Customer Reviews

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version, Compact TruTone Edition (Tan Diamond Design, Red Letter)

5 star:		(78)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(17)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

As one of the people who worked on the ESV, I would like to respond to a comment made in a number of reviews--that the ESV is remarkably similar to the RSV. This is somewhat to be expected, since translations that are essentially literal in terms of translation philosophy are going to be markedly similar to one another--moreso than translations that are more dynamic in their approach. Besides, our stated goal was to improve the RSV where necessary and not to produce a unique translation (if such a thing is even possible). We wanted to stand deliberately in the Wycliffe-Tyndale-KJV-RSV tradition, so that echoes of it could still be heard in the ESV. Nevertheless, we made approximately 75,000 changes to the text of the RSV, ranging from the deletion of a comma to reworking of an entire paragraph. It is not fair to say that the ESV is only a slightly modified version of the RSV--we weighed carefully every word against the original languages and made changes where we believed they were necessary. The full extent of the improvements can only be seen through a careful comparison of the entire text, not just a casual browsing through a few favorite passages.

I would also like to respond to one of the reviewers, who stated that the ESV was completed in two years, and then implied that two years was not enough time to make a significant improvement to a document with the size and complexity of the Bible. First, the project required three years, not two. Second, the fact that we were able to use the RSV as the basis for our text saved a tremendous amount of time--we didn't have to start from scratch. Third, we made the best possible use of Bible software, email, file transfers, conference calls, and other technology to which previous translators did not have access. This enabled us to complete more work in less time. Finally, we had some of the finest evangelical scholars on our Translation Oversight Committee and our Translation Review Committee. They were already experts in their fields, many of them having written commentaries on the books they revised. This also improved the turnaround time on the review process.

I hope this sheds some helpful light on the making of the ESV. Thanks for your interest.

Before I purchase any product, especially online, I obsess over reviews and blog entries and any other information I can find on it. I must have read a hundred different pieces on this Bible before buying it. I was so disappointed with many of Amazon's Bible reviews because many of the comments are from overzealous supporters (or opponents) to a certain translation. Here's the short list of things to have in mind before buying (or not buying) this Bible....

1) It's sweet. It looks exactly like a large square-ish moleskine journal (which, by the way, are also sweet). It also seems to share the moleskine's durability, but only time will tell.

2) It does have small type (7.5). It is not, by any means, too small...provided you are in the market for a compact or thin-line type Bible. You won't want to get this if you are farsighted.

3) There is plenty of margin space and the lines ARE close together...but they consist of tiny light dots so it won't be a problem to use 2 lines for larger writing. The paper is thinner than moleskine, but if it bleeds...go spend 4 dollars on a better pen.

4) The ESV is a great translation. It is only very slightly less literal than the NASB but flows better, and is therefor excellent for both devotional reading and study.

5) It's the inspired inerrant word of God.

I have waited for a translation of the Bible like this for some time now, and I am grateful to God that it has finally arrived.

The ESV is an essentially literal translation with an eye for literary excellence. Hence, it is more accurate and precise than the NIV, and more natural and clearly expressed than the NASB. For example, the ESV translates the key conjunctions between propositions, and it also seeks to maintain consistency with recurring words. This is an area that the NIV often fails in, which makes it difficult to rely upon for in-depth study. On the other hand, the ESV seeks clarity of expression in dividing paragraphs and sentences: each paragaph is set apart by a bold section heading. The NASB, on the other hand, begins each verse on its own separate line, which makes reading the text cumbersome and awkward.

The ESV also employs a helpful center-column cross-reference system (which has been updated). It includes (1) references to specific words or phrases, (2) comparative references, (3) less direct references, and (4) quoted references. There are also footnotes which indicate alternative translations and explanations of translation decisions.

J. I. Packer is the general editor, with Clifford John Collins chairing the OT translation, William Mounce chairing the NT translation, and Leland Ryken overseeing the literary aspects of the ESV. More information can be found at [website]

I believe that the ESV will become the Bible of choice for many students of the Word of God. soli Deo gloria!

First off...I love love love the ESV translation. Just stating this upfront because I don't want this review to be about that...

Positives:

1) Its relatively small. Not nearly as cumbersome as I thought it would be.

2) Love the paper. Almost need bleed though I am still careful to use pencil. Love the color of the paper too...cream colored. Really does feel like a journal.

3) Love the wide wide margins! So much room to right notes now.

Negatives:

1) Font is too small. Its a problem for me. If the ESV producers were to update this version I would gladly trade off the smaller size for a bigger font.

2) The journaling lines are too small for my large handwriting. I may have to double up on the lines.

All in all...well done. If the font size was 8.5 instead of 7.5 it would be perfect.

Is the NASB95 - the king of the literal bible translations dead? That must surely be the question on our minds. The answer is, "I'm not sure, but it's having a good run at it!".

Firstly my comparison - I compared 50 difficult verses. The NASB95 and ESV were way way out in front of all other versions in accuracy. I gave the NASB95 a couple of extra marks over the ESV, but there's not a lot in it.

Secondly, literalness. On a word for word basis the ESV actually seems a little more literal than the NASB95 in that it is much more thorough in translating all the little words, the "ands" and "buts" and so on, as well as allowing sentences to run on where they do in the original. On the other hand, the fact that it is a warmed over RSV shows through in a lot of verses that should ideally be re-worked in NASB style. However, the ESV sometimes seems to try harder in consistantly rendering the same Greek word as the same word in English - but not always, sometimes the NASB is more consistent. Conclusion - The ESV is more literal on the "forest scale", but the NASB is more literal in the "tree scale".

However, the NASB appears to be quite a bit more accurate with tenses. Sometimes these verses have important theological significance. e.g. Acts 13:48 NASB "had been appointed", and Mt 18:18 NASB "shall have been bound" are more accurate than the ESV equivilents which are carry overs from the RSV (and KJV).

Thirdly, readability. People are talking about the ESV being more readable than the NASB. I don't think there's a lot in it. The ESV has it's fair share of bloopers where the English is strained and the NASB is readable. Sometimes the NASB's lessor readability increases its literalness and correctness. Conclusion: I personally can't see the difference. If we could pick some verses from the ESV and some from the NASB we would probably approach perfection!

Fourthly, scholarship. The ESV has taken advantage of the latest scholarship, especially in Greek and this shines through in a number of difficult passages. The NASB95 seems overly conservative in this respect.

Fifthly, textually. The ESV seems to have greater respect for the standard Greek text - the UBS4. The NASB seems more conservative in following traditional readings. (Not just the bracketed passages, but of course including them). However, neither strictly adhere to UBS4, even ignoring verses bracketed in the UBS4 or NASB. Conclusion: A minor plus for the ESV.

Sixthly, extra features. The ESV footnotes seem more helpful than the NASB95. On the other hand the NASB's use of italics for words not in the original language and the "*" tense asterisk to show words that were present tense in the original, emparts more information than the ESV. On the other hand, the ESV's extra literalness seems to have a little less need for the italics in places. The NASB capitalizes pronouns that refer to Christ or God. While one might regard these as an unnecessary interpretive gloss, they do improve comprehension, especially since a literal translation does not allow doing what the NIV would do, which is replace "He" with "Jesus" to clarify who is talking in long narratives. I didn't like this at first, but now I do, it's just another little feature that the NASB has to add information to the text without actually departing from literalness. Conclusion: NASB's extra features probably empart more information. The use of CAPS for Old Testament quotations is helpful in the NASB, and I like the italics and "*" tense indicator.

Formats: Some people are complaining that the NASB is printed verse by verse rather than paragraph style. Actually, only some NASBs are printed that way. If you don't like it (and I don't), buy the versions that are printed paragraph style. Visit Lockman's web site if you are unclear on that. As of now, the NASB is available in pocket formats and study bibles. The ESV is planned to offer these, but not as yet.

Overall Conclusion: It's very difficult to make up ones mind which is best. The arguments seem so finely balanced in either direction. The ESV is a fine effort and one of the best two translations available. At the end of the day, I think I'm going to give the win to the NASB. The extra features of the NASB95 text - CAPS for quotes and italics, plus a slight advantage in literalness and accuracy just beats the ESV to victory. Reports of the King's death have been exagerated, but I just wish there was a translation that picked the best out of the NASB and ESV.

I have waited a long time for a Bible that is sufficiently accurate for in-depth study but also accessible and understandable to readers at any level. As a pastor, I see a need for a Bible equally useful to Christians for devotional reading, verse memorization, public worship and private study. The English Standard Version Bible accomplishes this better than any Bible currently available. It is as easy to read as the New International Version and the New Living Translation, as accurate as the New American Standard and as majestic and elegant in its literary style as the King James and the Revised Standard Version. Yet, the ESV avoids the weaknesses of all these other translations. The English Standard Version is the product of the finest evangelical scholars of our time and is a testimony to God's providence in providing his Word to us in this generation. The ESV truly deserves to become the standard for English-speaking Christians everywhere. It is a translation you can trust.

In reading through the poor reviews that this Bible is getting, I'm convinced that the people who wrote them didn't know what they were getting when they ordered it. This is a unique Bible. The reason I'm rating it a 4 instead of a 5 is that I understand it's not for everybody.

I'm 23, and I own all sorts of Bibles and Bible versions. I've been waiting for a Bible I could really feel is my own, something that wouldn't feel out of place if I throw it in my backpack, but still has something to it that would make me want to use it.

Basically, this Bible is an attempt to merge the Bible and a moleskine notebook, right down to the shrink wrapped packaging and paper insert, cream colored pages and the elastic strap. I'm a moleskine notebook user, and I love the things. If you do too, chances are you won't dislike this Bible. If you don't know what moleskines are or aren't a fan, this Bible might not appeal to you. I'm sure this is the reason for a lot of the dissatisfaction that people have. This bible devotes a lot of real estate to the journaling area; if you aren't planning on writing a lot in it, don't get this bible.

The text is very small (though not super-tiny like those pocket bibles). But that was something I was expecting, and I don't mind. If the text were any bigger, this bible would be thicker and heavier than I'd like. It's easily thrown in a backpack (securely with that oh-so-handy elastic strap) and it's not a burden to use or to carry around. The pages are slightly thicker and more porous than your traditional bible pages. I don't mind this at all- it's easier to write in the nearly two-inch margins (I use a mechanical pencil), and it probably makes the whole thing a bit less dense and lighter.

So I must confess, I'm in love with this bible. I can understand people's gripes about the text size and the size of the lines in the margins, but really, I don't mind either of these things, because I would rather that the overall product be smaller. You can get a lot of writing done in those nice big margins if you write small. I see no problems with the binding.

If you're looking for a standard, run-of-the-mill, regularly proportioned Bible, then this would be a bit of a shock if you ordered it and didn't expect the things that make it different. Take a look at the shape of it, and check out the pictures available online that show the pages. Personally I think this Bible has a lot of character, I love how simple it is, and I've been waiting for a journaling bible like it for some time now.

I was really excited when I first found out about this edition of the ESV. I love wide-margin Bibles and own several, so I was enthusiastic about this one. But in addition to its being a journaling bible, I was also attracted by its Moleskine-like appearance, with its black hardbound binding and elastic band to keep the book closed like the small Moleskine notebooks.

I was somewhat disappointed, though. Note the word "somewhat." This Bible is not a total disappointment, but it definitely needs to be improved in certain areas, in my opinion.

As I believe other reviewers have pointed out or alluded to, the print is almost unbearably small. Now if you have 20-20 vision, this shouldn't bother you; but if you (like me) wear glasses, this might be an inconvenience you won't want to put up with. In all honesty, I can't see the reason for such small print. I own several pocket Bibles which are about half the width and length of this edition, which nevertheless contain print that is considerably larger.

In addition, there is precious little space in between the lines in the ruled margins. This means that you will have to write very small in order to squeeze words on each line. However, a simple way around this would be to take up 2 lines when writing notes.

Another drawback about this is that the pages are printed in double column format -- a hindrance for note-taking Bibles because if your note is about a verse that appears in the column closer to the binding, you can't write it next to that verse but rather alongside the other column (i.e., the outer column).

All in all, I'd say if you can live with these issues, then this Bible would not be a bad purchase for you. But I'd say that the publishers need to address these issues in future editions of this Bible if they plan to continue its production.

After having read several excerpts on-line and then purchasing the new ESV for myself and my husband, I am delighted at such an excellent translation! I've always been frustrated with the extent of problems in so many of the modern versions and the annoyance of having way too many versions because someone is too lazy to look up the word "propitiation" in the dictionary. It's about time that word-for-word and clarity are used together in transmitting the Word of God. The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars is that I'm more of a "TR" manuscript fan (due to tradition) than Nestle's manuscript. However, I am very unhappy with the NKJV (of which I have seen 3 different editions), and the KJV isn't something my husband is comfortable reading, so we at least are now able to agree on a Bible that is easy to read yet doesn't compromise the integrity of God's Word just to fit into modern culture. All in all an excellent modern version, hopefully to soon replace all the other dynamic equivalence versions. I'm excited that I can use this version to study, memorize, read, and share with my children as well!

Headed up by J.I. Packer, a lot of great folks worked on this. What I mean is honest scholars who really love Jesus and His Word. For me, the inclusion of people like Jack Deere and Wayne Grudem spoke volumes. In addition to those directly involved, the list of endorsers is a virtual "who's who" of evangelicalism.

This translation was based on the original RSV text, but carefully removes the liberal bias which manifested in that translation and it's successor the NRSV. In general I find this a trustworthy Bible to read unlike the NRSV or the NIV, which is really the main thing, and it is more readable than the NASB, so that makes it a great investment. If you are looking for the conservative answer to the NIV, look no further. After several years now, our family has switched to this as our main Bible, with some use of the HCSB, especially in harder to read sections.

This Bible is neither liberal or conservative on gender translation, unless you consider accurate to be conservative. It simply translates what is there, which is in some cases 'people' and some cases 'man' or 'brothers'.

For an example of readability-- Romans 7 was an absolute pleasure that helped me understand what I could never quite grasp before.

For an example of scholarship -- It is fascinating to see that they have corrected the reading regarding the contentious issue of the apostleship of Junia(s) to reflect the very lastest scholarship which indicates that "outstanding among the Apostles" is better translated as "well known to the Apostles" Check out the NET Bible on which this is based... It is a translation used by translators to summarize the textual details as footnotes. A great reference for those more interested in the language concerns.

Note: I also had some trouble with the binding early hardback version as another reviewer suggested, but not until we started keeping a pen in it :) I don't think this is a major issue. Be nice to the book.