Why Omaha Bible Church is Switching to the ESV
The elders’ of Omaha Bible Church have decided to make the switch from the New American Standard Version to the English Standard Version as the primary preaching, teaching, reading, memorizing, and ministry Bible of the church. What follows below is an excerpt of the announcement including some of our rationale for the switch.
The pastors have been reading through the ESV for more than a couple of years in our own personal devotions. We have been carefully and prayerfully considering this change. We recognize that there are other good translations (including the NASB!) so this is by no means a shift to becoming an ‘ESV-only’ church. We just simply think that the ESV is the best translation for Omaha Bible Church to put in the hands of our people.
There are three big reasons for the change to the ESV.
1) The ESV is an excellent translation
By excellent translation I mean that it is a word-for-word translation as opposed to a thought-for-thought translation. This becomes critically important for us because God did inspire thoughts but rather words (2 Tim. 3.16).
Furthermore, the ESV also emphasizes and demonstrates a high literary quality. In other words, the translators have worked hard to ensure that the ESV maintains the high literary quality of the Bible. The translation reads better than many others and it has a greater sense of literary beauty. We have used the NASB for a number of years and really enjoyed the attention given to the word-for-word translation from the original. However, the same care was not given to preserving the Bible as a literary treasure.
The ESV helps us to have a word-for-word translation with a high literary value.
2) The ESV appears ‘here to stay’
As I mentioned above we did not make this switch casually. We have been carefully evaluating the translation, the publisher, and its growing support for some time now. We recognize that while the ESV is popular it is not merely trendy or faddish. It seems as though that many of the churches who are serious about studying the Bible, exposition, the primacy of the gospel, and the Sola’s of the Reformation are using the English Standard Version.
The ESV appears positioned to be the translation of choice for serious minded Christians in this era.
3) The ESV has strong support
Crossway is the publisher of the ESV and they have done a fantastic job thus far. Specifically I am thinking about how they seem to be so ardently resolved to make the Bible accessible in a variety of mediums. This may have something to do with the fact that Crossway, unlike so many Christian publishers, is actually owned by believers!
Some examples include ESV.org where the Bible is easily searchable. You may also listen to the Bible as Max Mclean reads it to you. In addition the ESV Study Bible is a wonderful gift to the church. The Study Bible includes detailed commentary by various scholars as well as very helpful articles on such things as ethics, history of salvation, hermeneutics, Bibliology and Archeology. All of this to say, Crossway is forward thinking and working hard to come alongside the church and put the Bible in peoples’ hands.
Conclusion:
As a church we aim to make the glory of God central by unfolding and applying the Word of God. Therefore we want to help believers to read, understand and apply the Scriptures. The English Standard Version seems like the best translation for us to use for the pulpit ministry as well as daily reading, memorizing and meditation.
Possibly Related posts:
- Remembering the Bloody Quest for an English Bible
- Men’s Breakfast at Omaha Bible Church this Saturday
- Phil Johnson at Omaha Bible Church
- Omaha Bible Church sermon podcast in iTunes
- D.A. Carson at Omaha Bible Church this Weekend
19 Responses to “Why Omaha Bible Church is Switching to the ESV”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Updates
Sponsors
About
Twitter Updates
- @LAjoey That is what I'm saying...it's the best thing to come down the chutes for some time. Right on time for me.
- The Town of Red Beard has Fallen http://is.gd/eZCSN
- @joethorn That always messes me up. Even the tail wind jacks w me. Have fun w that.
Recent Comments
Recommended Products
Random Posts
Most Read Articles
Tags
Archives
Powered by Wordpress | Design by ElegantThemes | All Content © Erik Raymond 2006-2010 
Erik Raymond's Blog by Erik Raymond is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.IrishCalvinist.com.
Not quite sure I understand the “literary quality” argument.
Hi Erik. I would have thought your three points are equally true of the NASB. I do prefer the ESV, however. But I also think the TNIV and NLT [2nd edition] are good, reliable versions.
Personally, I tend to stick with one version (NIV), as it makes it easier for me to memorize if I read the same wording over and over again. However, when I need a more exact (i.e. word for word) translation, I now go to the ESV rather than the NASB. I find the ESV much more readable than the NASB, which I find wooden and difficult.
Erik, this is an intersting issue and well reasoned by you and the church in general. Please pray for us believers here in NY….I know a lot (and I mean a lot) of people who tell me that they can’t read the bible because they cant understand the old english; they still think that the KJ is the only version.
The TNIV & The NLT are not faithful to the original language of the Old and New Testaments. So, I would call into question the label that these “translations” are reliable.
Erik,
I think the concern as Pat has mentioned briefly to me involves the future of the NASB and those that hold the rights for it. I didn’t see that in your post. Maybe you can explain to me what the concern is with that translation and compare it to the ESV? As of right now, if you were to lay both Bibles side by side the only big difference would be stylistic/literary. So, I know there must be more there.
Steve, it is under the 3rd point ‘strong support’. Crossway does a great job. We are not switching because the NASB is a bad translation, we really like it! However it makes sense for us to go with a Bible that is literal, readable and available. We want the word of God in peoples’ hands, ears, minds, and hearts. Frankly, the Lockman Foundation does not do a real good job with that. But this is not the only reason for the switch. The ESV is also a very good translation. So all things considered (cf this post) the ESV is our preferred translation for life and ministry at OBC.
Kevin, all I mean is that the ESV does not sacrifice readability for the sake of literalness. With it you get both: literary excellence and literal translation.
ShepherdSteve, The TNIV & The NLT are not faithful to the original language of the Old and New Testaments.
What are you saying about the translators involved with those translations? Have they done the work of the devil?
I don’t think so. Both versions are fine. The NLT takes a few more liberties with the text but that should be expected given that it is a dynamic translation. Regarding the TNIV, you may have been drinking too much of the Anti-TNIV Kool-Aid.
Stan,
If you want to address the Bible translations, then lets not get confused with those that translate the Bibles. Each translation is given a translation philosophy that all members of the team must adhere to follow. One particular example that I remember involves the NKJV. One of my professors from DTS was an editor for the NKJV Nelson Study Bible. He told us flat out what manuscripts they were allowed to translate from. Did he agree that these contained all the best manuscripts? No, but he was staying faithful to the translation philosophy. Likewise, just because I challenge Bible translations doesn’t mean that I am attacking the character of those that work on the translation. So, let’s not get the issue confused here.
In regards to the NLT, it is not a translation but a paraphrase. If you want to read a commentary on the Bible that is fine, but don’t call it a translation. I would never have somebody do a Bible study with a paraphrase because of the philosophy. Secondly, the TNIV is a problem because their philosophy of “gender equity” in the translation moves beyond translating into interpretation. When in doubt, leave the term (pronoun) as it appears so that you aren’t changing the meaning. There was a reason that so many evangelical leaders took a strong stance to oppose it when it was published. If you believe in the inerrancy & inspiration of Scripture, then it is best to use a Bible that has been careful in its translation philosophy.
ShepherdSteve,
it is not a translation but a paraphrase.
Having read much of the NLT and comparing it with several other translations, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others) the NLT is a fine translation. It is not a paraphrase. I also would not have someone do a Bible study with the NLT alone, but I wouldn’t recommend anyone study the Bible with only one translation regardless of what translation it is.
the TNIV is a problem because their philosophy of “gender equity” in the translation moves beyond translating into interpretation.
There is no philosophy of “gender equity” in the TNIV. There is also no “gender neutrality” in the TNIV. Their philosophy is one of “gender accuracy.” They are not changing a certain number of masculine pronouns to feminine to meet a quota. From their website:
The TNIV is not gender neutral; it is in fact “gender accurate.” Gender neutrality suggests the removal of specific male or female attributes. The TNIV does not remove these attributes or “neuter” any passages of Scripture. The TNIV uses generic language only where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women. These changes reflect a more precise rendering of Greek and Hebrew words.
The ESV does the same thing but rather than putting it in the text they relegate much of the “gender accuracy” to the footnotes.
There was a reason that so many evangelical leaders took a strong stance to oppose it when it was published.
In my opinion, the uproar was unnecessary. It seems to me the “evangelical leaders” look at the change in the English language as giving in to the feminist agenda. Many of them also are under the impression that the English language has not changed regarding the issue of gender. They are mistaken. I have heard several of them use “gender accurate” language on radio shows, I have read their writings which use “gender accurate” language. They may not realize they’re doing it but they are.
In today’s world, many people think of masculine pronouns as referring only to men. Some parts of the country experience more than others. In my office, for instance, “gender accurate” language is the norm. If an email went out asking for “men” to meet the president in the board room, the women would stay at their desks assuming the email was not intended for them. And they would be right. That being the case, to avoid “gender accurate” language in a translation of the Bible renders the translation inaccurate regarding gender.
If you believe in the inerrancy & inspiration of Scripture, then it is best to use a Bible that has been careful in its translation philosophy.
Funny you should mention that being that the ESV was a very minor revision to the RSV which was not too popular with “evangelical leaders” either! Rather than calling the ESV a translation perhaps it would be better to call it what it is, a revision.
I do agree with The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
I’ll close with a quote from D.A. Carson:
In quieter moments, one wonders if any conceivable damage that could be done by the NIV or TNIV could be any worse than the division, bitterness, and strife stirred up by those who have made this a dividing issue.
Agreed: it was a tough switch, but I did it a few years ago and it was worth it.
And off topic…I am a lurker on this blog, but I have fond memories of Offut and Bellevue. FBC Bellevue was the first place my family attended after my folks’ conversion, and was where I myself came to Christ. Now, 17 years later, I am happy to see a wonderful pastor/blogger where I used to be as a little kid.
1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. (TNIV) 2 Timothy 2:1-2
“The TNIV uses generic language only where the meaning of the text was intended to include both men and women. These changes reflect a more precise rendering of Greek and Hebrew words.”
You’ve got to be kidding me????
I don’t have the time or effort to research all the bad examples of the TNIV’s translations.
In regards to the NLT, if you don’t understand the difference between a paraphrase and a translation then the discussion is pointless. Leland Ryken’s book ‘The Word of God in English’ covers the issue of Bible translations very thorough.
I will refer again to D.A. Carson’s statement:
In quieter moments, one wonders if any conceivable damage that could be done by the NIV or TNIV could be any worse than the division, bitterness, and strife stirred up by those who have made this a dividing issue.
In discussing Bible translation, it helps if everyone takes a deep breath.
I don’t think there is any need to attack other translations (except for the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses). Every translation will have something translated that is less than ideal according to someone else. For instance, in a post of mine last August I asked the question Does the ESV deny the Gospel? In it I wrote:
The Greek word εὐαγγελίζω (transliterated is where we get the English word “evangelize”) means to preach or proclaim the gospel or good news). Several weeks ago in my daily Scripture reading I noticed that in several places the REB included the phrase “preaching the good news” and the ESV used “preaching” and completely left off “the good news.” To be honest, I laughed. I thought how funny it would be to turn the tables on the ESV Only crowd. So here we are.
Read the post where I document several places where the NLT, REB, TNIV and NET include “gospel” and the ESV leaves it out. Please understand that the point of my post was not to criticize the ESV but rather to demonstrate how silly it is to attack translations based on our preferences.
if you don’t understand the difference between a paraphrase and a translation then the discussion is pointless.
First, there are differing opinions as to whether or not the NLT is a paraphrase or a translation. I consider it a translation. You don’t. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand the difference between a paraphrase and a translation. It means we have a difference of opinion. The NLT’s predecessor, The Living Bible, was a paraphrase.
I have read Ryken’s book but found How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Fee and Strauss more convincing.
Bottom line on translations: they all have their strengths and weaknesses AND all translation involves interpretation.
Do you guys want to take it outside?
Steve, if Stan has quoted Don Carson I think the argument is over (just trying to be funny)
I think what is funny is that I am coming off as an ESV apologist. I still continue to preach out of the NASB. I think the only way to really be settled on this debate is when you spend week in and week out translating through the Greek and Hebrew and then seeing how the different translations help or hinder your teaching. Much to say on that and my experience but not enough time (as if most people really wanted to read it) to type it. So, I will let that be the last word on why I loathe using the above mentioned translations.
But hey….
What do I know?
I like the ESV and the NASB. However, we teach in jail and the most affordable paperback Bibles that we can get are the NASB at less than $4 each. There are cheaper Bibles, such as the KJV, but the print is soooo small and the paper so poor. And personally we do not feel the KJV is practical for many of the inmates who have poor reading skills. The ESV and NASB are both much more understandable to them.
By the way, have you considered using reftagger on your blog. It allows the reader to place their cursor on a Biblical reference and the verses pop up in a small window. I love it. Here’s the website…
http://www.logos.com/reftagger
I think we need Bible versionsof a variety of kinds, but that the differences between the ESV and versions such as the TNIV and NLT [especially the 2nd edition] are not as great as we have been led to believe.
I say this after having recently read through the whole of
1. the ESV [and now reading it again in the excellent ESV Study Bible]
2. the New Living Translation [2nd edition]
3. the New Jerusalem Study Bible [the Bible translation is fine, mostly, but the study notes are not written with a high view of the Bible as God's Word]
4. the TNIV and the special version of it “The Books of the Bible: a presentation of Today’s New International Version”
5. the Good News Bible [also known as Today's English Version]
and
6. the NIV
The ESV is a great version, which I find very helpful, but it is untrue to say that it does not use paraphrastic language. Over and over in the ESV footnotes, you will read that the Greek or Hebrew says something different from the actual text.
This may be done less than in the TNIV and NLT, but it is done freely. And this does not detract from the ESV any more than it does from other versions. It enhances them, because it is done to make clear in contemporary English what was originally plain in at least 2000 year old Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew.
Erik: if Stan has quoted Don Carson I think the argument is over (just trying to be funny)
That was funny. It’s been a busy week so I’m just getting back to the post.
David: I think we need Bible versions of a variety of kinds, but that the differences between the ESV and versions such as the TNIV and NLT [especially the 2nd edition] are not as great as we have been led to believe.
I agree on all points. Adding the TNIV, NLT and REB to the Bibles I was previously using (NASB and ESV) has been beneficial to my studies and devotion.
This morning I was reading Psalm 50 in my ESV Study Bible. I think we should take verse 20 seriously.
You sit and speak against your brother;
you slander your own mother’s son.
It is written of the wicked, but sometimes Christians slander fellow Christians in what they say about those who have faithfully translated God’s Word for us.
When the ESV was first promoted in Australia, some crazy things were said in an effort to get us to change over.
Somewhat like the way politicians overdraw the differences between parties so that we will think there is a reason to vote for them.
ESV, correct me if I’m wrong, stands for English Standard Version yes?
How exactly did it come about this status exactly? That is the “Standard” part. Is this not wishful thinking on the part of the publishers? If so, then is this not bending reality to the purpose of the publishers? Could this not constitute a lie with monetary ramifications? If so, then what can we expect from the translation, or of those who promote it?