Error in the ESV

[Yeshua1]

The ESV sometimes misses the whole point of a verse. In Genesis 26:8, we see the king, looking out and seeing Isaac doing something with his sister or wife, which tells the king Rebekah is his wife. Were they laughing or were they caressing? The ESV says "laughing" which is laughable, and even footnotes they were doing something more intimate.

The NIV and ESV are worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95 and compare with the NET, HCSB, NKJV and WEB.

The net bible is more 'freerer" in translation principles then either the Niv/esv, so why pick that one?

And you can take ANY version, and find passages/sections that were not done as well as could have been, but on the whole, BOTh the esv/Niv fine for study!

Again, what are your creditials in original languages to be able to give your renderings upon versions?

 

[Van]

Why, Yeshua1 do you continually embrace logical fallacies?

I like the NET for several reasons,

1) The footnotes provide scholarly insight into the translation decisions

2) It refutes specious arguments used by Calvinists based on Greek grammar.

3) Dr Wallace is not always right, but he is a man of integrity, and can be trusted to present both sides of issues accurately.​

 

[Rippon]

3) Dr Wallace is not always right, but he is a man of integrity, and can be trusted to present both sides of issues accurately.
​

And Dr. Wallace has wriitten the following regarding the 2011 NIV:

"In reality, the NIV produces a more understandable, and ultimately more accurate rendering of the Bible precisely because the translators were committed to faithfulness to meaning rather than faithfulness to form."

"all in all, this is a fine translation...the beauty and majesty of the scriptures comes through loud and clear...over all the translation is extremely well done."

"The scholarship behind the NIV 2011 is probably as good as it gets. And the textual basis is both bold and exceptionally accurate."
​

 

[Van]

LOL, compare the NET, edited by Dr. Wallace with the NIV2011 at Revelation 13:8. While overall, the NIV is well done, when we look at specific verses, Dr. Wallace considered alternate translation decisions to be superior time and again.

No translation version is perfect, but some are better than others, and so I recommend using the NASB95 and compare with the NET, HCSB, NKJV and WEB, for study. For reading, I do pick up my NIV84, and enjoy taking in God's word presented so even I can understand it. But I do not use it for study, since the actual message has been altered to match the preconceptions of the translators. I expect usually they are spot on, but they miss the mark too often, making the NIV worthless as a study bible but not as worthless as the ESV2011.

 

[Rippon]

LOL, compare the NET, edited by Dr. Wallace with the NIV2011

Admit it --Dr.Wallace who you cite so often as having wisdom and evenhandedness commends the 2011 NIV with gusto. And you are left flatfooted.

For reading, I do pick up my NIV84, and enjoy taking in God's word.

I expect usually they are spot on, but they miss the mark too often, making the NIV worthless as a study bible but not as worthless as the ESV2011.

Again, you are all over the map Van. If the 84 NIV is a pleasure for you to read and it is usually spot-on --how then can you logically say it misses the mark too often. And you are a metaphor mixer too. ;-) So it's normally "spot on" except when it misses the mark too often. You have to be clear about adverbs of frequency. Usually means most of the time. Too often means most of the time. You contradict yourself...again. You have to think it out more clearly. Is it correct most of the time or incorrect most of the time? Rememeber the law of contradiction.

And again, the NIV is the Bible translation used at your church --so I don't want to hear any junk coming from you about how worthless it is. If you had any gumption you would leave your particular church and move to one where your favorite translation is being used --the NASB.

And I notice that you referenced the 84 NIV this time. Did you get confused? You usually trash the 2011 NIV. But then you got to trash the 2011 ESV once again with an offensive smiley-face to sweeten your obnoxious conduct I suppose.

 

[Van]

The concept of not vilifying another man's slave, of not dumping on the efforts of other Christians to serve Christ, seems not to have escaped Dr. Wallace.

Then Rippon, finds fault with the NIV usually being spot on. As if it needed to miss the mark usually in order to be worthless. A little leaven alters the whole loaf.

Next, the pew Bible at my church, was chosen not by me, but by the leadership of my church. Still does not make it a sound choice for Bible study because it misses the mark too often.

I do pick up my NIV84, and enjoy taking in God's word presented so even I can understand it. But I do not use it for study, since the actual message has been altered to match the preconceptions of the translators.

Bottom line, both the NIV2011 and ESV2011 are worthless as study bibles. Stick with the NASB95, and compare with the NET, NKJV, HCSB and WEB.

 

[Van]

Lets look at one more ESV verse, 1 Thessalonians 4:15. Note the phrase, by a word from the Lord. This seems to refer to something Jesus specifically told Paul, and that might be the meaning. However, a more accurate and literal translation would read by the word of the Lord, which is the phrase often used to refer to scripture or the gospel of Christ. These alternate and perhaps accurate views are almost hidden (the literal reading is footnoted) by the ESV translators. (The word of the Lord is also hidden by the NIV translators.) But "by the word of the Lord" is found in the NASB, NET, WEB, and NKJV.

 

[Yeshua1]

The concept of not vilifying another man's slave, of not dumping on the efforts of other Christians to serve Christ, seems not to have escaped Dr. Wallace.

Then Rippon, finds fault with the NIV usually being spot on. As if it needed to miss the mark usually in order to be worthless. A little leaven alters the whole loaf.

Next, the pew Bible at my church, was chosen not by me, but by the leadership of my church. Still does not make it a sound choice for Bible study because it misses the mark too often.

I do pick up my NIV84, and enjoy taking in God's word presented so even I can understand it. But I do not use it for study, since the actual message has been altered to match the preconceptions of the translators.

Bottom line, both the NIV2011 and ESV2011 are worthless as study bibles. Stick with the NASB95, and compare with the NET, NKJV, HCSB and WEB.

The net Bible is great in its notes, but would choose a more literal Bible version to study out from!

And Rippe on is right here, for if you want Dr wallace as a greek expert on versions, which he is, then have to accept the Niv also!

Or are you a greater expert in biblical greek then he is?

 

[Rippon]

The concept of not vilifying another man's slave, of not dumping on the efforts of other Christians to serve Christ, seems not to have escaped Dr. Wallace.

You speak in riddles. What in the world are you talking about?

Then Rippon, finds fault with the NIV usually being spot on.

Why would I find fault with that?

As if it needed to miss the mark usually in order to be worthless.

Huh?

Next, the pew Bible at my church, was chosen not by me, but by the leadership of my church. Still does not make it a sound choice for Bible study because it misses the mark too often.

Says you : the self-proclaimed biblical scholar who is able to set New Testament Bible scholars straight.

I do pick up my NIV84, and enjoy taking in God's word

But if it "misses the mark too often" then it why would you enjoy it?

Bottom line, both the NIV2011 and ESV2011 are worthless as study bibles.

Van's opinions are worthless.

Again, you are a walking contradiction. Usually is regularly. Often is frequently. Shall we assign percentages? Usually may cover the range of 75% to 85%. Often covers the same ground --maybe up to 90% or so. Therefore, what you say doesn't make any sense.

A) The 84 NIV is usually spot on you say. [Around 80% of the time]
B) The 84 NIV too often misses the mark you say.[About 90% of the time]

Your contentions are mutually exclusive. There is no logic.

Now if you would have said that the 84 NIV is correct around 90% of the time and incorrect about 10% of the time --that would make sense because the two percentages add up to the total of 100%. But as it is, you would have us to believe that the 84NIV is right 80% of the time. Yet simultaneously it is wrong 90% of the time. Logically impossible Van. You'll have to come up with another schema that is internally consistent.

 

[Rippon]

Lets look at one more ESV verse, 1 Thessalonians 4:15. Note the phrase, by a word from the Lord. This seems to refer to something Jesus specifically told Paul, and that might be the meaning. However, a more accurate and literal translation would read by the word of the Lord, which is the phrase often used to refer to scripture or the gospel of Christ. These alternate and perhaps accurate views are almost hidden (the literal reading is footnoted) by the ESV translators.

Talk about finicky folks! Van, you take the proverbial cake when it comes to people who specialize in the trivial.

(The word of the Lord is also hidden by the NIV translators.)

How so? It reads :"According to the Lord's word,"

I'm sure you have not yet begun to unearth more groundbreaking finds where your petty criticism will be demonstrated.

 

[Van]

When a translation translates the same Greek phrase, in several different ways they are not providing transparency in translation. Something the ESV claims yet does not deliver.

The Calvinists continue their slanderous attack, and not one Calvinist objects. Here is a Rippon slander: "the self-proclaimed biblical scholar" but did Rippon provide a quote? Nope. He made up the claim, and attributed it to me. And this is the sort of behavior Calvinists tolerate and condone.

1) From means from and does not mean before. ESV mistranslation of Revelation 13:8.

2) Nouns should be translated as nouns and not as verbs. ESV mistranslation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13

3) Words that reverse the meaning of the text should not be added to the text without identifying italics. ESV mistranslation of James 2:5

4) When a husband is intimate with his wife, the action should not be translated as laughing. ESV mistranslation of Genesis 26:8

 

[Rippon]

The Calvinists continue their slanderous attack, and not one Calvinist objects.

The subject has nothing to do with Calvinism. You are obsessed.

Here is a Rippon slander: "the self-proclaimed biblical scholar" but did Rippon provide a quote? Nope. He made up the claim, and attributed it to me.

From your boastful posts you apparently know more than any other New Testament scholar and Bible translator alive. And you continue tilting at windmills to this very day in your impossible dream. But your quest is inglorious. Shame rests on your hoary head with your constant attacks on God's Word.

And this is the sort of behavior Calvinists tolerate and condone.

And once again, that has to be where it all centers because of your obsession. If the subject focused on beets you would abruptly bring up the evils of Calvinism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

But of course!

I was looking at it one way and needed to look at it another.

It's nice to have friends around to correct my ignorance.

Teh error(s) was mein.

Rob

The error vas Meiñ. There, now you are Jaman!:laugh:

 

[Van]

When a translation translates the same Greek phrase, in different ways they are not providing transparency in translation. Something the ESV claims yet does not deliver. For example at 1 Thessalonians 1:8 the ESV translates the phrase as "the word of the Lord" but the exact same Greek phrase is translated "a word from the Lord" at 1 Thessalonians 4:15.

1) From means from and does not mean before. ESV mistranslation of Revelation 13:8.

2) Nouns should be translated as nouns and not as verbs. ESV mistranslation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13

3) Words that reverse the meaning of the text should not be added to the text without identifying italics. ESV mistranslation of James 2:5

4) When a husband is intimate with his wife, the action should not be translated as laughing. ESV mistranslation of Genesis 26:8

Bottom line, the ESV2011 and NIV2011 are worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB95, and compare with the NET, HCSB, NKJV and WEB.

 

[Rippon]

When a translation translates the same Greek phrase, in different ways they are not providing transparency in translation. Something the ESV claims yet does not deliver. For example at 1 Thessalonians 1:8 the ESV translates the phrase as "the word of the Lord" but the exact same Greek phrase is translated "a word from the Lord" at 1 Thessalonians 4:15.

You are inconsistent Van. Two of your favorite translations do not use the same words in both verses.

1 Thess. 1:8
HCSB : the Lord's message
NET : the message of the Lord
1 Thess. 4:15
HCSB : a revelation from the Lord
NET : the word of the Lord

So are willing to apply the same yardstick and harshly condemn them as you have repeatedly done with the ESV and NIV? If not, why not?

Nouns should be translated as nouns and not as verbs.

I already straightened you out on your error about this yesterday.

Words that reverse the meaning of the text should not be added to the text without identifying italics. ESV mistranslation of James 2:5

What, exactly is the big deal here Van?

ESV : has not God chosen those who are poor in the world
NASB : did not God choose the poor of this world

When a husband is intimate with his wife, the action should not be translated as laughing. ESV mistranslation of Genesis 26:8

It is a mistranslation. Even a clock is right twice per day. Most translations have caressing his wife. It shouldn't be rendered as sporting or playing either.

Bottom line, the ESV2011 and NIV2011 are worthless

Your closing line has become nauseous. When you repeatedly demean translations of God's Word, as you have for so long --it's time for you to bid goodbye.

 

[Rippon]

When a translation translates the same Greek phrase, in different ways they are not providing transparency in translation. Something the ESV claims yet does not deliver.

Will honesty compel you to be consistent and say the very same thing about the NASB? The same Greek phrase is rendered variously as:

Ro. 1:13 : I do not want you to be unaware
Ro. 11:25 : I do not want you to be uninformed
1 Cor. 12:1 : I do not want you to be unaware
2 Cor. 1:8 : We do not want you to be unaware
1 Thess. 4:13 : We do not want you to be uninformed
_______________________________________________________
I'd say that it is not a big deal for either the ESV or the NASB. But you have no right to employ a double standard.

 

[Van]

You make a good point Rippon, no translation consistently translates the same word meaning in the source language (Greek) into the same word or phrase in the target language (English). But two wrongs to not make a right.

In this example (post #36) The NASB does translate the phrase consistently except for the last word - using both unaware and uninformed, when unknowing should have been used in all cases. (The I versus we difference is based on a Greek singular versus plural difference.)

So in your post # 36 example the NASB is just as lacking in transparency as the ESV. However in the example from post #35, the NASB, WEB and NKJV do translate "the word of the Lord" consistently, whereas the ESV, NET, and HCSB do not.

And I have always said that, i.e. no modern translation adheres to the principle of correspondence, translating the same Greek word meaning consistently in the same English word or phrase as closely as they should. And the ESV and NIV are worse in this regard than the NASB.

Nouns should be translated as nouns and propositions as prepositions in order to translate the nuances of God's inspired message conveyed by the grammar and syntax of the Greek. To violate this principle in order to nudge the text in the direction of Calvinism is without merit.

Both the ESV and NIV have been shown to be worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB, not because it is perfect, far from it, but because it is the best available, and compare with the NET, NKJV, WEB and HCSB.

 

[Yeshua1]

You make a good point Rippon, no translation consistently translates the same word meaning in the source language (Greek) into the same word or phrase in the target language (English). But two wrongs to not make a right.

In this example (post #36) The NASB does translate the phrase consistently except for the last word - using both unaware and uninformed, when unknowing should have been used in all cases. (The I versus we difference is based on a Greek singular versus plural difference.)

So in your post # 36 example the NASB is just as lacking in transparency as the ESV. However in the example from post #35, the NASB, WEB and NKJV do translate "the word of the Lord" consistently, whereas the ESV, NET, and HCSB do not.

And I have always said that, i.e. no modern translation adheres to the principle of correspondence, translating the same Greek word meaning consistently in the same English word or phrase as closely as they should. And the ESV and NIV are worse in this regard than the NASB.

Nouns should be translated as nouns and propositions as prepositions in order to translate the nuances of God's inspired message conveyed by the grammar and syntax of the Greek. To violate this principle in order to nudge the text in the direction of Calvinism is without merit.

Both the ESV and NIV have been shown to be worthless as study bibles, stick with the NASB, not because it is perfect, far from it, but because it is the best available, and compare with the NET, NKJV, WEB and HCSB.

Work with and study the greek NT texts, then you will be able to discern that the nasb/Esv/Niv/Hcsb /Nkjv are all profitable to use as study versions, as NONE of them are perfect, but ALL render into Englsh what God intends for us to know!

 

[Van]

Work with and study the greek NT texts, then you will be able to discern that the nasb/Esv/Niv/Hcsb /Nkjv are all profitable to use as study versions, as NONE of them are perfect, but ALL render into Englsh what God intends for us to know!

I did and discovered that the NIV2011 and ESV2011 are worthless for use as study bibles. No one said the NASB is perfect, just better than the rest. And both the NIV and ESV render some verses just the opposite of what the verse actually says, making them worthless as study bibles. From means from or since or after, not before, and therefore to translate from or since as before changes the verse to say the opposite of what it actually says.

 

[Rippon]

And I have always said that, i.e. no modern translation adheres to the principle of correspondence, translating the same Greek word meaning consistently in the same English word or phrase as closely as they should.

Have you ever heard of the semantic range of a word?

Have you ever heard that,depending on the context "the same English word" idea would be absurd? Context rules --not your petty little word games where you get to denounce from your Pontiff's chair.

Nouns should be translated as nouns and propositions as prepositions in order to translate the nuances of God's inspired message conveyed by the grammar and syntax of the Greek.

"Further, it's not just personal pronouns but word order, articles, direct objects,subjects, verbs, and a host of other things that may be missing in the original but are needed in the translation." (Daniel Wallace)