Perhaps one reason why confessional Christians might have a tendency to prefer literal/traditional translations is the fear (justified or not) that non-confessional translators are “translating away” not just the theological language but the theologies that employ it. Winning the argument, so to speak, by reframing the question.

What I meant to claim was just this: I think the ESV is a very good translation, but it doesn’t happen to be my personal favorite. However, there is one task for which I think everyone, regardless of ‘taste’ or whatever, should acknowledge that it is the very best translation, and that is, as a Bible to consult while learning a theological tradition which, like Reformed theology, cannot be understood without understanding these technical terms.

I wonder if Kenny Pearce would still grant me “reasonable and intelligent” status because I prefer the literalness and language of the ESV and don’t have a Reformed perspective.

John, I’m guessing he would… I think that it would be more accurate to say that “because of its traditional theological language, the ESV supports Reformed teaching more accurately than the TNIV or NLT.” That’s not to say that teachers from another tradition, e.g Arminianism, could not equally use the ESV to equal effect.

I wonder if Kenny Pearce would still grant me “reasonable and intelligent” status because I prefer the literalness and language of the ESV and don’t have a Reformed perspective. Perhaps that is beyond comprehension.