What do you Christians think about the ESV Bible?

Accurate. understandable. love the cross-references!

Well, you asked

Pros

* available with Greek Orthodox / Apocrypha

* conservative use of inclusive language

Cons

* fairly literal (though it's good for original language words study, it's bad for understanding and accuracy)

* fairly biased translation

* not translated to the highest scholarly standards

I did a brief comparison with the HCSB (very similar on most points). With the important exception of the availability of the Apocrypha, I found the HCSB superior to the ESV in several areas.

The ESV is intended as the successor to the NIV and it has succeeded with fans of that very popular bible, as intended.

Personally, I don't go for the "multi-purpose" bibles like the ESV. For literal, I stick with the NASB or the RSV if the Apocrypha is needed. For non-literal, I go with the New Jerusalem Bible or Revised English Bible, both products of the highest scholarly standard without the excessive inclusive language and literalness of the NRSV (though they both do have more inclusive language than I like to see).

The NJB definitely wins hands-down with "literary excellence, beauty and depth of meaning" in my book, though I'm beginning to evaluate the REB which is supposed to be similarly excellent in those areas.

Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

The ESV is my Bible of choice as well as that of most of my other Presbyterian friends.

It has a very literal translation which is important to me, but still is easily readable.

I grew up with the poetic flow of the KJV and memorized from it. I had tried to memorize verses from other translations and found it difficult. The ESV is the first translation I've found besides the KJV that has the poetic flow that makes it easier to memorize.

I personally use the Reformation Study Bible edition of the ESV. Very helpful footnotes and cross-references.

from the Orthodox Christian perspective, without Holy Tradition to properly interpret the scriptures & illuminate their meaning, version after version doesn't matter. Christianity flourished & was established long b4 the "BIBLE" (Canon)

I think it's stupid.

The old testament was a oral tradition for a couple thousand years before the jews wrote their stories down on paper. We all know how unimportant, or unretainable details become with that.

The whole bible is filled with historical innacuracies. It's about as close to a historical text as harry potter. Sure there is london, and train stations, and books, and little kids who like to pretend they can do magic...but harry potter and the bible are not text books.

The bible is "history remembered in a mythologized way" not history documented.

I like the literary beauty of it. However, it's not the whole Bible...

Great version!

Ranks right up there with the NIV for me