Any non-Calvinists use ESV as primary Bible?

[CredoBiblicist]

Anyone familiar with the ESV or the Bible translation market in general would of heard of the "Calvinists Bible" accusations made towards the ESV. While there is little evidence of this bias in the text other than perhaps a verse in Genesis 17. If you look at the background of the translators (all are Calvinist?), the ESV Study Bible, the publishing company which sells it and the circles it has been embraced in, you can almost smell the Calvinism or something like that anyway. I don't know anyone who is not a Calvinist who uses it as their main Bible. While it seems to be a fine translation, to someone like me who is not a Calvinist, the Calvinist baggage that's attached to it would put me off from ever adopting it as my primary Bible, if that's what I desired.

Having said that, is there any non-Calvinists who do use it as their primary Bible?

I've heard it said that the ESV is starting to and will take off like the NIV did. But I do wonder if you took away the sales numbers of the Calvinists who buy it, whether the sales numbers that are left would be all that great in number.

 

[Keachian]

The ESV is probably second of third most common version I've seen around my church after the NLT and NIV, the church is predominantly Arminian from the front, not too sure about the people who use it in regards to their theology, I used it when I was not Calvinist and I wouldn't say that it ultimately affected my acceptance of Calvinist theology as I used it for four years before I became Calvinist this year, mainly through the in depth studies I did on Romans, Ephesians and Philippians than anything else.

 

[boomlakelady]

I'm LCMS and I have the Lutheran Study Bible, which is ESV.

 

[ebedmelech]

The ESV is a fine translation! If you like it, use it. What you have to be aware of is if you use a "study bible" the notes will often come from a certain theology...so you have to keep in mind that "the notes" about what a certain verse teaches, will come from that theology...so you have to be careful about the note in a study bible.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which is my church, officially uses the ESV text in service and in our study bible. The Roman Catholic Church in Australia has officially adopted the text.

The Calvinist accusation is ridiculous.

 

[CredoBiblicist]

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which is my church, officially uses the ESV text in service and in our study bible. The Roman Catholic Church in Australia has officially adopted the text.

The Calvinist accusation is ridiculous.

The Calvinist accusations come from the connections I mentioned in the post. It is nice to know that it isn't just people from that background that use it.

 

[Unix]

... I really don't think it will, for two reasons:

1. It's much too formal equivalent and wooden for that:
2. There's much more serious competition now than there was back in 1984 when the 3rd Edition NIV NT with 2nd Edition NIV OT came out (the previous Edition came in 1978). And there's much fewer KJV users now, so those who used the KJV have already switched to all kinds of Bible versions:

I've heard it said that the ESV is starting to and will take off like the NIV did.

 

[bach90]

I used to use the ESV (I now use the NRSV along with a copy of NETS for the OT). I feel like the ESV tries to do too many things at once, like a weird KJV/RSV hybrid. I think the ESV is essentially the RSV with "corrections" the editors felt necessary, particularly in the OT.

 

[CredoBiblicist]

... I really don't think it will, for two reasons:

1. It's much too formal equivalent and wooden for that:
2. There's much more serious competition now than there was back in 1984 when the 3rd Edition NIV NT with 2nd Edition NIV OT came out (the previous Edition came in 1978). And there's much fewer KJV users now, so those who used the KJV have already switched to all kinds of Bible versions:

As a long time KJV user (KJV being the Bible I'm most familiar with) I find of the critical text translations that the ESV is the most similar in sound to the KJV after the NASB. If I was to move from KJV/NKJV as my main Bibles my two choices would be NASB or ESV. Though don't really know of many people who use NASB, doesn't seem to do to well in sales despite being one of, if not the best critical text translations (minus the areas where it translates sexual immorality as simply morality).

 

[wordsoflife]

I'm LCMS and I have the Lutheran Study Bible, which is ESV.

Ditto

 

[Knee V]

I used to use the ESV (I now use the NRSV along with a copy of NETS for the OT). I feel like the ESV tries to do too many things at once, like a weird KJV/RSV hybrid. I think the ESV is essentially the RSV with "corrections" the editors felt necessary, particularly in the OT.

The ESV, along with the NRSV, is a revision of the RSV, just as the RSV, along with the NASB, is a revision of the ASV/RV, which, along with the NKJV, is a revision of the KJV. In fact, the ESV is something like 85% (I don't remember the exact number, but it's somewhere near there) identical to the RSV. For example, if you compare Psalm 1 in the ESV to Psalm 1 in the RSV, the only difference is that one verse the ESV changes "which" to "that" (or vice versa).

As to the OP:

I used the ESV for a long time after it first came out. At the time I was a Calvinist, but my love for the ESV had nothing to do with that. I just really liked the style and the way it flowed when I read it. I especially like the Psalms. I still used it for a while after I became Orthodox, but I did begin to notice a bias. The bias that I began to notice wasn't so much a Calvinist bias, but rather a Conservative Evangelical bias (however, if you want an over Calvinist bias, go with the NIV). So although there is still a great deal about the ESV that I like, I no longer seriously use it.

As to which version will take off like the NIV, as popular as the ESV is in certain circles, I think that the NLT will be what "replaces" the NIV, at least here in the U.S. For almost a decade I've seen more and more people use the NLT, both privately and for "official" church use. But when it comes to bias, the NLT takes the cake, so much more than the ESV or the NIV. Since the NLT is a paraphrase (I don't care how much people say that it isn't: IT IS) that is marketed as a translation, it takes great liberties with the text to rephrase it in such a way that fits one particular theological outlook. Although an actual translation can abuse individual words here and there, the NLT does it with entire passages. And although that's the case, it's still embraced incredibly popularly.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

I like the ESV as a reference, but I find it too Calvinistic for my taste in general. But every Calvinistic person I know favors the ESV. Maybe the better question is, "Does anyone know a Calvinist that uses something other than the ESV/RSV as their primary Bible?"

 

[Keachian]

I like the ESV as a reference, but I find it too Calvinistic for my taste in general. But every Calvinistic person I know favors the ESV. Maybe the better question is, "Does anyone know a Calvinist that uses something other than the ESV/RSV as their primary Bible?"

I know a large group that uses the HCSB

 

[Radagast]

I know a large group that uses the HCSB

And a very large number use the NIV. And many still stick with the KJV. And several other translations get used too -- partly because Calvinism crosses several denominations: Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed, Anglican, etc.

 

[Shane R]

Do a web-search and the charge of Calvinist bias is leveled against the NIV, HCSB, and ESV. The charge of pre-millenial bias is leveled against the NASB. The charge of too liberal is leveled against the RSV and NRSV.

I have three comments on all of that:
1. There is some element of truth to most any stereotype; no translation is perfect and some are not very good.
2. The verse by verse approach is probably the greatest culprit in Biblical mis-understanding, and also the main reason for the purported biases in translations.
3. It shouldn't be surprising if English Bibles reflect theological bias, they are translations, and the vast majority of the committees that make them are Protestant and from the most prominent churches and seminaries.

 

[Coton Boy]

I am not a Calvinist and I love the ESV. My tradition is the KJV, and as has been said the ESv is very close to it. I use a variety of translations, but there is something majestic about the ESV.

 

[bach90]

There are some good points about the ESV, I think it does a better job in certain books where the NRSV goes too far in gender-neutral language (Genesis, Psalms, Daniel, and the Pastoral epistles are what I'm thinking of).

 

[ebedmelech]

The ESV, along with the NRSV, is a revision of the RSV, just as the RSV, along with the NASB, is a revision of the ASV/RV, which, along with the NKJV, is a revision of the KJV. In fact, the ESV is something like 85% (I don't remember the exact number, but it's somewhere near there) identical to the RSV. For example, if you compare Psalm 1 in the ESV to Psalm 1 in the RSV, the only difference is that one verse the ESV changes "which" to "that" (or vice versa).

As to the OP:

I used the ESV for a long time after it first came out. At the time I was a Calvinist, but my love for the ESV had nothing to do with that. I just really liked the style and the way it flowed when I read it. I especially like the Psalms. I still used it for a while after I became Orthodox, but I did begin to notice a bias. The bias that I began to notice wasn't so much a Calvinist bias, but rather a Conservative Evangelical bias (however, if you want an over Calvinist bias, go with the NIV). So although there is still a great deal about the ESV that I like, I no longer seriously use it.

As to which version will take off like the NIV, as popular as the ESV is in certain circles, I think that the NLT will be what "replaces" the NIV, at least here in the U.S. For almost a decade I've seen more and more people use the NLT, both privately and for "official" church use. But when it comes to bias, the NLT takes the cake, so much more than the ESV or the NIV. Since the NLT is a paraphrase (I don't care how much people say that it isn't: IT IS) that is marketed as a translation, it takes great liberties with the text to rephrase it in such a way that fits one particular theological outlook. Although an actual translation can abuse individual words here and there, the NLT does it with entire passages. And although that's the case, it's still embraced incredibly popularly.

I'm not to sure about the NLT taking over the NIV,. I think the NIV is a household version pretty much now, and had a big head start on the NLT.

If both came out at the same time you may have a point. I use the NASB primarily...I just favor "word for word" dynamic equivalency but I like both the NIV and NLT. I use both in comparative study.

The ESV is close to the NASB in translation...but I think it lags behind the NASB in translation accuracy.

One bible I really want to get is the Complete Jewish Bible. Though it uses the Hebrew names, it's a very accurate translation. Here's an example from Hebrews 1:1-3:

In days gone by, God spoke in many and varied ways to the Fathers through the prophets.
2 But now, in the acharit-hayamim, he has spoken to us through his Son, to whom he has given ownership of everything and through whom he created the universe.
3 This Son is the radiance of the Sh’khinah, the very expression of God’s essence, upholding all that exists by his powerful word; and after he had, through himself, made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of HaG’dulah BaM’romim.

I'll definetly have to work hard on my Hebrew...

 

[Knee V]

The NIV is out of print (or will be very soon), and will go the way of the ASV, as popular as that was in its day. Something will come in and fill the void. I think it will be the NLT.

 

[Striver]

I don't know about the NLT taking over the NIV. It still has to overcome the KJV, and it just overcame the NKJV which I think is losing some ground to the ESV.

I think we have too many versions as it is, and I feel that once the NIV wanes in popularity, which it still isn't right now as a lot of the fuss about the 2011 has hit a hush, I don't know that another Bible will replace it as the generally-used translation. There are a number who really like the NIV but wouldn't use the NLT.

I think there will be more of an ESV and NIV crowd split for conservative and moderate Christians. Your more mainliners will be probably continue to use the NRSV (which is not a bad version, but does suffer from trying to over-PC things) and the CEB. I mean, even the Orthodox are working on their own version, as the Catholics have done for a long time.

I think we see a highly splintered Bible user base that is constructed upon the lines of belief. Each segment effectively has their own Bible at this point.

I don't see anything dethroning the ESV + NKJV in terms of formal equivalence translations. The other thing is, as Christianity shrinks (or, as I believe, the Christians in name only drop off), these translations are only going to become more expensive and risky in undertaking. I think the Bibles we have now will be generally revised moreso than we'll see new translations.

Obviously a discovery or major paradigm shift can change this, but we are at a unique period in Bible translation.