
My preference for the ESV started because it was set with paragraphs rather than the artificial verse by verse. But I still have always liked the NASB. And now it's not that hard to find a NASB the is paragraph format. We definitely live in a time of wealth in translations. We just need to read them, or at least one.
I would just like to give you a word of encouragement my friend. I am Reformed, and though you are not, you handle yourself with grace and kindness and humility. I very much appreciate that, especially today where you just see the complete vitriol of people claiming to be Christians on both sides. Thank you for your level headed approach. May the Lord bless you and your family my young brother. Also, where are you posting this video from??
I love the ESV. Beautiful language used while being accurate. I like the use of Steadfast Love for Hesed instead of Lovingkindness. It shows the endurance of God's love. The only verse that gets me a little is Revelation 13:9. The "before" instead of "from" is a little twist I don't think the original language says. It doesn't effect doctrine at all but not needed.
@@JohnMiles117 Still a great translation. That was Packer probably getting away with what he could, lol. Still think he was a great brother of the faith even though I don't agree with him on everything.
Great thoughts. Your theory is pretty right on. I use an ESV because the guy who discipled me early on and helped me become established in the faith handed one to me, and he was a PCA guy who also loved Piper and Packer. For me, I was in the Vineyard church for years and now have been in the PCA for years, so I’m somewhat of a mixed bag 😂 but definitely more on the reformed side of things. The ESV is home base for me, and the CSB, NIV84, and now the NASB (thanks in no small part to you) are always close by. As always, I appreciate your approach that is both kind to other view points than your own yet self-diffentiated enough to take a stand on your own views. It’s almost like people with different viewpoints can be friends… 🤔
@@tylersole8994 that's awesome brother! Vineyard and the PCA? that is a mixed bag. I'm so glad you liked the vid and that you like the NASB as well. Btw, we can totally be friends lol 😂
@@JohnMiles117 Yes sir, my first church was a Vineyard, and I was a member there for about 5 years. I was very involved with a evangelism/disciple campus ministry at the same time that was ran by some PCA guys. When I moved to a different town I became a member of the PCA church for the last ten years. I see God's plan and kindness all over that history in that He didn't really allow me to develop some kind of denominational arrogance when I was most vulnerable to such things, not that I'm not vulnerable to sin now. I joke with people that the Vineyard taught me to love my neighbor while the PCA taught me to love the Word. Of course they both did both! I will add that that no one in the PCA has told me to turn my guitar down yet during worship either. 😂
New subscriber, recently stumbled across your video about the family NAS Pitt Minion. We are of similar mind in approach, and same goal. God Bless Bro. Miles!
I really enjoy the esv. If your going to investigate the esv and compare it to the nasb you should compare it then to the kjv. Some of the calvinistic leaning passages read in my opinion almost the same in the kjv.
I’d love to see you do a more in depth video on “disputed” verse/passages. I grew up with the KJVAV and it’s my daily driver. That being said, whenever I don’t fully understand something, I will check other translations to gain insight.
You actually ended up answering a question before I asked it, but what are your thoughts about the pros and cons of the NRSV? I have one that I read through Leviticus with alongside my KJV and wow it helped me understand so much.
Just some random thoughts to add to everything John wisely said... 😊 1. It's quite possible the ESV would never have taken off, or at least not as much as it did, if it hadn't been for John Piper so zealously recommending it. This was also right around the time of the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement in the early 2000s. And of course Piper was one of the biggest names in the YRR movement. And Piper has said that he grew up on the KJV (like most in his generation), but when the RSV came out, he loved it (despite its reputation as a liberal Bible translation at the time), and he latched onto the RSV for the next decsde or two. However it eventually went out of print or wasn't widely available, and Piper didn't like the NRSV at all saying it was too politically correct, and so he switched over to the NASB for his congregation, but he was nefer fully satisfied with the NASB since he regarded it - as its stereotype would suggest - wooden and stilted. Piper was a lover of literature and literary beauty, and if I recall he even taught literature (especially poetry) at the college level prior to becoming a pastor. Thus when the ESV came out in 2001 Piper loved it and immediately said that gis RSV had returned! And Piper went on to recommend it to hos congregation as well as all the Desiring God events and other venues with the YRR. So i think Piper played a big role in how well the ESV sold among Reformed Christians. 2. Of course, Crossway was very aggressive in its marketing as well. Not saying this is a bad thing or wrong or anything, just stating an observation. Zondervan has been the same with the NIV. 3. I agree the gender debates over the NRSV are perceived to be a problem for conservative evangelical Christians. Although probably less so today in light of other conservative evangelical Christian Bible translations willing to use more gender inclusive or accurate language now (e.g. NIV 2011, NLT, CSB, NASB 2020). I think one of the most egregious examples of this in the NRSV is 1 Tim 3:2 where the NRSV has "married only once" which is simply not at all faithful to the koine Greek. It's plausible the NRSV translation is due to wishing to allow female overseers or "bishops" as they translate it. 4. Also the NRSV tends to translate Old Testament Messianic passages less explicitly than, say, the ESV. The ESV almost goes in the opposite direction and translates Messianic passages quite explicitly, so much so that the ESV may be the Bible most ideal for "seeing Jesus" in the Old Testament, though that has its issues inasmuch as it overemphasizes the fulfillment in one direction when a prophecy could have multiple fulfillments (including Jesus). Of course, one can still "see Jesus" in the NRSV's Old Testament but it's less explicit. That is likely due to the influence of the Jewish scholars on the NRSV translation committee. 5. I think it's true the ESV is more literary than the NASB or most other translations. That's in large part due to having Leland Ryken as the literary style editor for the ESV. That said, as CS Lewis pointed out in his introduction to the JB Phillips New Testament translation, literary beauty exalts, but literary beauty also lulls. For example, when the reader should be feeling horror and grief in reading a biblical passage (say about how Jesus was treated in the events leading to his crucifixion), instead the reader is lulled by the literary beauty and feels a kind of comfortable sacred solemnity. In any case, we shouldn't necessarily prize literary beauty above, say, acuracy or readability or other factors. Beauty is important - for instance beauty can be an aid to memorizing Scripture - but beauty is not all important. 6. As far as I know, the most controversial passages in the ESV are the ones which supposedly skew complementarian (e.g. Gen 3:16, Rom 16:1, Rom 16:7). I don't think that's entirely fair to on the ESV, because I think there are reasonable arguments to translate certain passages the way the ESV has translated them (e.g. Denny Burk has a good post about how the ESV 2016 translates Gen 3:16, and Burk favors the NASB as his English translation), even if I don't agree entirely with the arguments. But I don't think it's fair to say the ESV is translating out of prejudice. 7. Also, due to the influence of systematic and historical theologians on the ESV translation committee (e.g. JI Packer, Wayne Grudem), there is supposedly a bias in the ESV towards certain theological positions (e.g. eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father). There was even a huge debate among many conservative evangelicals about this back in 2016 around the same time the ESV 2016 was released. Personally I don't detect this bias of it exists. And in any case I doubt the average Christian layperson would detect it. But I guess it's worth mentioning. 8. I generally like and use the ESV, though I like and use the NASB too. For me, I think the biggest distinctive between the two is the formatting. The NASB capitalizes divine pronouns, uses italics for words that aren't in the Greek but "added" in the English, uses small caps for OT quotations in the NT, has an asterisk to indicate a particular tense in the original Greek, has more extensive footnotes than the ESV, and has other little helps or aids for the serious student of the Bible. The ESV doesn't have any of these except for the footnotes but still not as extensively as the NASB. In this respect, the NASB comes across more as a reference Bible, or perhaps a very light study Bible, whereas the ESV is more friendly for just having an enjoyable reading experience. To be fair, I think both serve well as studying and/or reading Bibles, it's not a huge difference to me, but more of a slight emphasis or tendency towards one over another. The NASB 2020 is quite good as a reading Bible too, I think, perhaps better than the ESV in terms of clarity and naturalness, whereas the ESV is better in terms of literary beauty. Anyway, just my opinion, that's all! 😊
Interesting, if I had to pick a critical text I would take an esv or nasb. I’m torn between them especially after the 2020 update. Been looking at different esv bibles there’s so many to choose from it can be overwhelming. Think I may get a schulyer or Cambridge esv with apocrypha.
I actually enjoy using the ESV over other translations for presenting arguments against Reformed soteriology. Definitely a great translation, just not my personal go to.
i would take a firm stand on a particular english translation (like the "king james only" crowd) IF i saw a marked difference in behavior/fruit of the Spirit of those who used a certain translation. I do not see any difference in changed lives.
I’m not a Calvinist and don’t own a ESV or ever will I have read different passages in the ESV and compared it with other versions and the ESV does lean more toward reform theology and omits crucial verses too numerous to go through. I use mainly NKJV but also enjoy reading the KJV and NASB 95 . Everyone has their favorite version I think that’s great main thing is you read the Bible and study with different translations, interpretations should always be the same in every version but translations can be different, we don’t want to change the meaning of a passage
Well said, as always! One of the things I’ve realized is that I don’t have the highest of reading level. I found this when trying to read the ESV, NKJV and such. I prefer the ESV over the NKJV, but I tend to like the more dynamic stuff. CSB, NET, MEV, NLT. I would love a more in depth analysis of the “leanings” of translations. I know the ESV adds a masculine pronoun in Romans 12: 7-8 that isn’t in the original Greek. A lot of translations do that. The CSB does not, which doesn’t surprise me. The CSB is one of the only ones that translates John 3:16 correctly in my opinion. Anywho, enough rant, well done, John!
Love your videos. Do you ever plan to do videos on the csb or the niv? I learned some biblical Greek at bible college and it softened my view towards “non literal” translations. I now actually find myself using the csb and niv11 more than the nasb, esv, or the lsb.
@@ashleymallard that's fantastic, I actually am planning on making a video for both of those translations. Probably the csb first but after that I want to do the NIV.
Bottom line on the ESV. A group of men see an emerging trend. Revisions of modern translations are move in the direction of egalitarianism, like the popular NIV which had been revised in 2002. They wanted a new revision that they could weaponize againt this trend. The most expedient strategy was to get permision to revise a derelict translation, e.g., the 1971 RSV. This project was not undertaken to improve accuracy or preserve reformational tradions. The singular goal was to preserve patriarchy.
Do you think that with the overwhelming amount of bible translations to choose from, people collect translations rather than sticking to one version and reading the Bible wholly?
@@Wayfarerpilgrim definitely. That's a problem that can happen for sure. That's why I think everyone should pick one translation that they can know and trust, and use another for reference.
My main gripe, and one I notice that Reformed and not KJV only complain about, is the treatment of Daniel 9 in the ESV when it comes to the timeline of the 70 weeks prophecy and how many, and when, the anointed one(s) will come. The ESV breaks the prophecy to have two anointed ones coming at different points in the timeline. Pretty glaring error, that never seems to be mentioned at large or corrected.
Calvinist here. And I’ve generally stuck with the KJV and NKJV. ESV is okay, I prefer it better than NASB, but the one I really don’t like is the LSB. LSB just feels like Master’s Seminary Version. It does nothing for me that the ESV or NASB don’t already do other than tinker with the Tetragrammaton in many places by adding vowel points. It to me is completely unnecessary and I’m a Calvinist who attends a MacArthur adjacent church.
@JohnMiles117 Yes we just started on first Sunday of Advent which is the start of the new liturgical year. Prior to that we were using the Jerusalem Bible which is a translation from French....very beautiful but not so useful for theological study. But the Catholic Church being universal has a drawback...very hard to change translations! We finally did it, and I doubt we'll be doing it again at least for 100 years.
@joeobrien5566 Definitely raised some eyebrows around our Archdiocese. But you know the Catholic Church puts a lot of effort into being ecumenical and reaching out to our separated brethern. Personally I like the Jerusalem translation and that is my own bible translation which I will continue to use. But it is handy having a bible that matches the lectionary if you are a reader at mass etc....still we have all translations on our smartphones now!
At least in the US, the ESV was modified in some verses and with the addition of the deuterocanonical books to satisfy Catholic criticism to create the ESV-CE which has been approved by the Catholic Church.
Not a Calvinist but I enjoy the ESV. It confuses me that it is called the Calvinistic translation. The ESV leaves 1 Peter 1:1 as very Jewish where other translations remove the Jewishness . Wouldn't a Calvinistic version make 1 Peter sound more likes it was written to the Church instead of Jewish believers living outside Israel? ( Like the NASB for example).
Luving this Bible translation series you got going man! I'm an ESV guy and not a calvinist. The ESV may have started out more heavily used in reformed circles, but at this point it's one of the most popular translations of the Bible period. I believe a lot of Lutherans tend to use the ESV as well; pretty sure the Missouri Synod, one of the largest Lutheran denominations, tends to use the ESV in it's resources.
@@cody5879 it's funny you say that, because it's true that it does have the reputation for being for only reformed guys, you're so right that honestly I think it's probably one of the top translations used by the majority of Christians. It's so common nowadays
I personally think think the ESV study Bible is to thank/blame for this - its such a good 1 volume resource for the 'common man' and the diagrams/charts help - I think this helped popularize the translation as a whole
my son became as Presbyterian.. once he married and started having kids... but we No longer communicate.. cuz they think it is OK to sprinkle infants in baptism... I AM NOT OK with this....
I’m reformed (Calvinistic soteriology) and love both the ESV and the 95 NASB. But RC Sproul John MacArthur used to preach out of NKJV version. I prefer the ESV for memorization and the CT manuscript consideration used in translation. I’m always dismayed at both hyper Calvinists and hyper Arminians. They divide the body of Christ. I came through Calvary Chapel on my faith journey and hold Chuck Smith in high regard. I believe all good modern translations have been influenced by reformed people as many are reformed. In my PCA church there are folks more Arminian than Calvinistic. And we function together in harmony. Appreciate your irenic handling of this and other matters you’ve covered. In Christ we stand united.
@@Watamelon-yx1mj thanks. I deliver headstones for a living, and a lot of the cemeteries I go to are very rural and along these beautiful views. So I just pull off on the side of the road and make three videos.
Awesome! I recently bought a english bible and looked alot online about translations and then went for a NKJV. Finding your youtube channel changed my mind a bit and i wouldn't say i regret buying this version, but i definitely want to try different translations sooner then i planned.. so i rip my money thanks to you i guess LOL (joking), but ill first really read this as reading the bible is more important than the translation anyway. Hope you keep making videos
@@Watamelon-yx1mj don't regret it. The nkjv is a fantastic translation! But you are right, it's good to use multiple translations. I will, definitely plan on making more videos!
I wonder if the Apostles spoke Shakespearean English? “A person who truly understands the gospel of grace.” That comment at best is simplistically wrong, and at worst leads one to think that there is no salvation outside of the KJV.
In italics to join sentences. The fact remains the the versions are different, which one is correct, remember the first thing Satan did was to question God's word, just like all these versions do.
Brother I'm 69 several years ago my church switched from Kjv to NASB 95 in 1996 I bought a current NIV.... I love it. I hear from many that its missing verses....it's for kids it's gender neutral ....and it's a corrupt translation. My research debunks all that. I am using it now for my bible reading. What say you about the current NIV ?
@@procop4063 that's fantastic! The current NIV isn't my favorite ( I prefer the NIV 84) but by no means is it corrupt. It's a great Bible that you can trust!
I think you need to make a video showing examples and using the KJV.. to explain... why the Calvinistic principles are easier to determine from the KV wording more so than ANY other translation..
Some of the more fringey KJV onlyists (Ruckman and Riplinger) really hate calvinist theology. I wonder what they would think if they knew that the translators on the KJV were mostly reformed/ Puritan 🤔. I have really enjoyed this casual conversation series, im glad youtube decided to show me your videos!
TLDR; Evangelicalism vs Liberalism is a better reason behind why the ESV did so well. Neutrality is a myth and the problem of secular feminism in the church is why the ESV exists and why it's so cOnTrOvErSiAl. lol . . . . I loved the video and I love hearing your random thoughts about this stuff, brother. The question I'm asking about translations these days is more over how much influence from liberalism and feminism does a translation have. With this in mind, it makes a lot more sense as to why translations like the ESV have done so well is because it marketed itself as a translation that went in a more evangelical/complimentarian direction as opposed to the NIV which leaned harder into a liberal egalitarian direction. Not as much as the NRSV, but definitely not far off. This could also explain why the KJV and NKJV continue to do well. The NRSV knows their market: Liberal universities, egalitarian denominations and progressives. Whereas the ESVs market is Evangelical Collages, bible believing denomination and more conservative christians. I think this conversation is more the reason why the ESV has been so popular. We've also seen this in regards to the NASB2020/LSB divide. NASB went more egalitarian while the LSB went more evangelical/complimentarian. Moral of the story is that your bible translation will either leverage modern linguistics and liberalism to promote atheistic opinions and feminism or it will promote the authority of God's word opposed to the demonic and worldly philosophies of the modern world. Neutrality is a myth. Secularism is not a neutral opinion and therefore it shouldn't be promoted as an objective/unbiased assessment or engagement of the word of God.
This is where the importance of the KJV comes into play. Because for centuries it has been a mostly trustworthy rendering. So when in doubt about whether a translation leans too much to Calvinism, complimentarianism (which I’m still not certain what that even is), etc., check it against the KJV. Or better yet check it against the OL’s. Personally, if the Bible Gremlin robbed my office tonight, and left me with only three translations I’m good with these three: KJV, NASB and ESV.
@@thescarletandgrey2505 great point. ( Complementarianism is the view that women should not be in a leadership role, as far as teaching in the church) The opposite of that would be egalitarianism.
Calvinists do not believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit as mentioned namely in 1 cor 12-14, Acts and other places. They do not have one iota of biblical text specifically saying God did away with his spiritual gifts to the church. Calvinists actually call these grace gifts satanic, if they are being manifested today, which is borderline unpardonable sin!
There's no salvation outside of christ and his true word in English is the kjv, and to say did the apostles speak Shakespearen English was just stupid, iam sure God was aware the we here would be speaking English and needed the word in English. Like I said the versions are all different, which one is correct? Iam a reformer and I wouldn't touch any version except the kjv.
I think the ONLY bible translation for a TRUE Calvinist is the KJV.... the ESV.. is too "wimpy" for me and does NOT support the Calvinistic viewpoint as well as the KJV... the church I am attending now.. believe in Calvinistic principles as well.. but they read from the NASB95 edition.. which I feel is VERY WEAK.. in relation to the KJV... If I could find a church close by that preached from the KJV.. I would be GONE in a heartbeat...but the nearest Other church. that preaches bible truths.. reads from the ESV.. and one of the teachers there... used to teach the teens at a former church I went to before it closed due to the death of our pastor....snd he totally messed up those teens minds.. with his.. un biblical teachings.. such as teaching children they did NOT have to obey their mother and father... and they needed to rebel.. etc... And I think the pastor is bisexual...
22 years ago I became a Christian. The brother who had been witnessing to me gave an NLT. That book was so alive, and verses were jumping of the page and I learned so much about God, I couldn’t put it down!
I later moved to the NIV for a short time and then settled with the NKJV. I even spent some time with a group of KJV only, which was not a good experience. Today, I own a copy of most of every translation and currently reading the ESV.
My point in all this, read a bible you can understand, for the power of the word of God is in its application. God bless you all!
@@j.a.c.7191 Amen!! Well said!
Right now, I read the NKJV and the NLT or NET.
I get your point that people should read the bible they understand, but equally important is the translation which is more precise.
I use the NASB95 for personal use. My church (Presbyterian) uses the ESV. In my opinion the ESV is the best modern english translation for a church setting. It's accurate, elegant, flows well and is easy to read. Blessings mate.
@@reformedaussie thanks brother!
What’s the correlation of Australia becoming leftist in govt and more reformed Calvinists appearing?
@@truthseeker5698 I have no clue 😂
@@truthseeker5698none... reformed people are not left
The biggest problem with the ESV is the ESV changes the text too often. Apparently an update is scheduled for 2025.
KJV, NKJV, NASB 95, and Berean Bible are my favorite. The ESV will continue having revisions after saying they would not when they first came out with their first version of the translation.
I love the Berean Standard Bible!
To this list I just add HCSB and NET, to be true
Whenever i think about the ESV, I always associate it with CSB. The reason is when I was getting my bachelors in the early 2000s, a lot of people who liked the NASB agreed that it gets choppy in places. Around 2004ish, the CSB began appearing among the students and was getting a lot of discussion in local churches. It was about 2008ish, when I remember the ESV coming into conservative churches like a powerful wave. I just remember that whatever attention the CSB was getting was swept aside by the popularity of the ESV.
I personally really like the NASB, but I often use the ESV, as well. (Just for reference, I too have experience with Koine Greek. These days, a lot of my NT devotional reading is with my Greek NT.) While I am a Reformed/calvinist-minded believer, I will say that any and every translation does some interpretive leg-work. I will admit that the ESV does more than a little interpretive leg-work, especially in NT passages; and I would say that the interpretive push is not so much Calvinistic, but more of a Covenent Theology drift.
Again, there is no translation that is not doing some interpretive work. It's just another reason to put in the time and learn Biblical languages.
@@Sad_Cat_Epiphany great comment! I agree with you, all translation involves interpretation on some level, regardless of how formal the translation may be.
The ESV has been my primary (though certainly not only) translation for several years now. I love its combination of literary elegance with formal accuracy. I confess I've always been a bit confused by its especial popularity with Calvinists, as I don't really perceive any doctrinal bias in the text. I suspect your theory is correct--it has more to do with the personalities connected to the ESV than the actual translation. I rely on several translations, but while I have plenty of love to share with various Bibles, I seem to always come back to the ESV more often than any other. Because of this, I am very disturbed by rumors of a revision which could happen in the near future. I desperately hope this either doesn't happen or is of a very minor nature. Thanks again for a great and insightful video.
@@Paladin12572 well said!
As a Calvinist and deacon in a Reformed Church I am NOT a fan of the ESV (among other translations) for many reasons but mainly for one essential point: John 3:16 translates “one and only son” rather than “only-begotten Son”, undermining the cornerstone doctrine of Christiandom namely the eternal nature of the Lamb. Instead of falling into the status quo Believers need to critically think about how God has revealed Himself to us through His Word. NKJV all the way 😊❤️
@@todddale7041 good insight. I love the NKJV
@@todddale7041 I’ve noticed that with other translations. “Only Begotten of the Father” is the language and proper Christological point. I personally like the NKJV because it’s the majority text and matches the language of the early creeds.
@ I agree…amen brother! The Lamb reigns victorious! 😊❤️
I’m not reformed/Calvinist and my whole family is Baptist so the ESV is the translation I’m the most familiar with and I love it, I love the way it reads and I don’t have any reservations recommending it
My church is near SBTS so the seminary guys always had the ESV. It was the cool people Bible. Now I’m seeing more of the CSB. The proliferations of translations makes it difficult to teach Sunday school .
@@phil3924 that can be a downside, the market i think is oversaturated
Loving these "Casual Conversation" series on certain bibles; continue doing them. Make that video about certain passages, Id watch. Also, not sure if you already did but making a video about CBGM would be cool, I hear its pretty important.
I primarily use the ESV, but I also like the LSB, and NASB95, and the KJV because of its beauty.
You're theory about why Calvinists glaze the ESV is pretty solid, I was just told to read the ESV when I became a Christian and adopted that, and then progressively learned that its a great translation but also learned to use others as well.
@@puritanpioneer1646 haven't done one on CBGM yet, but I'd love to make one. Thank you so much!
Before learning greek, esv is what I would pretty much always read. I still use it in settings where I need to read aloud.
I love how formal the esv is. It forces you as the reader to do more work in understanding things like idioms, but that can be a good thing. I have problems in occasional places with the esv, but its still my favorite English Bible, mostly for centimental reasons
So good... always look forward to your videos... so informative!!!
@@patrickmiles2475 thank you so much!
All English translations have a bit of interpretation. The fact is, there are Greek words that simply don’t translate to English at all, so you have to try “translate” the best possible English meaning. Some translations have an obvious Reformed slant.
I’ve used the ESV, NASB, NLT, NIV, NKJV, and KJV. Im soon going to get the NET(w/full notes) and ride that one for a while.
Catholic here. ESV is my go to translation for my personal bible. I like to have a NASB 95 handy when doing closer reading.
Definitely not Calvinist only. I'm Lutheran (LCMS) and my church uses the ESV. 🤷♂️
Great video. I'm not a calvinist but I have used the ESV for a decade simply because I grew up surrounded by Calvinists lol. I love the translation. I have yet to see a "calvinist bias" translation decision in the ESV that wasn't also in the RSV. And I dont think the RSV translators had a calvinist bias.
@@nathanielotto258 exactly! Glad you noticed that.
I would very much enjoy seeing a video from you in regards to the ESV translator's choices in the text to fit a Calvinist or Complementarian view. Thanks so much. Enjoying the "Casual Conversation" format, keep it up!
@@mikelilley thank you so much! I'm working on that video now
I agree!
How exactly does it lean calvinist?
@@ThecrosseyedTexan This thread is not the place to get into a discussion on this. There are tons of videos on RUclips that talk about the Calvinist leanings in the ESV Translation. DO some homework for yourself.
@@mikelilley Who died and left you in charge?
I am in exactly the same place. I have read the KJV and ESV through the most, followed by the RSV. I have read the NASB 1977 through and the NKJV through as well as the NET, NLT, CSB and TNIV. Overall I like the ESV, but the KJV is the one I reach for when doing serious study. I just grew up with the KJV, so it’s my go-to.
I stuck with the NASB for many years. But the ESV has a more artful flow, while retaining a close word for word translation.
It's up to pastors to inform their congregations of the theological, historical, and cultural contexts described in the texts.
It is not coincidental that the Young, Restless, Reformed movement of the early 2000s and the introduction of the ESV (2001) occurred at the same time. I would add that the ESV Study Bible's release in 2008 supercharged its popularity amongst the Reformed. I still consider it the standard by which all study Bibles should be compared to. Also, there wouldn't be the success of the ESV if it wasn't for the marketing of its publisher, Crossway. They do the best to offer a great product for a reasonable price in multiple versions. One reason I prefer the ESV is because of the longevity I believe that it will have over, let's say, another excellent translation such as the LSB. The 2016 update is often used as a case in which the ESV translating team puts their theological perspectives first prior to translating. Genesis 3:16b: "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you." The use of the word "contrary" was highly controversial, as some were making claims that they were trying to make a theological point on the Complementarian view. Now, the Hebrew word can be translated as "contrary," but it hasn't been translated this way in most, if not all, versions of the Bible.
The "New Calvinist" movement in the early 2000's through about 2017 is the main catalyst for it's popularity in reformed and calvinist circles. The "celebrities" of that movement almost exclusively used it. Plus, idk a single other publisher that has as many options or editions as Crossway.
Side note: most English translations exists because publishers don't want to pay royalties to other companies for constantly quoting the translations in their books.
@@natedowney9590 I think you are correct. I'm very insightful
I am a former Calvinist, and I like the ESV. But I will probably always prefer the NASB 95 because that’s what our pastor preaches from and we’ve been at our church for about 15 years. I’m just so used to the NASB 95. Edit to add: I love the background of this video!
@@Goldenretriever-p9e that's awesome! Thanks so much! I live in the Pacific Northwest, it's gorgeous out here
how are you a former Calvinist?
Something that i thought of when you were discussing the use of italics is that while i like them and understand why they are there i could see it being a stumbling block for those who dont know greek and are wondering why these translators are taking the liberty to “insert” words that aren’t there. On the one hand i appreciate the transparency and on the other it could potentially be an unnecessary stumbling block for some
@@Wubss I agree! Well said, that an interesting point
I’d love a video about whether the ESC translators made it more “calvinist friendly “on purpose.
Hi John:
Just read the ESV for the first time, in 230 days, last year.
Enjoyed this casual video today. But I would indeed like a more scholarly treatment, as you suggest, to follow up on today's.
@@genewood9062 will do!
As a legally blind person my biggest problem with ESV/crossway is there complete lack of large and giant print Bibles. I've had to buy a large and giant print Bibles for 50 years. I have a 13-point font in every translation I own NIV, CSB, NASB both 2020 and 95. The two ESVs I have on the 12 point font in the other one is a 17! I can just barely read the 12 point font in the 17 point font waste almost 6 lb! Lol.
I really like these casual videos!
I would like to see a more in depth video on the ESV as you mentioned. I'd like your opinion on the updates to the ESV - it seems to me that it is updated much too often and I get nervous when we start 'changing' the Bible but I get why they happen.
Also would like to hear your thoughts on the NET.
Thanks
@@Oneof7000 thanks! I'll make one! I like the notes in the NET, but not so much the translation itself. It's not that it's bad, it's just ok.
There's a complementarian element to this discussion (of the ESV) that I would love to hear you address sometime.
@@RevRudd I'll bring that up as well
My preference for the ESV started because it was set with paragraphs rather than the artificial verse by verse. But I still have always liked the NASB. And now it's not that hard to find a NASB the is paragraph format. We definitely live in a time of wealth in translations. We just need to read them, or at least one.
@@dm1523 agreed 👍
I would just like to give you a word of encouragement my friend. I am Reformed, and though you are not, you handle yourself with grace and kindness and humility. I very much appreciate that, especially today where you just see the complete vitriol of people claiming to be Christians on both sides. Thank you for your level headed approach. May the Lord bless you and your family my young brother. Also, where are you posting this video from??
Thank you so much! I live in Seattle, this video was shot in Tacoma Wa. It's beautiful out here
@@JohnMiles117I’ve been to many places, but never to the Pacific Northwest, looks beautiful, I live in northern Wisconsin. Blessings to you!
@HumbleRustic that's awesome! Ibe Wisconsin is also beautiful!
@@JohnMiles117Autumn is tremendous and summer on many of the lakes is great but as you know, the winter is brutal 🥶.
@HumbleRustic that's what I've heard
I love the ESV. Beautiful language used while being accurate. I like the use of Steadfast Love for Hesed instead of Lovingkindness. It shows the endurance of God's love. The only verse that gets me a little is Revelation 13:9. The "before" instead of "from" is a little twist I don't think the original language says. It doesn't effect doctrine at all but not needed.
@@WilliamKister very cool. I'll have to double check that!
@@JohnMiles117 Still a great translation. That was Packer probably getting away with what he could, lol. Still think he was a great brother of the faith even though I don't agree with him on everything.
@WilliamKister agreed. You can learn a lot from everybody, especially those who disagree with 👍
Great thoughts. Your theory is pretty right on. I use an ESV because the guy who discipled me early on and helped me become established in the faith handed one to me, and he was a PCA guy who also loved Piper and Packer. For me, I was in the Vineyard church for years and now have been in the PCA for years, so I’m somewhat of a mixed bag 😂 but definitely more on the reformed side of things. The ESV is home base for me, and the CSB, NIV84, and now the NASB (thanks in no small part to you) are always close by. As always, I appreciate your approach that is both kind to other view points than your own yet self-diffentiated enough to take a stand on your own views. It’s almost like people with different viewpoints can be friends… 🤔
@@tylersole8994 that's awesome brother! Vineyard and the PCA? that is a mixed bag. I'm so glad you liked the vid and that you like the NASB as well. Btw, we can totally be friends lol 😂
@@JohnMiles117 Yes sir, my first church was a Vineyard, and I was a member there for about 5 years. I was very involved with a evangelism/disciple campus ministry at the same time that was ran by some PCA guys. When I moved to a different town I became a member of the PCA church for the last ten years. I see God's plan and kindness all over that history in that He didn't really allow me to develop some kind of denominational arrogance when I was most vulnerable to such things, not that I'm not vulnerable to sin now. I joke with people that the Vineyard taught me to love my neighbor while the PCA taught me to love the Word. Of course they both did both! I will add that that no one in the PCA has told me to turn my guitar down yet during worship either. 😂
Calvie grooming 101. Convert the saved.
My problem with the ESV is the constant tinkering/updating of the text. I'm sticking with the NKJV and NASB.
@@tjmaverick1765 I agree. That is a downside
@@JohnMiles117 I do like that the translators consulted the Septuagint in places of the Old Testament.
New subscriber, recently stumbled across your video about the family NAS Pitt Minion.
We are of similar mind in approach, and same goal.
God Bless Bro. Miles!
Thank you so much! I'll take that brother!!
You should definitely do the in-depth video!
@@logan_oleary I'm on it!
I really enjoy the esv. If your going to investigate the esv and compare it to the nasb you should compare it then to the kjv. Some of the calvinistic leaning passages read in my opinion almost the same in the kjv.
@@jtalks5 that's awesome!
@@jtalks5 that interesting, I'll check that out, thank you!
ESV is from Crossway and Crossway's products are targeted towards the reformed camp.
I’d love to see you do a more in depth video on “disputed” verse/passages. I grew up with the KJVAV and it’s my daily driver. That being said, whenever I don’t fully understand something, I will check other translations to gain insight.
@@Panhandlepiper that's the best way to examine a passage, compare it to other translations. Well said
You actually ended up answering a question before I asked it, but what are your thoughts about the pros and cons of the NRSV? I have one that I read through Leviticus with alongside my KJV and wow it helped me understand so much.
@@Josh_kel7 in so glad. It's a great translation, it just has that one issue, other than that, I think it's good
Just some random thoughts to add to everything John wisely said... 😊
1. It's quite possible the ESV would never have taken off, or at least not as much as it did, if it hadn't been for John Piper so zealously recommending it. This was also right around the time of the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement in the early 2000s. And of course Piper was one of the biggest names in the YRR movement. And Piper has said that he grew up on the KJV (like most in his generation), but when the RSV came out, he loved it (despite its reputation as a liberal Bible translation at the time), and he latched onto the RSV for the next decsde or two. However it eventually went out of print or wasn't widely available, and Piper didn't like the NRSV at all saying it was too politically correct, and so he switched over to the NASB for his congregation, but he was nefer fully satisfied with the NASB since he regarded it - as its stereotype would suggest - wooden and stilted. Piper was a lover of literature and literary beauty, and if I recall he even taught literature (especially poetry) at the college level prior to becoming a pastor. Thus when the ESV came out in 2001 Piper loved it and immediately said that gis RSV had returned! And Piper went on to recommend it to hos congregation as well as all the Desiring God events and other venues with the YRR. So i think Piper played a big role in how well the ESV sold among Reformed Christians.
2. Of course, Crossway was very aggressive in its marketing as well. Not saying this is a bad thing or wrong or anything, just stating an observation. Zondervan has been the same with the NIV.
3. I agree the gender debates over the NRSV are perceived to be a problem for conservative evangelical Christians. Although probably less so today in light of other conservative evangelical Christian Bible translations willing to use more gender inclusive or accurate language now (e.g. NIV 2011, NLT, CSB, NASB 2020). I think one of the most egregious examples of this in the NRSV is 1 Tim 3:2 where the NRSV has "married only once" which is simply not at all faithful to the koine Greek. It's plausible the NRSV translation is due to wishing to allow female overseers or "bishops" as they translate it.
4. Also the NRSV tends to translate Old Testament Messianic passages less explicitly than, say, the ESV. The ESV almost goes in the opposite direction and translates Messianic passages quite explicitly, so much so that the ESV may be the Bible most ideal for "seeing Jesus" in the Old Testament, though that has its issues inasmuch as it overemphasizes the fulfillment in one direction when a prophecy could have multiple fulfillments (including Jesus). Of course, one can still "see Jesus" in the NRSV's Old Testament but it's less explicit. That is likely due to the influence of the Jewish scholars on the NRSV translation committee.
5. I think it's true the ESV is more literary than the NASB or most other translations. That's in large part due to having Leland Ryken as the literary style editor for the ESV. That said, as CS Lewis pointed out in his introduction to the JB Phillips New Testament translation, literary beauty exalts, but literary beauty also lulls. For example, when the reader should be feeling horror and grief in reading a biblical passage (say about how Jesus was treated in the events leading to his crucifixion), instead the reader is lulled by the literary beauty and feels a kind of comfortable sacred solemnity. In any case, we shouldn't necessarily prize literary beauty above, say, acuracy or readability or other factors. Beauty is important - for instance beauty can be an aid to memorizing Scripture - but beauty is not all important.
6. As far as I know, the most controversial passages in the ESV are the ones which supposedly skew complementarian (e.g. Gen 3:16, Rom 16:1, Rom 16:7). I don't think that's entirely fair to on the ESV, because I think there are reasonable arguments to translate certain passages the way the ESV has translated them (e.g. Denny Burk has a good post about how the ESV 2016 translates Gen 3:16, and Burk favors the NASB as his English translation), even if I don't agree entirely with the arguments. But I don't think it's fair to say the ESV is translating out of prejudice.
7. Also, due to the influence of systematic and historical theologians on the ESV translation committee (e.g. JI Packer, Wayne Grudem), there is supposedly a bias in the ESV towards certain theological positions (e.g. eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father). There was even a huge debate among many conservative evangelicals about this back in 2016 around the same time the ESV 2016 was released. Personally I don't detect this bias of it exists. And in any case I doubt the average Christian layperson would detect it. But I guess it's worth mentioning.
8. I generally like and use the ESV, though I like and use the NASB too. For me, I think the biggest distinctive between the two is the formatting. The NASB capitalizes divine pronouns, uses italics for words that aren't in the Greek but "added" in the English, uses small caps for OT quotations in the NT, has an asterisk to indicate a particular tense in the original Greek, has more extensive footnotes than the ESV, and has other little helps or aids for the serious student of the Bible. The ESV doesn't have any of these except for the footnotes but still not as extensively as the NASB. In this respect, the NASB comes across more as a reference Bible, or perhaps a very light study Bible, whereas the ESV is more friendly for just having an enjoyable reading experience. To be fair, I think both serve well as studying and/or reading Bibles, it's not a huge difference to me, but more of a slight emphasis or tendency towards one over another. The NASB 2020 is quite good as a reading Bible too, I think, perhaps better than the ESV in terms of clarity and naturalness, whereas the ESV is better in terms of literary beauty.
Anyway, just my opinion, that's all! 😊
@@philtheo very true dude. Honestly crossways marketing is unparalleled
Interesting, if I had to pick a critical text I would take an esv or nasb. I’m torn between them especially after the 2020 update. Been looking at different esv bibles there’s so many to choose from it can be overwhelming. Think I may get a schulyer or Cambridge esv with apocrypha.
I actually enjoy using the ESV over other translations for presenting arguments against Reformed soteriology. Definitely a great translation, just not my personal go to.
i would take a firm stand on a particular english translation (like the "king james only" crowd) IF i saw a marked difference in behavior/fruit of the Spirit of those who used a certain translation. I do not see any difference in changed lives.
@arkrainflood very well said!!
I’m not a Calvinist and don’t own a ESV or ever will I have read different passages in the ESV and compared it with other versions and the ESV does lean more toward reform theology and omits crucial verses too numerous to go through. I use mainly NKJV but also enjoy reading the KJV and NASB 95 . Everyone has their favorite version I think that’s great main thing is you read the Bible and study with different translations, interpretations should always be the same in every version but translations can be different, we don’t want to change the meaning of a passage
Well said, as always! One of the things I’ve realized is that I don’t have the highest of reading level. I found this when trying to read the ESV, NKJV and such. I prefer the ESV over the NKJV, but I tend to like the more dynamic stuff. CSB, NET, MEV, NLT. I would love a more in depth analysis of the “leanings” of translations. I know the ESV adds a masculine pronoun in Romans 12: 7-8 that isn’t in the original Greek. A lot of translations do that. The CSB does not, which doesn’t surprise me. The CSB is one of the only ones that translates John 3:16 correctly in my opinion. Anywho, enough rant, well done, John!
@@thedrumssayyes very interesting, I'll look into that. Great comment!
Love your videos. Do you ever plan to do videos on the csb or the niv? I learned some biblical Greek at bible college and it softened my view towards “non literal” translations. I now actually find myself using the csb and niv11 more than the nasb, esv, or the lsb.
@@ashleymallard that's fantastic, I actually am planning on making a video for both of those translations. Probably the csb first but after that I want to do the NIV.
Bottom line on the ESV. A group of men see an emerging trend. Revisions of modern translations are move in the direction of egalitarianism, like the popular NIV which had been revised in 2002. They wanted a new revision that they could weaponize againt this trend. The most expedient strategy was to get permision to revise a derelict translation, e.g., the 1971 RSV. This project was not undertaken to improve accuracy or preserve reformational tradions. The singular goal was to preserve patriarchy.
Do you think that with the overwhelming amount of bible translations to choose from, people collect translations rather than sticking to one version and reading the Bible wholly?
@@Wayfarerpilgrim definitely. That's a problem that can happen for sure. That's why I think everyone should pick one translation that they can know and trust, and use another for reference.
My main gripe, and one I notice that Reformed and not KJV only complain about, is the treatment of Daniel 9 in the ESV when it comes to the timeline of the 70 weeks prophecy and how many, and when, the anointed one(s) will come.
The ESV breaks the prophecy to have two anointed ones coming at different points in the timeline. Pretty glaring error, that never seems to be mentioned at large or corrected.
@@XordonMonsanto I've never noticed it. I'll have to look, thanks for pointing that out
Calvinist here. And I’ve generally stuck with the KJV and NKJV. ESV is okay, I prefer it better than NASB, but the one I really don’t like is the LSB. LSB just feels like Master’s Seminary Version. It does nothing for me that the ESV or NASB don’t already do other than tinker with the Tetragrammaton in many places by adding vowel points. It to me is completely unnecessary and I’m a Calvinist who attends a MacArthur adjacent church.
@@michaelclark2458 I tend to agree
I do not think so as the NRSV older version before changes to being inclusive as well as RSV are very close to the translation.
The Catholic Church in the UK has just started using the ESV
@@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen that's interesting, really?
@JohnMiles117 Yes we just started on first Sunday of Advent which is the start of the new liturgical year. Prior to that we were using the Jerusalem Bible which is a translation from French....very beautiful but not so useful for theological study. But the Catholic Church being universal has a drawback...very hard to change translations! We finally did it, and I doubt we'll be doing it again at least for 100 years.
A strange choice I thought…not the best for a lectionary.
@joeobrien5566 Definitely raised some eyebrows around our Archdiocese. But you know the Catholic Church puts a lot of effort into being ecumenical and reaching out to our separated brethern.
Personally I like the Jerusalem translation and that is my own bible translation which I will continue to use. But it is handy having a bible that matches the lectionary if you are a reader at mass etc....still we have all translations on our smartphones now!
At least in the US, the ESV was modified in some verses and with the addition of the deuterocanonical books to satisfy Catholic criticism to create the ESV-CE which has been approved by the Catholic Church.
Can you do a video talking about your opinion on the niv?
@@brokerichkidz2650 sure! I'll make that after I finish the ESV in depth video
Not a Calvinist but I enjoy the ESV. It confuses me that it is called the Calvinistic translation. The ESV leaves 1 Peter 1:1 as very Jewish where other translations remove the Jewishness . Wouldn't a Calvinistic version make 1 Peter sound more likes it was written to the Church instead of Jewish believers living outside Israel? ( Like the NASB for example).
Luving this Bible translation series you got going man! I'm an ESV guy and not a calvinist. The ESV may have started out more heavily used in reformed circles, but at this point it's one of the most popular translations of the Bible period. I believe a lot of Lutherans tend to use the ESV as well; pretty sure the Missouri Synod, one of the largest Lutheran denominations, tends to use the ESV in it's resources.
@@cody5879 it's funny you say that, because it's true that it does have the reputation for being for only reformed guys, you're so right that honestly I think it's probably one of the top translations used by the majority of Christians. It's so common nowadays
I personally think think the ESV study Bible is to thank/blame for this - its such a good 1 volume resource for the 'common man' and the diagrams/charts help - I think this helped popularize the translation as a whole
@Bigstanky3030 probably! The ESV Study Bible is it excellent resource
my son became as Presbyterian.. once he married and started having kids... but we No longer communicate.. cuz they think it is OK to sprinkle infants in baptism...
I AM NOT OK with this....
I find the ESV a bit bland.
However, no translation should have a doctrinal bias, this is inexcusable.
I’m reformed (Calvinistic soteriology) and love both the ESV and the 95 NASB. But RC Sproul John MacArthur used to preach out of NKJV version. I prefer the ESV for memorization and the CT manuscript consideration used in translation. I’m always dismayed at both hyper Calvinists and hyper Arminians. They divide the body of Christ. I came through Calvary Chapel on my faith journey and hold Chuck Smith in high regard. I believe all good modern translations have been influenced by reformed people as many are reformed. In my PCA church there are folks more Arminian than Calvinistic. And we function together in harmony. Appreciate your irenic handling of this and other matters you’ve covered. In Christ we stand united.
@@jeffholm3503 well said! There can still be fellowship among disagreeing believers. Well said!
I'd say KJV is the only true word of Truth that everyone should use!
Beautiful spot btw. Do you just drive here to relax/meditate/read? Or is it like really close to your house or something. Thanks for the video :)
@@Watamelon-yx1mj thanks. I deliver headstones for a living, and a lot of the cemeteries I go to are very rural and along these beautiful views. So I just pull off on the side of the road and make three videos.
Awesome! I recently bought a english bible and looked alot online about translations and then went for a NKJV. Finding your youtube channel changed my mind a bit and i wouldn't say i regret buying this version, but i definitely want to try different translations sooner then i planned.. so i rip my money thanks to you i guess LOL (joking), but ill first really read this as reading the bible is more important than the translation anyway. Hope you keep making videos
@@Watamelon-yx1mj don't regret it. The nkjv is a fantastic translation! But you are right, it's good to use multiple translations. I will, definitely plan on making more videos!
Everyone knows "The Message " is the best translation. 🤫😬
@@jackwagon4313 😂😂
A person that truly understands the gospel of grace would use the kjv, the true and perfect word of God
I wonder if the Apostles spoke Shakespearean English? “A person who truly understands the gospel of grace.” That comment at best is simplistically wrong, and at worst leads one to think that there is no salvation outside of the KJV.
The kjv adds words
In italics to join sentences. The fact remains the the versions are different, which one is correct, remember the first thing Satan did was to question God's word, just like all these versions do.
@johnyates7566 huh ??? Rofl... where ??
@johnyates7566 the kjv questioned the vulgate
Brother I'm 69 several years ago my church switched from Kjv to NASB 95 in 1996
I bought a current NIV.... I love it. I hear from many that its missing verses....it's for kids it's gender neutral ....and it's a corrupt translation. My research debunks all that. I am using it now for my bible reading. What say you about the current NIV ?
@@procop4063 that's fantastic! The current NIV isn't my favorite ( I prefer the NIV 84) but by no means is it corrupt. It's a great Bible that you can trust!
I think you need to make a video showing examples and using the KJV.. to explain... why the Calvinistic principles are easier to determine from the KV wording more so than ANY other translation..
I thought Dispensationalist, MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, S. Johnson and even Darby.
ESV is my main. Not a calvinist
Some of the more fringey KJV onlyists (Ruckman and Riplinger) really hate calvinist theology. I wonder what they would think if they knew that the translators on the KJV were mostly reformed/ Puritan 🤔. I have really enjoyed this casual conversation series, im glad youtube decided to show me your videos!
@@1988casco true. Very ironic lol. Glad you like them!
TLDR; Evangelicalism vs Liberalism is a better reason behind why the ESV did so well. Neutrality is a myth and the problem of secular feminism in the church is why the ESV exists and why it's so cOnTrOvErSiAl. lol
.
.
.
.
I loved the video and I love hearing your random thoughts about this stuff, brother. The question I'm asking about translations these days is more over how much influence from liberalism and feminism does a translation have. With this in mind, it makes a lot more sense as to why translations like the ESV have done so well is because it marketed itself as a translation that went in a more evangelical/complimentarian direction as opposed to the NIV which leaned harder into a liberal egalitarian direction. Not as much as the NRSV, but definitely not far off.
This could also explain why the KJV and NKJV continue to do well. The NRSV knows their market: Liberal universities, egalitarian denominations and progressives. Whereas the ESVs market is Evangelical Collages, bible believing denomination and more conservative christians. I think this conversation is more the reason why the ESV has been so popular. We've also seen this in regards to the NASB2020/LSB divide. NASB went more egalitarian while the LSB went more evangelical/complimentarian.
Moral of the story is that your bible translation will either leverage modern linguistics and liberalism to promote atheistic opinions and feminism or it will promote the authority of God's word opposed to the demonic and worldly philosophies of the modern world. Neutrality is a myth. Secularism is not a neutral opinion and therefore it shouldn't be promoted as an objective/unbiased assessment or engagement of the word of God.
This is where the importance of the KJV comes into play. Because for centuries it has been a mostly trustworthy rendering. So when in doubt about whether a translation leans too much to Calvinism, complimentarianism (which I’m still not certain what that even is), etc., check it against the KJV. Or better yet check it against the OL’s. Personally, if the Bible Gremlin robbed my office tonight, and left me with only three translations I’m good with these three: KJV, NASB and ESV.
@@thescarletandgrey2505 great point. ( Complementarianism is the view that women should not be in a leadership role, as far as teaching in the church) The opposite of that would be egalitarianism.
@@JohnMiles117thank you, that makes it simple.
Calvinists do not believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit as mentioned namely in 1 cor 12-14, Acts and other places. They do not have one iota of biblical text specifically saying God did away with his spiritual gifts to the church. Calvinists actually call these grace gifts satanic, if they are being manifested today, which is borderline unpardonable sin!
There's no salvation outside of christ and his true word in English is the kjv, and to say did the apostles speak Shakespearen English was just stupid, iam sure God was aware the we here would be speaking English and needed the word in English. Like I said the versions are all different, which one is correct? Iam a reformer and I wouldn't touch any version except the kjv.
Extra Snobby Version
@@jonasaras 😂😂
I think the ONLY bible translation for a TRUE Calvinist is the KJV.... the ESV.. is too "wimpy" for me and does NOT support the Calvinistic viewpoint as well as the KJV...
the church I am attending now.. believe in Calvinistic principles as well.. but they read from the NASB95 edition.. which I feel is VERY WEAK.. in relation to the KJV...
If I could find a church close by that preached from the KJV.. I would be GONE in a heartbeat...but the nearest Other church. that preaches bible truths.. reads from the ESV..
and one of the teachers there... used to teach the teens at a former church I went to before it closed due to the death of our pastor....snd he totally messed up those teens minds.. with his.. un biblical teachings.. such as teaching children they did NOT have to obey their mother and father... and they needed to rebel.. etc...
And I think the pastor is bisexual...