|
| Holy Bible: English Standard Version | 
 enlarge | Publisher: American Bible Society
Category: Book
List Price: $5.49
Buy New: $3.38
You Save: $2.11 (38%)
New (29) Used (13) from $2.96
Avg. Customer Rating:  6 reviews
Sales Rank: 77444
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 1042
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2
Dimensions (in): 8.1 x 5.2 x 1.4
ISBN: 1585167290
Dewey Decimal Number: 220
EAN: 9781585167296
ASIN: 1585167290
Publication Date: March 31, 2004
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: Brand New, Perfect Condition, Please allow 4-14 business days for delivery. 100% Money Back Guarantee, Over 1,000,000 customers served.
|
| Customer Reviews:
| Showing reviews 1-5 of 6 | | NEXT » |
 Clunky; relies on illusion that "literal" translations are possible May 5, 2008
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
I write as a professional translator with knowledge of a large number of languages and, particularly relevant for the present book, a good knowledge of NT Greek and a moderate knowledge of Biblical Hebrew.
Over the years, I have come to see more and more clearly that "literal" translation, so beloved of conservative Christians, is an impossibility. People buy a Bible that touts itself as a very literal translation, and they then think that they have a pure, unimpeded line to the Truth. But the fact is that there are millions (I mean this literally, not as rhetorical hyperbole) of decisions about translation that must be made in a volume the size of the Bible. A great many of them are made so automatically that the translators are virtually unaware of them, particularly if the translators aim to produce a "literal" translation. They have so many preconceptions that guide their interpretation of the vocabulary and even grammar of the text that it is probably safe to say that 95% of their decisions are predetermined by their prior assumptions about what the text "must" mean.
Even so, in view of the large number of decisions to be made, even 5% is still considerable. There is room to debate the meaning of specific words, many of which can only be interpreted properly if one has sufficient knowledge of the cultural and religious milieu of the writers and revisers of the original texts--and if one is willing to make use of that knowledge. Often, particularly in Hebrew, the Masoretic text is rather garbled, with the result that it is impossible to determine exactly what was meant (see 1 Samuel 13:1 for a famous example). Yes, the translators arrive at conclusions that they put in their texts, sometimes with alternates in footnotes. But the average reader must bear in mind that these decisions are *probable* (some very, some slightly), not definitive and indisputable. Thus, no matter how "literal" the translation style, there is always at least a little uncertainty about the meaning of many passages.
Another issue about which I see people get worked up is translation style. Hebrew has one style, Greek a very different style, and English a style quite distinct from either. Yet literalists are convinced that there is virtue in clinging as closely as possible to the original word order, regardless of how unnatural an even uncommunicative this makes the resulting English.
Well, if you are looking for a literal, ponderous style only a shade better that the NASB and considerably below that of the NIV, this translation is for you. I bought my copy a few years ago and used it some, but I was quite unsatisfied with its woodenness. I would much rather read the original languages, and that is usually what I do, particularly with the NT. It's amazing how good Greek becomes such bad English when "literally" translated.
 Not Perfect, But... April 22, 2008
2 out of 4 found this review helpful
If you follow my writing, you know that I am Anglo Catholic, and that the 2 versions I use most are the "Good News" and the original "Revised Standard." The ESV is basically 2 things. It is a revision of the RSV. It is also a reaction against the overly gender inclusive NRSV. (The ESV happens to be popular with Lutherans.) For the record, the NRSV and the "New Living" are known as the most annoyingly gender inclusive versions. The ESV is notably less gender inclusive than the NRSV, but it is not a complete reversal either. Unlike the NIV or NRSV, I find it to be well written and readable. My only real complaint is the bad deviation from the RSV. When the man forgives 2 people who can not pay him back, (One owed him 500 coins, and the other owed him 50 coins.) Jesus asks Simon who will love him more. The RSV has Simon answer: "I suppose to whom he forgave more" ("Luke" 7:43). Sadly, the ESV does not keep this vital passage. Simon answers: "The one I suppose for whom he cancelled the larger debt." I honestly feel you are better off with the "Revised Standard" or the "New American Standard." But that said, the ESV is A LOT better than the poorly written NIV or NRSV.
 Excellent Literal Translation August 9, 2007
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
The English Standard Version is a modern literal translation of the original texts that provides todays reader with the beauty and richness that the King James version brought to its readers. It strives to give us the precise wording, in English, that God inspired the original authors to use but it does so in a style that lets us hear God speak to us with accuracy and clarity.
Nice translation April 12, 2007
3 out of 9 found this review helpful
I like the ESV a little better than the NASB and a lot better than the NIV.
Reduced liberal & anti-sacramental biases February 23, 2007
6 out of 10 found this review helpful
The accuracy of this translation to fully modern English sets it apart from the NASB, which retains outdated language, and from the NIV, which at times sacrifices accuracy in an effort to make it more easily understood. Written at the tenth-grade reading level, the ESV is not for small children, who would benefit more from Luther's Small Catechism, with Explanation.
The ESV is revision of the RSV, but without some of its biases against supernatural Christianity. Likewise, confessional Lutheran scholars have noted that the ESV more literally translates some highly sacramental passages, including 1 Peter 3:21, than some other Protestant translations. However, like most other Protestant translations, the ESV includes the deuterocanonical books of the New Testament (the "antilegomena"), but not those of the Old Testament (the "Apocrypha").
By design, the ESV takes a less biased approach to sex neutrality than the TNIV.
|
|
|
 | |
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.