I attended a Christian university in 2003 right after the ESV was released. It was immediately popular in my circles and so I began using the ESV. It was my translation of choice for almost 15 years. I finally switched to the NKJV for this very reason and I haven't looked back.
I don't think that's a valid reason to choose it, but there is a lot of merit/trust in just leaving it alone. It's in my top 3 and the "hands off" is why it's my control sample to judge others.
I was the same. Esv was all the hype in early 2000s. After the NIV Was all the rage. Now esv is outdated and everyone wants you to buy the LSB. No thanks. I’ve gone back to the original KJV.
I’m firmly planting my flag in the NKJV camp for the reasons stated in your video. It’s impossible for me to recommend anyone purchase an expensive ESV Bible that they intended to use for a lifetime. Not when they update it like a windows computer.
I understand totally why they are doing it. It's all about the money. Updated editions have a built-in market because those that stay loyal to that translation have to have the "latest, greatest update. Publishers know this and despite what they say, money is king. All of the talk about updating language and new discoveries is just a smokescreen to gather more of your hard-earned money. Language has not changed enough to warrant an update at this point. I mean it's been a whole 8 years since the last one. Come on, really? It's all about the money. I rode the translation ride for a while myself and finally ended up back where I grew up, the KJV. The NKJV is a great bible, and it's stable. You will not regret going there if you decide to go that way.
My church uses ESV while I carry the NKJV. They read very similarly, often times sounding like a kid copying a book report and trying to rearrange the words just enough to be different. But I prefer how the NKJV reads most of the time. (P.S: I’m not saying ESV copied anything, it’s just fun to compare them sometimes and see how close they are.)
@@josephraimondo102 I actually bought my first NASB '95 a couple of months ago just to have on hand as a comparison translation, and like it a lot more than I expected. I had always heard it's a "wooden" translation, I haven't experienced that much (mostly comparing psalms and some prophetic books, I haven't read much out of the NT or Pentateuch yet).
I was thinking of moving to the ESV from the NKJV a couple years ago. I actually started using it and read through the whole thing. I’m back with the NKJV now for this very reason. Especially as a mother of four young kids I want my kids to have a stable Bible to get familiar with.
We will see. Just because the committee is meeting to discuss proposed changes doesn’t mean they’ll go all the way to publishing a revision of the ESV.
@@WilliamSwartzendruber Even if they do publish a revision, the changes will likely be quite minor and obviously your 2016's will still be valid and useful. But if you never want your Biblical text to change again you have to stick with an older translation like the KJV, RSV, NKJV, NASB 95, etc.
@@RoastBeefSandwich ESV is supposed to be the modern descendant of all those texts. Also ESV and those others you mentioned is what the Orthodox Church suggests to English speakers to read. Either way, this video news is sad to me. What more needs changed? If they go through with it, I'll probably just stick with NKJV for any more future bible purchases.
I agree with you 100%. A simple update to the footnotes would have been sufficient. The textual update of Gen 3:16 seemed unnecessary as the footnotes were sufficient. I’m thinking about moving on from the ESV as well.
It is burdensome how it gets changed often. What about people that follow along with their pastors and everyone has all these different updates? What about kids memorizing scripture? Just my personal peeves. I'll always keep a nkjv handy for all this instability.
@@coltonyarbro Well I have 4 NIV 84, 1 NIV 2011, a NASB 1977, 1995, 2020, 2 LSB, 5 CSB, 2 NKJV, and at least a half dozen KJV plus several Greek and Hebrew Bibles.
I always find it humorous that pretty much every video on TH-cam about Bible translations has to have the seemingly mandatory "I don't support onlyism" section. I grew up with the NIV. As I got older and started to truly formulate my faith, I found that I simply couldn't stick with it after the 2011 update. I then spent a year or two bouncing around through different translations. I eventually realized that I was spending more time looking into translations, their pros and cons, their strengths and weaknesses than I was actually reading the Bible. I moved to NKJV and now use almost exclusively the KJV (with NKJV as a tool) and suddenly I found that the entire problem vanished overnight. (And yes I understand that puts me dangerously close to the "onlyism" people). I agree that putting some HARD rule on ONLY using one version or you are evil is not correct, but I do think grabbing a trusted translation that hasn't and won't change solves this whole problem for the rest of your life (and your kids life, and maybe their kids life too). It's important to keep up with scholarship and keep an eye on new discoveries and what the modern views on Biblical things are, but just avoiding the whole translation problem was one of the better decisions I have made in my life. It is also admittedly an odd experience for me personally, since the ESV update news has come out, I have watched a number of people go through some of the same processes I went through a decade+ ago.
I never had to change to anything else being in KJV. God gave us a brain to understand it and everyone else makes excuses. The historical context how it was written and how much dumber we get with tech, I don't expect them to ever come close to the rigidness and standard held to translate it the way they did.. Also when we quote it, people almost always recognize it as the Bible. It is distinct and eloquent as if it was made separate from the world
@@exzld you and I probably agree on many things about the KJV, it’s why we use it. I do think it’s a little bit incorrect to claim it’s making excuses to find it difficult however. I agree that anyone, with time and a little effort, can get used to it and be just fine, but it’s fair to point out it’s not easy for all initially. I think it’s worth the effort, but there is an effort that is required, especially for those who have never been exposed to it.
@@ChancyC When I was 14 and first becoming serious about wanting to follow Christ, I was given a KJV for free by a sweet lady who ran a traveling book store. I was in the middle of the wilderness living in a cabin with no internet access, so all I had to use was that and eventually a physical Strong’s Concordance. It was hard at first, but I got used to it and loved it. Then I went away from it for a couple years, came back again and it was hard again, then I got used to it again. Now I love it again. Everyone says the hard part is the “thee”s and “thou”s or the “-eth”s and “-est”s, but that’s actually very natural and easy to acquire. The real hard part is learning the “false friends” that you THINK you known but have different meanings today, like “so”in “For God so loved the world,” but as you can see that sometimes bleeds into “modern” translations who have no excuse, especially paraphrases that explicit make it say what it does not based on the familiar KJV that changed meaning over time. For me the KJV isn’t very hard to read at all in the New Testament. It’s the Old that gets a little bit harder to follow sometimes.
One of the many reasons I currently prefer using the KJV. In fact my favorite text block is from the 1920's 😅. I feel your concern brother, thank you for sharing.
I’ve reverted back to the KJV. All these Bible translations just keep coming and changing. The Bible hasn’t changed. Keep the original big daddy of them all
@ “The first edition of the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament, was published in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus: The term Textus Receptus, which is Latin for "Received Text", was first used in 1633 to describe an edition of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzevir Brothers.”
They can do what they want. I have two excellent premium ESV bibles (PSQ & ESVSB Cowhide) in the 2016 version and I won’t be dropping all that cash to replace them.
I think that it’s important to continue working towards getting closer to God. It may be inconvenient but Bible scholars work hard to continually improve the accuracy of our scriptures.
I switched from the NKJV to ESV for preaching recently because we had many in the congregation that had a hard time understanding the NKJV. In sticking with the ESV for now. I’ll wait and see what they change.
@@mikehopper1674 I’m hanging with it also. I’m just frustrated. Text stability is not “everything” but it certainly is important. At least it’s important to me.
@@dondgc2298 our congregation is small ( about 22) and we have 3 people with learning disabilities and 2 who are new to the faith. The wording of the NKJV can be difficult for some people.
1. It's only been 8 years since the last update. 2. If you publish it as "the Permanent Text", you don't go changing it. Why go back on their words and do it anyway? I don't know, for the money? Maybe.
@@michaelmcevoy9278some are called authorized, updated, etcetera.... and KJVonlyists don't even come close to agreeing on what they actually believe in anyways, or they'd be the same denomination.
I am a college grad from the 70’s. I was saved in 1976, was a NAS guy back then. One night studying I realized that there were A LOT of discrepancies in my bible. I started reading and studying the KJV, and never have looked back. Do some study, the versions you are talking about are dangerous. There were no better scholars in the King James. Satan has always been”messed” with what God said. Do not trust men. Westcott and Hort were heretics. Never trust men who attempt to make the Bible say what they want.
NKJV is the best NT out there since it’s based on the TR whereas the ESV & NASB1995 use the CT. I do like the ESV OT since it’s more updated and includes the Dead Sea scrolls and the Septuagint.
If you prefer the TR over the CT the. I can see how you definitely would prefer the NKJV. I personally just love how the NKJV is very transparent in its foot notes, telling you the different readings from TR, CT, and Majority Text.
It's not just you! Like you, I was mortified when I heard from Tim Nickels that a revision of the ESV is being considered. The ESV has been my translation of choice for several years, and while I have always appreciated other translations (in particular, and perhaps fortunately, the NKJV) I have usually found myself relying on the ESV for most of my reading and teaching. I am now feeling frustrated and even somewhat betrayed by Crossway. The ESV is a Bible version that has only existed since around 2001 and has already been updated a handful of times, most recently in 2016--not long ago at all. Language does change, but not that quickly. And while Biblical scholarship is an ongoing thing, major discoveries that actually demand a textual revision are extraordinarily rare, to put it mildly. That's why the KJV remains a useful, if somewhat challenging, translation 400 years after its first appearance. I hate to think Crossway is going to reissue the ESV for purely financial reasons, but that does seem likely. Or worse, the editors may feel a more "woke" Bible is desirable (given the people behind the ESV I don't believe that's probable, but these days you don't know). At this point I am moving towards making the NKJV and KJV my primary Bibles because they are excellent and stable translations that are not going away anytime soon. Best case scenario is that Crossway gets a lot of pushback and decides not to change the ESV after all but failing that I'm going to be using the NKJV and KJV a whole lot more. Thanks for sharing your thoughts in the video.
Simple. In order to have a copyright you have to change things. Hence the constant changes. You just nailed it. Confusion. That's what multiple translations cause.
I agree with you. I can't get totally devoted to the newer versions, especially getting into the ESV, then I always hear about an update. The NASB, NIV, and the NRSV have all reeled me in, and then an update pops up. I agree. I'm going to have to go with a Bible that has staying power. I'm still deciding on the KJV or the NKJV.
I agree brother pastor. I can understand your frustration. Crossway should have stuck to their original plan for making the 2016 update a permanent text edition.
I would reckon that it will be a minimal amount. If it’s like 50 words or do, and they issue a list of amendments - it’s not a big deal to pencil in the margin of your existing Bible, without having to get a new one. Allan M
I know I'm probably a minority opinion here, but it definitely needs many updates. There's a very interesting article by Mark Strauss called "Why the English Standard Version should not be the standard English version." It's worth reading.
I suggest contacting David Daniels from Chick Publications and have him as a guest to discuss, not debate, the topic of changes and translations. I think it would be a very interesting conversation for you and your audience. He would have answers to a lot of your questions and you have the choice to agree with him or not.
I agree with you Colton. I’ve been thinking about this a lot and I’m torn when it comes to the ESV. It’s a really good translation. Recently I was doing some memorizing geared specifically to a young men’s Bible study I’m a part of. In general I find the NKJV (my personal fave) more memorable at least for me because of my history with it, but I also think the ESV being slightly more modern has advantages. Most of these young men, English is their second language, and the ESV makes some things easier. For example, where the NKJV might say “long-suffering” the ESV says “patience”. Even for me I definitely prefer the latter word choice. I really do wish they would just stop messing with the ESV, and on a sarcastic note part of me wonders if this is just an ongoing process of keeping certain people employed 😂
I like the ESV. I feel that its a very good translation from its sources. I suppose that my only issue with the ESV is with a handful of peculiar words and phrases that are not what I believe to be as accurate as they could (and should) be. Thankfully, these questionable renderings are rare. My issue is that I feel that the translators were interpreting words and phrases based upon doctrinal beliefs in those passages. Even if I agree with that interpretation, I don't like to see this done. Although the renderings are arguably accurate, the choice of wording in those cases is often a decidedly minority interpretation of the words or phrases. It's a dynamic equivalence that is influenced by doctrinal position. Still, apart from those few examples, I really appreciate the ESV. I consult it on an almost daily basis within my private readings and study. So, I agree that there isn't a need to update the entire text (as a new "edition"). I get that accuracy is important. I just wonder if this is really a new "edition" or just a handful of passages that are updated due to questions over the best English rendering. If it's the latter, I think that footnotes is the better option over a new "edition." My wife and I begin each day by reading the Word of God together. Each complete journey through the Bible, we select a specific translation. We've used the ESV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV. We go through it cover-to-cover (i.e., Genesis through Revelation) -- although we have used a purely chronological read through from start to finish a couple of times. It is a simple way to "study" the Bible -- by simply reading it from start to finish. I read...and my wife follows along in her Bible. We often will stop and consult other sources -- including bound and online copies the MT, LXX, DSS and other versions of the Bible for how they rendered a particular passage. Thankfully, my Hebrew and Hellenistic Greek has improved quite a bit to assist with my own opinions on faithful renderings of those words. Once we have children, I hope to continue with them too. I've always wished that someone would create an English translation of the Bible that correctly replaces the high church and traditional terms that weren't quite translated into English properly. These terms remained because of their traditional use and how they became a part of the English vernacular (particularly for Christians). Yet, it still isn't accurate to use a substitution word when the Hebrew or Greek terms were not exclusive or proper words. Words like "church," "baptize," "bishop," "saints," etc. -- they have straight English translations that are entirely accurate and would better convey the meaning of the text. Yet, high church traditions remained even after the reformation. I find this unfortunate (even if I do understand the rationale).
Hearing this is coming is interesting - I’m thankful to have gotten into my Bible reading in an age when I can compare versions and look up Greek or Hebrew in seconds. Being able to compare multiple interpretations helps to understand words and phrases that must not have one for one translations.
Personally, in the Bible Studies that I lead, I've decided to use the Nasb1995 as my primary translation, but I'm always checking the Kjv because the Pastors at my Church preach from the Kjv. Esv is great, Nkjv is good too. I love the Hcsb. Niv 1984 was used mightily by God as well. I was actually using a Parallel Bible that had the Kjv, Nkjv, Niv1984 & and Nlt1996, because the guys going to my group were all using different versions [go figure]. I really just love the Word of God!! Note: when I asked my Church's Senior Pastor about Bible Translations, he stated that he used all of them, which is a good answer 😎
Old NASB fan here. I briefly migrated to the ESV because of its heritage AND the inclusion of clarifications found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I like comparing and contrasting many translations but usually come home to my old NASB.
Exactly right in what you said. I love it as I came from the KJV and the ESV reads like it in many ways. It seems like a sign of these times maybe. Kind of a "new and improved" mentality maybe and we've got to keep it fresh. So let's change and change and change. Me? Back to NKJV to I think.
It’s all about $$$. I like your idea about updating the footnotes. I have the 2011 ESV and won’t be getting another one. My bible is high quality and will last me the rest of my life. I think NKJ is not a bad idea. Changing the text so often makes the version less appealing and appear weak.
I truly hope it’s not all about the money. My favorite ESV Bible I own is a 2011 text edition. I’m glad the differences are not major between updates, but it’s still frustrating.
@@coltonyarbro Me too. That’s me spouting off and I truly regret saying that. I have no evidence of that. Translations aside Bible publishers have to do something to keep their company thriving so they have to innovate and keep things interesting to make sales.
Haven’t heard anything about when yet. Wayne Grudem , from the translation committee, is the one who broke the news about the update. But no one has said when it will happen.
I don't even know how to respond. I personally do not understand why a continuous updating of the text. (is it like our diet? um bacon is bad for you, wait we were wrong bacon is ok.) I had to look at mine and I see that my copy is the 2011 text. I will continue using it. But I use several translations all at once in my reading and studying, so it is no big deal in my personal use. I feel no reason to run out and purchase the next update, which is obvious since I have the 2011 text. I could understand if there has been 30 years and there was such a shift in our English language which called for the update, but it is almost like, "oh wait we were wrong, it really means this instead." What? Really? You think that ,maybe, they would have spent enough time wrestling over the text that they would come to a solid conclusion as to how it should read before they published the ESV edition. Now we are to expect an update every few months, years, weeks?
I'm puzzled by the love affair of so many for the ESV. My main complaint is with the prose itself: things like word ordering, rhythm, diction (e.g. below) Exodus 24:8 AV And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. Exodus 24:8a (NIV) Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people... Exodus 24:8a (NASB) So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people... Exodus 24:8 (OJB) And Moshe took the remaining dahm, and sprinkled it on HaAm... Exodus 24:8a (ESV) And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people... The above is not an isolated incident. And no, "threw" for זָרַק is not somehow a more literal rendering. If you don't know the term off hand, feel free to look at the contextual usage of H2236 in the word's other 34 appearances. As they say, 'to each their own,' (whatever version gets you to read the Bible I'm all for!) but I just don't get it.
I understand your point there. I’m no Hebrew scholar but I do have two semesters of Biblical Hebrew under my belt and I have to say that is a strange rendering.
I agree with you. Footnotes would be welcome for those that want to follow scholarship views. I have marked my ESV Study Bible up so much over the past years, that I know I'll need another at some point. I would actually LOOK FORWARD to new footnotes as a refreshment. But, I won't be too happy with text changes. I have most Bible translations, and ESV is MY chosen go-to for everyday reading because when comparing verses in various translations the ESV always "won" in having the context make sense for me. We all process words and thoughts differently, and the ESV matches my thought processing best. If they do make changes, I'll likely buy it out of curiosity. But I will always have the current copies that have the current text. I understand the pastor's quandary though.
This is why I like my paper Bibles as they can’t change what is already printed. The NRSV is better because as I understand it they did update it but they released it as a new version (with both versions being available alongside each other).
Ive never owned an ESV, but I use it for comparison during study. (Digital) I think if translation committees find errors, or places where they translated poorly, then those places should be updated. But if its just changes that are not that important they should leave it alone.
@@littlefishbigmountain That looks like an error. Should say "from" not "before". These are the sorts of things that I feel like Bible publishers should correct regularly and not wait years to fix.
I agree but I think what people are worried about is new interpretations being part of the translation or censoring to be more socially correct. Our language has not changed dramatically from 2016 and people should still understand what is written with ease.
I can remember an old Bloom County comic strip where one of the characters - a hacker kid - was watching a TV commercial announcing the "all-new IBM PC 9000 SR . . . now featuring TINT CONTROL!!" The hacker kid gets up, collects his computer (an IBM PC 9000), and dumps it in the trash can. Over the last three years (actually, as I type, three years and one day), I have managed to pick up eight ESV Bibles, including four that would be considered "premium" . . . and it's not even one used by the church I go to! It's because the ESV was the first Bible translation I had picked up in decades (since I was a kid), the first translation I had completed (never done as a kid), and the one I gravitate towards. I've read other translations, but I keep coming back to the ESV. So am I going to toss all of those Bibles into the dumpster? ABSOLUTELY NOT. But I WILL say it'll be a while before I plunk down lots of shekels for another premium copy.
I believe Both the NIV and the NRSV managed to go almost 40 years without a text update. It is crazy to me that the ESV has already had so many, and crazier if they do another. Honestly, Some of the changes I know of were improvements in my opinion; but not all. Im inclined to agree, just update the footnotes… that is, unless they make some of the handful of changes I’ve been wishing for ;)
@coltonyarbro Microsoft gets updates, Apple gets updates, we live everyday in a world of updates. Some Bible publishers/companies are about tweaking and updating their texts either to make it more readable and/or accurate. Also, since many people seem to have an "improve/update" mindset people may flock to updated translations which mean new and repeat buyers. What do you think?
Yes, they need to revise the text. They need to use italics for words that were added for clarity in every version has those words that were not in the original text.
This is why I stick with: NKJV, RSV, and NRSV. The changes you describe - textual as opposed to footnotes - is one reason I stayed away from the NASB (77, 95, 2020), which itself has morphed into the LSB.
I work in I.T. Bible translations are becoming like software updates. :) Does a anyone have any authoritative sources for the idea that NKJV is a locked translation edition? Is there a list of locked translation editions? What is the copyright term for a translation?
I love the idea of footnotes. I don’t think there has been enough language change. My best idea is modern scolardhip has caused them to want to flip flop some things from footnotes to actual text. I wish it stayed the same, the thought that it is staying the same is the reason I have bought so many nice editions.
Even if they update the ESV your current ESV translation will still be with you in your Bible. It will not expire like some outdated Microsoft operating system software, just keep reading your favorite version. I do understand your concern though.
Very true. I suppose my concern comes from a more pastoral perspective. We use the ESV, and it is annoying to me that dependent on what text edition everyone has we may have different readings.
I like ESV because the Lcms church service uses ESV and it’s what I’ve memorized. Several pastors however encourage me to use NKJV mostly and use NASB95. So I’m kinda in same boat. I can’t go KJV because even though I know some Archaic words. Last option I can think of is just use the RSV. I don’t like some of their translation choices but side by side is so much like ESV. Also nobody uses RSV so that’s tricky too. lol
I heard Gabe Hughes talking about this on his podcast a year or two ago. Crossway released a statement in 2020 that they will periodically make minor updates based on scholarship. This prompted him to switch to the lsb, but he acknowledged there are no guarantees with it either. I agree with you on this but I don’t think I’d consider switching at this point. There have been mutterings for people to update the nkjv too, so someone may make a switch for nothing. Plus I just bought a Schuyler wide margin Esv to put special notes/prayers in for my kids. What’s a guy to do?
Phillip Nation from Thomas Nelson recently said, I think it was Tim Frish's channel, that there were no intentions of updating the NKJV. They like the idea of it being a stable text and it's what their readers wanted, so they were leaving it alone.
I guess many (or all) modern versions truly aren't the "unchanging Word of God"? God's Word is preserved and perfect, yet so many of these versions get textual updates. I personally stick with the KJV, but that's what I've been accustomed to for many years.
It doesn't sound like a radical update and it won't affect my use of the ESV as my primary. I could see if it was something akin to the NASB95 --> NASB2020 or NIV84 --> NIV2011 level of changes, but it's simply minor word tweaks that provide better clarity of the text. God bless! p.s. Pick me for that giveaway! ;)
I've got a whole library of ESV-2016 volumes. The exhaustive concordance, the interlinears, the study Bible, and over half the Expository Commentary built out. I can't wait for it all to be out of date.
The main concern here is the making an attempt to become gender-inclusive rather than keeping the translation as the Hebrew-Greek have it written in Scripture. The NASB 2020 went in that direction and destroyed the translation. The editors, etc. of the ESV need to stick with the text and follow more in line with the excellent work done by the revision of the newer Legacy Standard Bible which focuses on the Scriptures being translated as the authors of the book would want us to understand - not to just make it more simple for the reader. We do not need to keep getting translation updates or new translations. Or even study Bibles, especially those done by an individual pastor anymore. It seems to have become a big money-making racket. I will say that the NKJV (which I do like and appreciate) was published in 1982. I would think an update would come some time in the not too distant future.
Does anyone know the last time that they changed the NKJV? I don't think it's been changed since the '80s but I could be wrong. Seems to me that's a more stable version.
I use the ESV. Personally, I think an update would be more unnecessary than anything else. I guess I could see the need if they want to make sure it’s aligned with modern scholarship and want to refine it. But like the NASB it just seems unnecessary. They should’ve kept the 95 as the permanent text.
I am still a fan of the KJV, then the NKJV, then I will go to the others ESV, N ASB to see how they say a thing. I like them all, but I mainly stay with the KJV and the NKJV.
I'm with you, but torn. I guess it would depend on what is actually changing. I'm committed to the truth and accuracy of God's Word over a certain way I'm used to reading it. If the changes reflect a more accurate translation, then I'm all for it.
I get that. And I want accuracy as well. But I also think it is already very accurate and whatever changes they want to make would be best kept in the footnotes. Just me though…
I actually believe that the ESV’s approach as it pertains to textual updates is perhaps the best of any of the major English Bible translations. I think that a lot of the uproar in response to Grudem’s recent comments stems from the fact that many folks are envisioning the coming update of which he spoke as the same sort of generational revision that we’ve seen occur with the NIV in 2011 and the NASB in 2020. To those people: that simply isn’t the case. None of the previous ESV updates have ever fundamentally changed the translation, and I do not anticipate this one being any different. The ESV’s strategy of taking reader feedback and scholarly advancement into consideration and making minor updates every five to ten years serves, in my opinion, to keep the text stable while allowing room for improvements to be made as further archeological discoveries are made and textual critical scholarship advances. No English translation of the Bible is perfect. The autographs were not written in English, and we do not even have those autographs. That doesn’t mean what we do have isn’t God’s Word; however, it does mean that we should be open to the possibility of improvements being made to our English translations. As I previously read someone else in this group say, the methodology of the ESV translation committee allows for potential improvements to be made to the translation while the ESV fundamentally remains the ESV that we know and love.
As we learn more about Greek and Hebrew and the history of the OT and NT we need to update it to increase its accuracy. There are several mistranslations in the ESV that have never been corrected even though the NASB, CSB, LSB and NET bibles have corrected all or most of them. For example, the ESV mistranslates John 3:16; 20:23; Matthew 16:19, 18:18 among a few others. If you want an accurate Bible then it will keep be republished from time to time. These are not doctrinal changes they are correcting mistranslations. It would be a good idea to make supplements that could be placed in a pocket in the back of the bible rather than constantly reprint the entire bible.
I hear you and I understand the reasoning. But these are mistranslations according to whom? I understand where you are coming from (I certainly think “begotten” should be in John 3:16 for example). But these are committees with very bright scholars doing this sort of work. I may not always agree with their translation choices, but I also would be happy with footnote alternatives rather than changing the base text all the time. Just my opinion.
@@drbill-r9f Yes I understand that, and my point was not about doctrines but translating from one language to another. There are clearly decisions that have to be made (text criticism), and I don't think it is likely that anyone would claim they are an absolute authority on the right way to translate from one language to another perfectly. We do the best we can....
I said this on Tim’s video as well but I have many ESV’s also and they all range from the first edition to the current 2016 edition and because the changes between them are so minor I’ve never viewed them as “different translations”. The updates are not nearly as significant as say the NIV84 to the NIV11 or even the HCSB to the CSB. I would consider those changes as different translations, but not so with the ESV. Even the King James since 1611 had undergone revisions. Now the time span between those revisions were larger if I remember correctly, but still I’m not so sure how big of an issue this is and I attend to church that uses the ESV as our text and we’ve always had mixed editions in the pews. I don’t wanna shoot down your feelings about it, but I don’t understand the frustration. Blessings!
@@pinkdiscomosh2766 hey no worries. Thanks for your comment. I’m not a dining the ESV and I do realize the changes are minor. But I still am annoyed they keep happening so frequently. The church I pastor also has ESV in the pews and that is what I preach from. Just really wish the textual “tinkering” would stop. If it’s not enough to truly be noticeable by most people, then a footnote would have sufficed. Just my opinion.
@@coltonyarbro And I do think that’s a good idea. Translations should definitely use footnotes for minor changes more often. That’s essentially what I end up doing in my ESV study Bible is I’ll mark textual changes in the footnotes. I did it with the 2016 changes. I’ll probably do the same with these up-and-coming ones. Just to have them all noted in one place.
The longer I live, the more dedicated I am to the Scripture as it was intended to be read, in the original 14th century English version published by John Wycliffe as spoke by the prophets Moses, Samuel, and Iddo. This text has not been manipulated in approximately 600 years. 😁
If the bible is subject to changes, it is the word of man, and not the word of God, because God is immutable and so is his holy Word. His Word is a revelation of his mind and will, and neither of those can be changed...
@@alanhuber364 it’s the English TRANSLATIONS that change, not the original manuscripts. As long as there are other languages there will be different translations that do change with the languages.
As the owner of two premium RL Allan ESV’s 2016 text editions , this disturbs me . I tend to think this is a money grab on the part of the publishers. Make a few changes , and many will rush out to grab the latest ( tho not necessarily the greatest) edition. Just annoying in imho and if Crossway follows thru on this I will not be buying the update . New sub, I like your content .
The oldest copy of the Bible for the OT is the Greek Septuagint, which shows that the Hebrew scholars changed portions of the Masoretic text to lean people away from Jesus being the Messiah and leaned people away from 1 Enoch who also pointed to Jesus as being the Messiah. The Masoretic text was also written in a different alphabet without vowels and word breaks. The NT authors read and used the Septuagint, because of the Christians preserved the original translation of the living language, counter to what the Hebrews did. Which means if you are using an English translation that is translated from the Masoretic text, it's been altered and changed and not close to the original living language. As Christians you should know that the Jewish religion does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, so why are you trusting their Masoretic text? The ESV actually gets most of the changes corrected, so out of all the versions I tend to lean towards ESV for this reason. I personally use the Septuagint Lexham OT and ESV NT.
I attended a Christian university in 2003 right after the ESV was released. It was immediately popular in my circles and so I began using the ESV. It was my translation of choice for almost 15 years. I finally switched to the NKJV for this very reason and I haven't looked back.
I definitely understand why.
I don't think that's a valid reason to choose it, but there is a lot of merit/trust in just leaving it alone. It's in my top 3 and the "hands off" is why it's my control sample to judge others.
I was the same. Esv was all the hype in early 2000s. After the NIV Was all the rage. Now esv is outdated and everyone wants you to buy the LSB. No thanks. I’ve gone back to the original KJV.
I’m firmly planting my flag in the NKJV camp for the reasons stated in your video. It’s impossible for me to recommend anyone purchase an expensive ESV Bible that they intended to use for a lifetime. Not when they update it like a windows computer.
I definitely understand
💯
I understand totally why they are doing it. It's all about the money. Updated editions have a built-in market because those that stay loyal to that translation have to have the "latest, greatest update. Publishers know this and despite what they say, money is king. All of the talk about updating language and new discoveries is just a smokescreen to gather more of your hard-earned money. Language has not changed enough to warrant an update at this point. I mean it's been a whole 8 years since the last one. Come on, really? It's all about the money. I rode the translation ride for a while myself and finally ended up back where I grew up, the KJV. The NKJV is a great bible, and it's stable. You will not regret going there if you decide to go that way.
$$$ It's all about that money. The text will never be complete. The ever changing face of the modern critical text.
Great video. As someone who had to navigate the 2016 changes, this week I bought a NKJV. super frustrating that it would be changed again.
My church uses ESV while I carry the NKJV. They read very similarly, often times sounding like a kid copying a book report and trying to rearrange the words just enough to be different. But I prefer how the NKJV reads most of the time.
(P.S: I’m not saying ESV copied anything, it’s just fun to compare them sometimes and see how close they are.)
@@kaltech04 NASB '95 is very close as well. Then again, they have had a recent update and then MacCarthur radically revised the '95 to LSB.
@@josephraimondo102 I actually bought my first NASB '95 a couple of months ago just to have on hand as a comparison translation, and like it a lot more than I expected. I had always heard it's a "wooden" translation, I haven't experienced that much (mostly comparing psalms and some prophetic books, I haven't read much out of the NT or Pentateuch yet).
@@kaltech04 same here. Actually, I'm finding the ESV a bit Yoda like now.
I was thinking of moving to the ESV from the NKJV a couple years ago. I actually started using it and read through the whole thing.
I’m back with the NKJV now for this very reason. Especially as a mother of four young kids I want my kids to have a stable Bible to get familiar with.
We will see. Just because the committee is meeting to discuss proposed changes doesn’t mean they’ll go all the way to publishing a revision of the ESV.
Man I sure hope so. I would have never invested in the ESV-2016 so heavily if I had known they'd just change it later.
@@WilliamSwartzendruber Even if they do publish a revision, the changes will likely be quite minor and obviously your 2016's will still be valid and useful. But if you never want your Biblical text to change again you have to stick with an older translation like the KJV, RSV, NKJV, NASB 95, etc.
@@RoastBeefSandwich ESV is supposed to be the modern descendant of all those texts. Also ESV and those others you mentioned is what the Orthodox Church suggests to English speakers to read.
Either way, this video news is sad to me. What more needs changed? If they go through with it, I'll probably just stick with NKJV for any more future bible purchases.
I agree with you 100%. A simple update to the footnotes would have been sufficient. The textual update of Gen 3:16 seemed unnecessary as the footnotes were sufficient. I’m thinking about moving on from the ESV as well.
It is burdensome how it gets changed often. What about people that follow along with their pastors and everyone has all these different updates? What about kids memorizing scripture? Just my personal peeves. I'll always keep a nkjv handy for all this instability.
I totally agree. I started using the ESV about three years ago and have bought seven different copies.
@@Purvis-dw4qf only 7? lol jk.
@@coltonyarbro Well I have 4 NIV 84, 1 NIV 2011, a NASB 1977, 1995, 2020, 2 LSB, 5 CSB, 2 NKJV, and at least a half dozen KJV plus several Greek and Hebrew Bibles.
Great video, keep making them love it! The NKJV is a great translation it has great marginal notes.
I always find it humorous that pretty much every video on TH-cam about Bible translations has to have the seemingly mandatory "I don't support onlyism" section.
I grew up with the NIV. As I got older and started to truly formulate my faith, I found that I simply couldn't stick with it after the 2011 update. I then spent a year or two bouncing around through different translations. I eventually realized that I was spending more time looking into translations, their pros and cons, their strengths and weaknesses than I was actually reading the Bible. I moved to NKJV and now use almost exclusively the KJV (with NKJV as a tool) and suddenly I found that the entire problem vanished overnight. (And yes I understand that puts me dangerously close to the "onlyism" people).
I agree that putting some HARD rule on ONLY using one version or you are evil is not correct, but I do think grabbing a trusted translation that hasn't and won't change solves this whole problem for the rest of your life (and your kids life, and maybe their kids life too).
It's important to keep up with scholarship and keep an eye on new discoveries and what the modern views on Biblical things are, but just avoiding the whole translation problem was one of the better decisions I have made in my life.
It is also admittedly an odd experience for me personally, since the ESV update news has come out, I have watched a number of people go through some of the same processes I went through a decade+ ago.
@@ChancyC thanks for sharing your experience.
I never had to change to anything else being in KJV. God gave us a brain to understand it and everyone else makes excuses. The historical context how it was written and how much dumber we get with tech, I don't expect them to ever come close to the rigidness and standard held to translate it the way they did.. Also when we quote it, people almost always recognize it as the Bible. It is distinct and eloquent as if it was made separate from the world
@@exzld you and I probably agree on many things about the KJV, it’s why we use it.
I do think it’s a little bit incorrect to claim it’s making excuses to find it difficult however. I agree that anyone, with time and a little effort, can get used to it and be just fine, but it’s fair to point out it’s not easy for all initially.
I think it’s worth the effort, but there is an effort that is required, especially for those who have never been exposed to it.
@@ChancyC yeah I know but it is like a Pearl of great price. It is worth it
@@ChancyC
When I was 14 and first becoming serious about wanting to follow Christ, I was given a KJV for free by a sweet lady who ran a traveling book store. I was in the middle of the wilderness living in a cabin with no internet access, so all I had to use was that and eventually a physical Strong’s Concordance.
It was hard at first, but I got used to it and loved it. Then I went away from it for a couple years, came back again and it was hard again, then I got used to it again. Now I love it again. Everyone says the hard part is the “thee”s and “thou”s or the “-eth”s and “-est”s, but that’s actually very natural and easy to acquire. The real hard part is learning the “false friends” that you THINK you known but have different meanings today, like “so”in “For God so loved the world,” but as you can see that sometimes bleeds into “modern” translations who have no excuse, especially paraphrases that explicit make it say what it does not based on the familiar KJV that changed meaning over time.
For me the KJV isn’t very hard to read at all in the New Testament. It’s the Old that gets a little bit harder to follow sometimes.
One of the many reasons I currently prefer using the KJV. In fact my favorite text block is from the 1920's 😅. I feel your concern brother, thank you for sharing.
The older blocks on some KJV bibles are so great! I have one and love the bold font.
Same here! The bold text block is so much easier to read. 😊
I’ve reverted back to the KJV. All these Bible translations just keep coming and changing. The Bible hasn’t changed. Keep the original big daddy of them all
The KJV is based of manuscripts unit 500 years old. It’s by far not even close to the original.
@ that’s obviously false as you know.
@@orangemanbad
No it’s not. The Textus Receptus is not even 600 years old. Prove me wrong
@ so you believe the documents eramus used was written 600 years ago? I don’t even begin to know how to help you.
@
“The first edition of the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament, was published in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus:
The term Textus Receptus, which is Latin for "Received Text", was first used in 1633 to describe an edition of the Greek New Testament published by the Elzevir Brothers.”
The New King James Version is the one to read.
Me too good stable text
@@sdhutestable people read the KJV
I use these versions with their ranking: KJV, NKJV1982, NASB1995, HCSB, NET 2 full notes, BSB. With comments or Text Only.
Once Mark Ward mentioned he was working at crossway led me to believe it would change. I’m no longer going to use non stable translations.
I understand that for sure. For now I’m holding on.
Just return to the good-old King James version. Never have to worry.
@@igregmartyeppers I did picked up a topaz KJV
Welcome to textual criticism and the Frankenstein verses. Honestly I was an NASB/ LSB and ESV lover. Now I plant my flag with the NKJV
The version I read has been stable since 1769.
That’s 255 years and counting with no updates. And I’m very happy with that. :)
They can do what they want. I have two excellent premium ESV bibles (PSQ & ESVSB Cowhide) in the 2016 version and I won’t be dropping all that cash to replace them.
I think that it’s important to continue working towards getting closer to God. It may be inconvenient but Bible scholars work hard to continually improve the accuracy of our scriptures.
I switched from the NKJV to ESV for preaching recently because we had many in the congregation that had a hard time understanding the NKJV. In sticking with the ESV for now. I’ll wait and see what they change.
@@mikehopper1674 I’m hanging with it also. I’m just frustrated. Text stability is not “everything” but it certainly is important. At least it’s important to me.
You literally have “a lot of people” in your congregation who have a hard time understanding the Nkjv? Seriously?
@@dondgc2298 our congregation is small ( about 22) and we have 3 people with learning disabilities and 2 who are new to the faith. The wording of the NKJV can be difficult for some people.
Stay with KJV no need for a change
Which KJV? Considering their are at least ten different revisions. With thousands of changes.
The ESV made me KJVO. I read the brackets in the text and said “Wait,what?”
1. It's only been 8 years since the last update. 2. If you publish it as "the Permanent Text", you don't go changing it. Why go back on their words and do it anyway? I don't know, for the money? Maybe.
The ESV committee actually retracted the 2016 Permanent Text after public disappointment/rejection, etc, the following year, 2017 (if I’m correct ).
We "KJV only" folks never have this problem.
1611. 1629. 1638. 1762. ABC 19th century update. Tell me how it's different?
@@michaelmcevoy9278some are called authorized, updated, etcetera.... and KJVonlyists don't even come close to agreeing on what they actually believe in anyways, or they'd be the same denomination.
The cult of KJVO lives on
What about the NJKV
I am a college grad from the 70’s. I was saved in 1976, was a NAS guy back then. One night studying I realized that there were A LOT of discrepancies in my bible. I started reading and studying the KJV, and never have looked back. Do some study, the versions you are talking about are dangerous. There were no better scholars in the King James. Satan has always been”messed” with what God said. Do not trust men. Westcott and Hort were heretics. Never trust men who attempt to make the Bible say what they want.
I hope we see a shift toward the Majority Text position in the coming years. It offers the stability that we long for.
NKJV is the best NT out there since it’s based on the TR whereas the ESV & NASB1995 use the CT. I do like the ESV OT since it’s more updated and includes the Dead Sea scrolls and the Septuagint.
If you prefer the TR over the CT the. I can see how you definitely would prefer the NKJV. I personally just love how the NKJV is very transparent in its foot notes, telling you the different readings from TR, CT, and Majority Text.
I like to read from several different translations. I hope to get a better understanding of scripture overall. Thanks for the video!
So glad we found your channel!
Welcome!!
It's not just you! Like you, I was mortified when I heard from Tim Nickels that a revision of the ESV is being considered. The ESV has been my translation of choice for several years, and while I have always appreciated other translations (in particular, and perhaps fortunately, the NKJV) I have usually found myself relying on the ESV for most of my reading and teaching. I am now feeling frustrated and even somewhat betrayed by Crossway. The ESV is a Bible version that has only existed since around 2001 and has already been updated a handful of times, most recently in 2016--not long ago at all. Language does change, but not that quickly. And while Biblical scholarship is an ongoing thing, major discoveries that actually demand a textual revision are extraordinarily rare, to put it mildly. That's why the KJV remains a useful, if somewhat challenging, translation 400 years after its first appearance. I hate to think Crossway is going to reissue the ESV for purely financial reasons, but that does seem likely. Or worse, the editors may feel a more "woke" Bible is desirable (given the people behind the ESV I don't believe that's probable, but these days you don't know). At this point I am moving towards making the NKJV and KJV my primary Bibles because they are excellent and stable translations that are not going away anytime soon. Best case scenario is that Crossway gets a lot of pushback and decides not to change the ESV after all but failing that I'm going to be using the NKJV and KJV a whole lot more. Thanks for sharing your thoughts in the video.
Simple. In order to have a copyright you have to change things. Hence the constant changes. You just nailed it. Confusion. That's what multiple translations cause.
I agree with you. I can't get totally devoted to the newer versions, especially getting into the ESV, then I always hear about an update. The NASB, NIV, and the NRSV have all reeled me in, and then an update pops up. I agree. I'm going to have to go with a Bible that has staying power. I'm still deciding on the KJV or the NKJV.
If I were to move it would be to the NKJV
I agree brother pastor. I can understand your frustration. Crossway should have stuck to their original plan for making the 2016 update a permanent text edition.
Yes indeed!
I would reckon that it will be a minimal amount. If it’s like 50 words or do, and they issue a list of amendments - it’s not a big deal to pencil in the margin of your existing Bible, without having to get a new one. Allan M
Good point.
I know I'm probably a minority opinion here, but it definitely needs many updates. There's a very interesting article by Mark Strauss called "Why the English Standard Version should not be the standard English version." It's worth reading.
Whatever changes they make - put them in the footnotes only
I suggest contacting David Daniels from Chick Publications and have him as a guest to discuss, not debate, the topic of changes and translations. I think it would be a very interesting conversation for you and your audience. He would have answers to a lot of your questions and you have the choice to agree with him or not.
Instead of David Daniels he should see if James White or Daniel B. Wallace can be interviewed.
@@NathanDFoust-john146 Na, David Daniels is the guy to talk about why they keep updating and introducing translations.
@@thealternativeideas I don't believe that David Daniels is qualified to be honest. He is KJV only. Daniel B. Wallace is a textual scholar.
@@NathanDFoust-john146 He is KJV because he is a textual scholar.
I would not trust David W Daniels or anybody from the KJV only camp. Full of double standards and hypocrisy.
I agree with you Colton. I’ve been thinking about this a lot and I’m torn when it comes to the ESV. It’s a really good translation. Recently I was doing some memorizing geared specifically to a young men’s Bible study I’m a part of. In general I find the NKJV (my personal fave) more memorable at least for me because of my history with it, but I also think the ESV being slightly more modern has advantages. Most of these young men, English is their second language, and the ESV makes some things easier. For example, where the NKJV might say “long-suffering” the ESV says “patience”. Even for me I definitely prefer the latter word choice. I really do wish they would just stop messing with the ESV, and on a sarcastic note part of me wonders if this is just an ongoing process of keeping certain people employed 😂
I like the ESV. I feel that its a very good translation from its sources. I suppose that my only issue with the ESV is with a handful of peculiar words and phrases that are not what I believe to be as accurate as they could (and should) be. Thankfully, these questionable renderings are rare. My issue is that I feel that the translators were interpreting words and phrases based upon doctrinal beliefs in those passages. Even if I agree with that interpretation, I don't like to see this done. Although the renderings are arguably accurate, the choice of wording in those cases is often a decidedly minority interpretation of the words or phrases. It's a dynamic equivalence that is influenced by doctrinal position.
Still, apart from those few examples, I really appreciate the ESV. I consult it on an almost daily basis within my private readings and study. So, I agree that there isn't a need to update the entire text (as a new "edition"). I get that accuracy is important. I just wonder if this is really a new "edition" or just a handful of passages that are updated due to questions over the best English rendering. If it's the latter, I think that footnotes is the better option over a new "edition."
My wife and I begin each day by reading the Word of God together. Each complete journey through the Bible, we select a specific translation. We've used the ESV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV. We go through it cover-to-cover (i.e., Genesis through Revelation) -- although we have used a purely chronological read through from start to finish a couple of times. It is a simple way to "study" the Bible -- by simply reading it from start to finish. I read...and my wife follows along in her Bible. We often will stop and consult other sources -- including bound and online copies the MT, LXX, DSS and other versions of the Bible for how they rendered a particular passage. Thankfully, my Hebrew and Hellenistic Greek has improved quite a bit to assist with my own opinions on faithful renderings of those words. Once we have children, I hope to continue with them too.
I've always wished that someone would create an English translation of the Bible that correctly replaces the high church and traditional terms that weren't quite translated into English properly. These terms remained because of their traditional use and how they became a part of the English vernacular (particularly for Christians). Yet, it still isn't accurate to use a substitution word when the Hebrew or Greek terms were not exclusive or proper words. Words like "church," "baptize," "bishop," "saints," etc. -- they have straight English translations that are entirely accurate and would better convey the meaning of the text. Yet, high church traditions remained even after the reformation. I find this unfortunate (even if I do understand the rationale).
Hearing this is coming is interesting - I’m thankful to have gotten into my Bible reading in an age when I can compare versions and look up Greek or Hebrew in seconds. Being able to compare multiple interpretations helps to understand words and phrases that must not have one for one translations.
I use the esv for cross referencing, but it will never be my main for this reason. I don't understand Crossway's commitment to textual instability.
I resonate with that even though it is my main translation.
Wayne Grudem said they are considering around 50 verses. The Tim Nichol’s video you mention has the article posted so you can read it.
Yep
Personally, in the Bible Studies that I lead, I've decided to use the Nasb1995 as my primary translation, but I'm always checking the Kjv because the Pastors at my Church preach from the Kjv. Esv is great, Nkjv is good too. I love the Hcsb. Niv 1984 was used mightily by God as well. I was actually using a Parallel Bible that had the Kjv, Nkjv, Niv1984 & and Nlt1996, because the guys going to my group were all using different versions [go figure]. I really just love the Word of God!! Note: when I asked my Church's Senior Pastor about Bible Translations, he stated that he used all of them, which is a good answer 😎
Old NASB fan here. I briefly migrated to the ESV because of its heritage AND the inclusion of clarifications found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I like comparing and contrasting many translations but usually come home to my old NASB.
Exactly right in what you said. I love it as I came from the KJV and the ESV reads like it in many ways. It seems like a sign of these times maybe. Kind of a "new and improved" mentality maybe and we've got to keep it fresh. So let's change and change and change. Me? Back to NKJV to I think.
I definitely understand that impulse
It’s all about $$$. I like your idea about updating the footnotes. I have the 2011 ESV and won’t be getting another one. My bible is high quality and will last me the rest of my life. I think NKJ is not a bad idea. Changing the text so often makes the version less appealing and appear weak.
I truly hope it’s not all about the money. My favorite ESV Bible I own is a 2011 text edition. I’m glad the differences are not major between updates, but it’s still frustrating.
@@coltonyarbro Me too. That’s me spouting off and I truly regret saying that. I have no evidence of that. Translations aside Bible publishers have to do something to keep their company thriving so they have to innovate and keep things interesting to make sales.
Unfortunately my guess is its all about money. Everyone now has to get the new version and the new study materials. Its all about money
I sure hope not. I’m trying to be charitable and not assume the worst.
Publishing companies gotta publish. What do you do when everyone has your product? (I’m looking at you, Apple…)
Esv is the most popular so i figure the same as you 😂
I was not even aware that it was being "updated".
Hey Colton! Any update on when this update is supposed to take place? Or if it’s going to happen for sure or not? God Bless!
Haven’t heard anything about when yet. Wayne Grudem , from the translation committee, is the one who broke the news about the update. But no one has said when it will happen.
@ thanks for the response!! So update is guaranteed just no date yet?
@ seems that way
@ I just got a confirmation email from crossway. 100% an update, more information of a date coming in the first quarter of 2025
I don't even know how to respond. I personally do not understand why a continuous updating of the text. (is it like our diet? um bacon is bad for you, wait we were wrong bacon is ok.) I had to look at mine and I see that my copy is the 2011 text. I will continue using it. But I use several translations all at once in my reading and studying, so it is no big deal in my personal use. I feel no reason to run out and purchase the next update, which is obvious since I have the 2011 text. I could understand if there has been 30 years and there was such a shift in our English language which called for the update, but it is almost like, "oh wait we were wrong, it really means this instead." What? Really? You think that ,maybe, they would have spent enough time wrestling over the text that they would come to a solid conclusion as to how it should read before they published the ESV edition. Now we are to expect an update every few months, years, weeks?
Agree footnotes are the way to go.
Yes!
I'm puzzled by the love affair of so many for the ESV. My main complaint is with the prose itself: things like word ordering, rhythm, diction (e.g. below)
Exodus 24:8 AV
And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.
Exodus 24:8a (NIV)
Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people...
Exodus 24:8a (NASB) So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people...
Exodus 24:8 (OJB)
And Moshe took the remaining dahm, and sprinkled it on HaAm...
Exodus 24:8a (ESV)
And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people...
The above is not an isolated incident.
And no, "threw" for זָרַק is not somehow a more literal rendering. If you don't know the term off hand, feel free to look at the contextual usage of H2236 in the word's other 34 appearances.
As they say, 'to each their own,' (whatever version gets you to read the Bible I'm all for!) but I just don't get it.
I understand your point there. I’m no Hebrew scholar but I do have two semesters of Biblical Hebrew under my belt and I have to say that is a strange rendering.
I agree. Update the notes, but leave the text alone. I also really like the NKJV for various reasons.
I agree with you. Footnotes would be welcome for those that want to follow scholarship views. I have marked my ESV Study Bible up so much over the past years, that I know I'll need another at some point. I would actually LOOK FORWARD to new footnotes as a refreshment. But, I won't be too happy with text changes. I have most Bible translations, and ESV is MY chosen go-to for everyday reading because when comparing verses in various translations the ESV always "won" in having the context make sense for me. We all process words and thoughts differently, and the ESV matches my thought processing best. If they do make changes, I'll likely buy it out of curiosity. But I will always have the current copies that have the current text. I understand the pastor's quandary though.
@@useupwearout5029 it’s my go-to as well. I don’t think the changes will be major, but it’s still frustrating.
This is why I like my paper Bibles as they can’t change what is already printed. The NRSV is better because as I understand it they did update it but they released it as a new version (with both versions being available alongside each other).
Ive never owned an ESV, but I use it for comparison during study. (Digital)
I think if translation committees find errors, or places where they translated poorly, then those places should be updated. But if its just changes that are not that important they should leave it alone.
Hopefully they’ll change Revelation 13:8. That was one of the big reasons I moved away from ESV in the first place, long before this.
@@littlefishbigmountain That looks like an error. Should say "from" not "before". These are the sorts of things that I feel like Bible publishers should correct regularly and not wait years to fix.
I agree but I think what people are worried about is new interpretations being part of the translation or censoring to be more socially correct. Our language has not changed dramatically from 2016 and people should still understand what is written with ease.
@@hayfieldhermit9657
It’s an eisegesis
@@eveningclicks7767 Crossway should probably make some sort of official statement detailing exactly what they are thinking for the revision.
I feel the same way!
Did the meeting actually happen? We've heard nothing of it and I can't find anything about what was discussed and what decision they came up with.
I can remember an old Bloom County comic strip where one of the characters - a hacker kid - was watching a TV commercial announcing the "all-new IBM PC 9000 SR . . . now featuring TINT CONTROL!!" The hacker kid gets up, collects his computer (an IBM PC 9000), and dumps it in the trash can.
Over the last three years (actually, as I type, three years and one day), I have managed to pick up eight ESV Bibles, including four that would be considered "premium" . . . and it's not even one used by the church I go to! It's because the ESV was the first Bible translation I had picked up in decades (since I was a kid), the first translation I had completed (never done as a kid), and the one I gravitate towards. I've read other translations, but I keep coming back to the ESV.
So am I going to toss all of those Bibles into the dumpster? ABSOLUTELY NOT. But I WILL say it'll be a while before I plunk down lots of shekels for another premium copy.
I believe Both the NIV and the NRSV managed to go almost 40 years without a text update. It is crazy to me that the ESV has already had so many, and crazier if they do another. Honestly, Some of the changes I know of were improvements in my opinion; but not all. Im inclined to agree, just update the footnotes… that is, unless they make some of the handful of changes I’ve been wishing for ;)
@coltonyarbro Microsoft gets updates, Apple gets updates, we live everyday in a world of updates. Some Bible publishers/companies are about tweaking and updating their texts either to make it more readable and/or accurate. Also, since many people seem to have an "improve/update" mindset people may flock to updated translations which mean new and repeat buyers. What do you think?
Yes, they need to revise the text. They need to use italics for words that were added for clarity in every version has those words that were not in the original text.
Is be all for that, but I doubt that is what they have in mind.
They do that because many of their ESV thinline and reference bibles only have minimal footnotes.
I moved from the ESV to the LSB myself. Not for this issue either, I just like the LSB better.
@@ThePaulKM LSB is a great translation! I love it for study. I just don’t prefer it as a daily reader.
This is why I stick with: NKJV, RSV, and NRSV.
The changes you describe - textual as opposed to footnotes - is one reason I stayed away from the NASB (77, 95, 2020), which itself has morphed into the LSB.
Tim Nichols has a point. TR or no TR, NKJV is at least stable.
My main version is the KJV, but I also read/study from NASB or AMP. Also I got an Interlinear Bible recently, and that one's pretty sweet.
The footnotes should get as thick as it can along the way, but it's better than constant change.
I agree, update the footnotes and leave the text alone.
I work in I.T. Bible translations are becoming like software updates. :)
Does a anyone have any authoritative sources for the idea that NKJV is a locked translation edition?
Is there a list of locked translation editions?
What is the copyright term for a translation?
If I remember correctly, Philip Nation from Thomas Nelson confirmed that they had no plans to update the NKJV text.
I love the idea of footnotes. I don’t think there has been enough language change. My best idea is modern scolardhip has caused them to want to flip flop some things from footnotes to actual text. I wish it stayed the same, the thought that it is staying the same is the reason I have bought so many nice editions.
Even if they update the ESV your current ESV translation will still be with you in your Bible. It will not expire like some outdated Microsoft operating system software, just keep reading your favorite version. I do understand your concern though.
Very true. I suppose my concern comes from a more pastoral perspective. We use the ESV, and it is annoying to me that dependent on what text edition everyone has we may have different readings.
Douay-Rheims anyone :)
Jokes aside, this is really interesting to me as an unaffected party.
I’ll also add Knox Holy Bible to this list. I have both LOL
I like ESV because the Lcms church service uses ESV and it’s what I’ve memorized. Several pastors however encourage me to use NKJV mostly and use NASB95. So I’m kinda in same boat. I can’t go KJV because even though I know some Archaic words. Last option I can think of is just use the RSV. I don’t like some of their translation choices but side by side is so much like ESV. Also nobody uses RSV so that’s tricky too. lol
I heard Gabe Hughes talking about this on his podcast a year or two ago. Crossway released a statement in 2020 that they will periodically make minor updates based on scholarship. This prompted him to switch to the lsb, but he acknowledged there are no guarantees with it either. I agree with you on this but I don’t think I’d consider switching at this point. There have been mutterings for people to update the nkjv too, so someone may make a switch for nothing. Plus I just bought a Schuyler wide margin Esv to put special notes/prayers in for my kids. What’s a guy to do?
@@justinthyme2666 yeah. I get your point. Don’t want to switch for nothing. And I would definitely bet on the LSB getting future updates.
Phillip Nation from Thomas Nelson recently said, I think it was Tim Frish's channel, that there were no intentions of updating the NKJV. They like the idea of it being a stable text and it's what their readers wanted, so they were leaving it alone.
He did say that at some point they might update the footnotes, but not the text.
Hopefully I won’t be tar and feathered here for this but I’m not a huge fan of the nkjv.
@@justinthyme2666 it at all! At least not from me. Lol.
I guess many (or all) modern versions truly aren't the "unchanging Word of God"? God's Word is preserved and perfect, yet so many of these versions get textual updates. I personally stick with the KJV, but that's what I've been accustomed to for many years.
It doesn't sound like a radical update and it won't affect my use of the ESV as my primary. I could see if it was something akin to the NASB95 --> NASB2020 or NIV84 --> NIV2011 level of changes, but it's simply minor word tweaks that provide better clarity of the text. God bless!
p.s. Pick me for that giveaway! ;)
I've got a whole library of ESV-2016 volumes. The exhaustive concordance, the interlinears, the study Bible, and over half the Expository Commentary built out. I can't wait for it all to be out of date.
lol. I feel your pain.
The main concern here is the making an attempt to become gender-inclusive rather than keeping the translation as the Hebrew-Greek have it written in Scripture. The NASB 2020 went in that direction and destroyed the translation. The editors, etc. of the ESV need to stick with the text and follow more in line with the excellent work done by the revision of the newer Legacy Standard Bible which focuses on the Scriptures being translated as the authors of the book would want us to understand - not to just make it more simple for the reader. We do not need to keep getting translation updates or new translations. Or even study Bibles, especially those done by an individual pastor anymore. It seems to have become a big money-making racket. I will say that the NKJV (which I do like and appreciate) was published in 1982. I would think an update would come some time in the not too distant future.
It is all about money!
I like the idea of a committee that meets to assess English language, but commits to not making changes for at least 25 years.
Does anyone know the last time that they changed the NKJV? I don't think it's been changed since the '80s but I could be wrong. Seems to me that's a more stable version.
You are correct. Hasn’t been updated since 1984
I use the ESV. Personally, I think an update would be more unnecessary than anything else. I guess I could see the need if they want to make sure it’s aligned with modern scholarship and want to refine it. But like the NASB it just seems unnecessary. They should’ve kept the 95 as the permanent text.
I am still a fan of the KJV, then the NKJV, then I will go to the others ESV, N ASB to see how they say a thing. I like them all, but I mainly stay with the KJV and the NKJV.
Adding foot notes don’t boost sales as well as new revision 💰
Perhaps, but I’m not so sure about that…I honestly hope that is not the motivation.
@@coltonyarbro me too brother but it crosses my mind with all these Bible updates over last decade or two. Love the video . God bless you.
if they kept it a "permanent text" we would get a NESV eventually
True...but hopefully not for a while if they went that route.
I'm with you, but torn. I guess it would depend on what is actually changing. I'm committed to the truth and accuracy of God's Word over a certain way I'm used to reading it. If the changes reflect a more accurate translation, then I'm all for it.
I get that. And I want accuracy as well. But I also think it is already very accurate and whatever changes they want to make would be best kept in the footnotes. Just me though…
I actually believe that the ESV’s approach as it pertains to textual updates is perhaps the best of any of the major English Bible translations.
I think that a lot of the uproar in response to Grudem’s recent comments stems from the fact that many folks are envisioning the coming update of which he spoke as the same sort of generational revision that we’ve seen occur with the NIV in 2011 and the NASB in 2020.
To those people: that simply isn’t the case.
None of the previous ESV updates have ever fundamentally changed the translation, and I do not anticipate this one being any different.
The ESV’s strategy of taking reader feedback and scholarly advancement into consideration and making minor updates every five to ten years serves, in my opinion, to keep the text stable while allowing room for improvements to be made as further archeological discoveries are made and textual critical scholarship advances.
No English translation of the Bible is perfect. The autographs were not written in English, and we do not even have those autographs.
That doesn’t mean what we do have isn’t God’s Word; however, it does mean that we should be open to the possibility of improvements being made to our English translations.
As I previously read someone else in this group say, the methodology of the ESV translation committee allows for potential improvements to be made to the translation while the ESV fundamentally remains the ESV that we know and love.
Fair points! And I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I just wish the updates weren’t so frequent, even if they are incremental.
As we learn more about Greek and Hebrew and the history of the OT and NT we need to update it to increase its accuracy. There are several mistranslations in the ESV that have never been corrected even though the NASB, CSB, LSB and NET bibles have corrected all or most of them. For example, the ESV mistranslates John 3:16; 20:23; Matthew 16:19, 18:18 among a few others. If you want an accurate Bible then it will keep be republished from time to time. These are not doctrinal changes they are correcting mistranslations. It would be a good idea to make supplements that could be placed in a pocket in the back of the bible rather than constantly reprint the entire bible.
I hear you and I understand the reasoning. But these are mistranslations according to whom? I understand where you are coming from (I certainly think “begotten” should be in John 3:16 for example). But these are committees with very bright scholars doing this sort of work. I may not always agree with their translation choices, but I also would be happy with footnote alternatives rather than changing the base text all the time. Just my opinion.
@@coltonyarbro The verses are mistranslated from the Greek Critical Text. This is a language issue not a doctrine issue.
@@drbill-r9f Yes I understand that, and my point was not about doctrines but translating from one language to another. There are clearly decisions that have to be made (text criticism), and I don't think it is likely that anyone would claim they are an absolute authority on the right way to translate from one language to another perfectly. We do the best we can....
I am a NKJV-Onlyist ;)
Say it ain’t so 😂
I said this on Tim’s video as well but I have many ESV’s also and they all range from the first edition to the current 2016 edition and because the changes between them are so minor I’ve never viewed them as “different translations”. The updates are not nearly as significant as say the NIV84 to the NIV11 or even the HCSB to the CSB. I would consider those changes as different translations, but not so with the ESV. Even the King James since 1611 had undergone revisions. Now the time span between those revisions were larger if I remember correctly, but still I’m not so sure how big of an issue this is and I attend to church that uses the ESV as our text and we’ve always had mixed editions in the pews. I don’t wanna shoot down your feelings about it, but I don’t understand the frustration. Blessings!
@@pinkdiscomosh2766 hey no worries. Thanks for your comment. I’m not a dining the ESV and I do realize the changes are minor. But I still am annoyed they keep happening so frequently. The church I pastor also has ESV in the pews and that is what I preach from. Just really wish the textual “tinkering” would stop. If it’s not enough to truly be noticeable by most people, then a footnote would have sufficed. Just my opinion.
@@coltonyarbro And I do think that’s a good idea. Translations should definitely use footnotes for minor changes more often. That’s essentially what I end up doing in my ESV study Bible is I’ll mark textual changes in the footnotes. I did it with the 2016 changes. I’ll probably do the same with these up-and-coming ones. Just to have them all noted in one place.
The longer I live, the more dedicated I am to the Scripture as it was intended to be read, in the original 14th century English version published by John Wycliffe as spoke by the prophets Moses, Samuel, and Iddo. This text has not been manipulated in approximately 600 years. 😁
🤣
If you look at the previous revisions, the changes are so minor they aren’t even recognizable in most places.
I agree. It’s still frustrating.
If the bible is subject to changes, it is the word of man, and not the word of God, because God is immutable and so is his holy Word. His Word is a revelation of his mind and will, and neither of those can be changed...
@@alanhuber364 it’s the English TRANSLATIONS that change, not the original manuscripts. As long as there are other languages there will be different translations that do change with the languages.
There needs to be other manuscript references in the notes!
As the owner of two premium RL Allan ESV’s 2016 text editions , this disturbs me . I tend to think this is a money grab on the part of the publishers. Make a few changes , and many will rush out to grab the latest ( tho not necessarily the greatest) edition. Just annoying in imho and if Crossway follows thru on this I will not be buying the update . New sub, I like your content .
Thanks for the sub and your comment. And yes it is annoying and I also won’t be rushing to get an updated version if this happens.
Money
King James Only
The oldest copy of the Bible for the OT is the Greek Septuagint, which shows that the Hebrew scholars changed portions of the Masoretic text to lean people away from Jesus being the Messiah and leaned people away from 1 Enoch who also pointed to Jesus as being the Messiah.
The Masoretic text was also written in a different alphabet without vowels and word breaks. The NT authors read and used the Septuagint, because of the Christians preserved the original translation of the living language, counter to what the Hebrews did.
Which means if you are using an English translation that is translated from the Masoretic text, it's been altered and changed and not close to the original living language.
As Christians you should know that the Jewish religion does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, so why are you trusting their Masoretic text? The ESV actually gets most of the changes corrected, so out of all the versions I tend to lean towards ESV for this reason. I personally use the Septuagint Lexham OT and ESV NT.