The ESV translation is a very good translation that has not yet been noticed by many in the mainstream bible-reading community. Much of the text is very similar to the RSV, and many parts of it have even remained RSV word-for-word. (Try doing a parallel scripture search and you’ll see the striking similarities). The ESV translators (ESV blog) have made many corrections and improvements over the RSV due to more current scholarship and discoveries; the same goes for the TNIV (TNIV blog). I think many will like the ESV’s dual benefits of literalness and its readabilty, fluidity and beauty of the English language. It is much more readable than the literal New American Standard (NASB). Those who use the NASB for indepth study may find they will really like the ESV for its readability. The ESV is also more literal than the TNIV, which is a more of an idea-for-idea (dynamic) translation Its word-for-word literalness brings it closer to the original Hebrew/Greek than the TNIV, and yet it reads more smoothly than the NASB. So now that the ESV has come around, it just might become a favorite translation for many. Its readership is slowly becoming more familiar with the evangelical crowd but I don’t see many displayed yet on the shelves of Christian bookstores. It seems like it is gradually becoming the standard amongst many Reformed readers and churches. And the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church almost switched over entirely to the ESV but decided to stick with the NIV. Mainliners who read the RSV might also find an easy transition over to the ESV since it uses the RSV as sort of a platform. I predict that in the long-term, there is a bright future for both the ESV and TNIV. Both versions are the work of solid evangelical scholars; and both versions have been endorsed by many well-known figures. For December 2006, the ESV ranks in the #5 position, and the TNIV is #7 . For the current top 10 rankings, check out the CBA website. And for more in-depth discussion of various translations, check out the Better Bibles blog. You will find other blogs talking about their favorite translation. Blogger Adrian Warnock is a huge fan of the ESV and has extended discussions about it on his blog archives in 2005.
In evangelical circles, the debate between the Today’s NIV (TNIV) and the English Standard Version (ESV) is being fought by its translators and supporters. The ESV and the TNIV are the latest new translations created by Good News/Crossway and the Int’l Bible Society. Though the ESV is a literal translation, it does use some gender-inclusive language throughout but is not nearly as gender-inclusive as the TNIV. The ESV translators wanted to remain faithful to the intended meaning of the original biblical languages. Dr. Wayne Grudem, editor and a translator of the ESV, said on an interview with James Dobson (Focus on the Family), that the TNIV changed 3,600 male references into gender-inclusive references. On the other side of the debate, the supporters of the TNIV believe that references to he in the original Greek language was actually intended to refer to both genders. This could very well be true. It is reasonable to assume that during the time of New Testament writers, a male-dominated patriarchal society neglected to address women directly, even though they may have truly intended to be referring to both men and women. It would be hard pressed to think that the apostle Paul did not intend to speak to women. The TNIV’s rationale for using gender-inclusive language is to correct this imbalance so that scripture speaks to the originally intended audience, which would include both men and women. Today’s postmodern generation expects to be treated equally and respectfully. Either way, both rationales are legitimate. Both sides make a very good case either for, or against, their philosophy of translation. We should look past the differences to see that both sides are doing our bible reading community a favor. I am not polarizing the issue of gender-inclusivity; in fact, I am trying to depolarize it by recognizing the benefits of both philosophies regarding gender-inclusivity. One side is preserving and protecting the traditional meaning of the Holy Scriptures, and the other side, is making sure that the Holy Scriptures speak with relevance and is properly directed to an ignored sector of the writer’s intended audience.
On both sides of the debate, all translators do want to be true to scripture, whether to the originally intended meaning (i.e., ESV, NIV, NASB), or to the originally intended audience (i.e., TNIV, NRSV). While both sides fight it out, I will sit at home, and try to enjoy all my bible translations, the ESV, NIV, TNIV and NRSV. It is no secret that there is also the financial motivation to grab a bigger market share, which is why they are battling it out. Zondervan, now owned by HarperCollins, is a huge company that has deep pockets and can do hugely powerful marketing campaigns; they publish numerous other bible versions other than the TNIV/NIV. GoodNews/Crossway, on the other hand, is much smaller; the ESV seems to be the only translation they publish.
We celebrate the birth of Jesus who came to save the world and give a fresh start to all. Christmas is not about shopping at the malls for presents, buying and opening gifts, being with friends and family, a white “snowy” Christmas feeling, or even about singing Christmas carols. It is simply about the birth of Jesus Christ. No matter how we consumerize Christmas and hide the season behind a Santa Claus, reindeers, presents, or multi-colored lights, when it all comes down to it, and at the center of it , Christmas is about Jesus Christ. Have a Merry Christmas and a great new year in 2007.
Sermons preached from the pulpit are sometimes heard loud and clear, but most sermons are heard most loudly when it is done softly in the power of the Holy Spirit. Preaching empowered by the Spirit moves the heart and the soul to action, repentance, and submission to Jesus Christ. Dry intellectual-type of sermons like this overly-theological stuff on my blog doesn’t do much for the soul either. Finding the right balance is tricky sometimes. Perhaps a preaching style with a combination of John Wesley, Charles Finney… and Veggie Tales might work? (photo: Rev. John Wesley, a revivalist preacher)
How do we return back to some common sense? Secular society has become a God-less society rathering than a God-blessed society. It has rejected the logos, which makes possible our ability to grasp and shape reality, therefore, one’s technical reasoning becomes empty, and prone to corruption. Without the “revelation” from the logos, modern society cannot grasp values, meanings, structures and processes. Through modern philosophy’s rejection of classical reason and the logos in return for empty technical reason, society cannot possibly “reason” without the insight of “revelation”. Our modern secular philosophy has rejected classical reasoning (or ontological reason) in the classrooms. Theologians like Paul Tillich would likely say that we need to return to using classical reason in the classrooms. It’s easier said than done. Our secularized public university system has rejected religious philosophy and has “cleaned out” all concepts of the logos word in the name of emancipation–“freedom from religion” instead of “freedom of religion”. How tragic! How do we return to some common sense? We need to make incremental changes in the classrooms of society, and through prayer for our nation (and hope we don’t caught for praying publicly in a public place!). (photo: U.S. Supreme Court; Canadian Parliament)
Do Catholics and Protestants have a similar understanding of “justification by faith”? Some suggest that if we combine the Protestant and Catholic understandings of justification, we would have a more complete understanding of what justification means. Is this possible? Or are these two views necessarily exclusive views?
Catholics believe that serious sin breaks the bond of charity between us and God. When one commits mortal sins one in a sense, rejects God’s supernatural grace and is no longer in a state of grace. This state of grace can be reestablished by the sacrament of reconciliation: confession of the sin, repentance, and forgiveness. Catholics use the term “infused grace” (related to “effective justification”) to emphasize that in salvation, grace comes to be present in us. One remains in a state of grace only as long as by one continues to be reconciled with Christ, then this infused grace, which makes one righteous, continues to be present. It is still viewed as a supernatural gift that comes from God alone. For Catholics, justification is a sort of a process where one cooperates in maintaining a right relationship with God after one commits serious sin. Protestants fear that this process of cooperation can lead to “works righteousness”.
Protestants of the Protestant Reformation like Luther, Calvin, and Melanchton believe that one’s relationship with God continues in full force even after mortal sins. One has an unbreakable relationship with God. Sin can never break one’s relationship with God because of our bond with Christ. Even though sin may hurt the heart of God, our relationship is never broken. Protestants use the term “imputed righteousness” to emphasize the righteousness that comes solely from Christ and is not from human works (related to “forensic justification”). For Catholics, serious sin breaks the bond of charity between us and God. Catholics fear that one could fall into a moral and spiritual laxness because one might become complacent and doesn’t feel a need to maintain a right relationship with God. (photos: top: John Calvin; middle: Martin Luther; bottom: Philipp Melanchton)
Is power in and of itself bad? Why do we as a just society try to equalize power between the haves and have-nots? In our liberal-democratic society, power in the hands of the few will inevitably cause a clash between those who “have” and those who do “not have” access to power or the leverage to power. Historian Lord Acton (1834-1902) issued epic warnings that political power is the most serious threat to liberty. Acton observed that a person’s sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. He states: “Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end…liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition…The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to to govern. Every class is unfit to govern (rich or poor)…Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said Lord Acton. After the “have-nots” in Russia and China gained power and put the Communist Party in power, the working class Proletariats began to abuse their power by violating the most basic human rights of even ordinary people; millions died (conservative estimates of 5-10 million in Russia, and 15-30 million in China). Whether one is the pope, religious leader, or president of a multinational corporation, one must be aware of and accept one’s own limitations. No one is free from potential corruption because of ‘original sin’ or concupiscence that resides in each person. We are so curved inward that our self-centeredness eventually gets the best of us. If we are so privileged to hold political power–whether religious, social or economic–we must recognize that people will one day fall short of the mark. Thus, true humility is a personal virtue and a virtue for one’s whole community. (photo: Lord Acton)