Guess this all means that Van knows more about biblical Greek then Dr Wallace!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Error in the ESV
- Thread starter Deacon
- Start date
Guess this all means that Van knows more about biblical Greek then Dr Wallace!
Rippon again pretending he cannot read, I referred to word meanings, thus addressing the word meaning indicated by the context. Thus Rippon either cannot read, or pretends he cannot read to justify strawman arguments. LOL
I agree with Dr. Wallace, sometimes words not in the source language need to be added so that the whole idea is presented in the target language. This has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with putting in italics words added by the translator to make the translation transparent, something the ESV claims as a translation goal.
I agree with Dr. Wallace, sometimes words not in the source language need to be added so that the whole idea is presented in the target language. This has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with putting in italics words added by the translator to make the translation transparent, something the ESV claims as a translation goal.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see some backtracking on your part here. So you are now admitting that there is no one--to-one correspondence. You are acknowledging that "the same Greek word" will have multiple meanings depending on the context --right?I referred to word meanings, thus addressing the word meaning indicated by the context.
I like the NET for several reasons,
1) The footnotes provide scholarly insight into the translation decisions
True enough. I refeer to those notes a lot.
It is not a Calvinistic basher. You are. The NIV and ESV translators used the NET notes as an aid in their translations --maybe translators from other versions did also.2) It refutes specious arguments used by Calvinists based on Greek grammar.
_____________________________________________________
I would like to show some examples where the Net Bible did not do in their text what you apparently think should be the only way a real translation operates.
These examples will be from Revelation.
21:5 : write it down
"It down" is not in the Greek text.
21:6 : I will give water
"Water" is not in the Greek text.
21:12 : written on the gates
In the Greek --on them.
21:13 : There are three gates.
"There are" supplied to make sense in English.
____________________________________________________
To make sense in English. Ah, that's key. The Net Bible does not use italics, as you insist on in a Van-approved translation. But if it did --it would look a mess. The notes give the literal meaning (as well as a great deal of other valuable information.) The notes give reasons why the translators phrased things the way they did, even though, many times it was not put in a literal fashion.
Rippon again pretending he cannot read, I referred to word meanings, thus addressing the word meaning indicated by the context. Thus Rippon either cannot read, or pretends he cannot read to justify strawman arguments. LOL
I agree with Dr. Wallace, sometimes words not in the source language need to be added so that the whole idea is presented in the target language. This has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with putting in italics words added by the translator to make the translation transparent, something the ESV claims as a translation goal.
Didn't the Esv team put the words in just as the nasb team did, in order to make sense when read into English though?
Didn't the Esv team put the words in just as the nasb team did, in order to make sense when read into English though?
The ESV translation team did not put italics in, when they altered the text to nudge the translation toward Calvinism, i.e. adding "to be" at James 2:5
There is a difference between adding words to present the actual idea of the underlying source language sentence, and adding words to alter and even reverse the message. If the additions are italicized, then the bible student can consider whether the message is the same, only presented more clearly, or the addition alters the meaning. In James 2:5, many translators add "to be" changing chosen ... rich in faith, meaning they were rich in faith when chosen, to chosen ... "to be" rich in faith meaning they were not rich in faith when chosen. Without the use of italics to highlight the word additions, the bible student might think the altered text was inspired truth, when the opposite is the inspired truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
Greek words have a range of meanings, and so they cannot be translated by one English word or phrase, but they can be translated by one English word or phrase for each meaning. But there is no need to use different English words or phrases, when the historical Greek word meaning remains the same. Thus if a Greek word means "unknowing" there is no need to translate is as uninformed and unaware and ignorant. Willy nilly translation is not a virtue, it is a vice. Another way the translators hide and obscure the inspired message is to translate two or more Greek word meanings using the same English word or phrase. For example the Greek uses three different words to present kinds of love, but many translations translate all three words into just one English word (love) obliterating the distinction presented in the inspired text.
Final point, the context does not change the word meaning, it simply allows us to identify the most likely historical word meaning intended by the author. For example "apo" means "from or since" with from indicating location whereas "since" indicates time. Now to say, because of a preconceived doctrine, from means before is to mistranslate the text.
Final point, the context does not change the word meaning, it simply allows us to identify the most likely historical word meaning intended by the author. For example "apo" means "from or since" with from indicating location whereas "since" indicates time. Now to say, because of a preconceived doctrine, from means before is to mistranslate the text.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not so much destruction as you are saying. That's what footnotes are for.Another way the translators hide and obscure the inspired message is to translate two or more Greek word meanings using the same English word or phrase. For example the Greek uses three different words to present kinds of love, but many translations translate all three words into just one English word (love) obliterating the distinction presented in the inspired text.
Of course it does. The Greek word sarx does not always carry the meaning of flesh or even body. Conext rules --not the lexicon.Final point, the context does not change the word meaning,
Picayune thy name is Van.The ESV translation team did not put italics in, when they altered the text to nudge the translation toward Calvinism, i.e. adding "to be" at James 2:5
And that's exactly what all legitimate translations such as the ESV and NIV do.There is a difference between adding words to present the actual idea of the underlying source language sentence,
The "Bible student" would be at a loss because there are thousands of cases where "additions" are not marked off. Italics are in vain.If the additions are italicized, then the bible student can consider whether the message is the same, only presented more clearly, or the addition alters the meaning.
As I have said before, your underlying principle is for a translation to be deemed good in your eyes it must have italics in the text. One of your favorites is the NET Bible --it has no italics. Another Van principle falls to the earth.Without the use of italics to highlight the word additions,
In order to be a "study" bible, a translation needs to adhere to the word for word rather than thought for thought principle of translation. Otherwise you end up studying what the translators thought, not what God said.
The best study bible is the NASB95, but it still is flawed, just better than the rest.
The NET is a very good bible to use for comparison, because of its extensive foot notes. It does lack italics, because it does not adhere to the word for word principle as closely as others. However, if you know a word or phrase was added, italicized in the NASB, then when you see that same word or phrase in the NET, you are aware it was added there too.
Bottom line, the ESV has been shown not to be suitable as a study bible because it mistranslates verse after verse. Ditto for the NIV. Stick to the NASB95 and compare with the NET, NKJV, WEB, and HCSB.
The best study bible is the NASB95, but it still is flawed, just better than the rest.
The NET is a very good bible to use for comparison, because of its extensive foot notes. It does lack italics, because it does not adhere to the word for word principle as closely as others. However, if you know a word or phrase was added, italicized in the NASB, then when you see that same word or phrase in the NET, you are aware it was added there too.
Bottom line, the ESV has been shown not to be suitable as a study bible because it mistranslates verse after verse. Ditto for the NIV. Stick to the NASB95 and compare with the NET, NKJV, WEB, and HCSB.
Last edited by a moderator:
Complete nonsense. Every translation uses the phrase-by-phrase approach to a large degree. It's unavoidable. Every translator of every Bible translation makes interpretive decisions. It's not as cut-and-dry as you pretend.In order to be a "study" bible, a translation needs to adhere to the word for word rather than thought for thought principle of translation. Otherwise you end up studying what the translators thought, not what God said.
Agreed.the NASB95, still is flawed,
Complete nonsense. Every translation uses the phrase-by-phrase approach to a large degree. It's unavoidable. Every translator of every Bible translation makes interpretive decisions. It's not as cut-and-dry as you pretend.
Well, one of us is presenting fiction, I will agree with that.
When translating a phrase that appears several times in the source language, it should be translated as the same phrase in the target language; that is totally consistent with the word for word principle of translation, and is consistent with the goal of transparency.
Did I say translators, including those using the word for word principle of translation do not make "interpretive decisions?" Nope. But it is cut and dry, the best study bible is the one that does the best job of presenting what the underlying inspired word of God says - which includes adherence to the grammar and historical word meanings as indicated by the context. Many people agree, the NASB95 is better than the others, but we still need to compare with other translations because it is certainly not come close to perfect.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, one of us is presenting fiction, I will agree with that.
When translating a phrase that appears several times in the source language, it should be translated as the same phrase in the target language; that is totally consistent with the word for word principle of translation, and is consistent with the goal of transparency.
Did I say translators, including those using the word for word principle of translation do not make "interpretive decisions?" Nope. But it is cut and dry, the best study bible is the one that does the best job of presenting what the underlying inspired word of God says - which includes adherence to the grammar and historical word meanings as indicated by the context. Many people agree, the NASB95 is better than the others, but we still need to compare with other translations because it is certainly not come close to perfect.
The Nasb is my preferred version, but also do see that the esv/Niv are both fine to use for bible study!
To say you are doing a bible study, but to ignore the historical (lexiconal) word meanings and grammar, is to not really do a bible study. Were you one of those who did not think an exhaustive concordance was needed for bible study? Bible study is not reading a bible and accepting Calvinistic commentary as unpacking the verse or passage.
To say you are doing a bible study, but to ignore the historical (lexiconal) word meanings and grammar, is to not really do a bible study. Were you one of those who did not think an exhaustive concordance was needed for bible study? Bible study is not reading a bible and accepting Calvinistic commentary as unpacking the verse or passage.
So no version that would be acceptable can have ANY calvinist/reformed on translation team?
How about answering my question about the use of Exhaustive concordances, rather than simply making up a question suggesting my view might be absurd. Shuck and jive folks, shuck and jive.
I think it is clear, those advocating the NIV for use as a study bible do not do bible study. They accept the rewritten passages as if they did not need to be checked against other views of scripture.
The best word for word, historical and grammatical translation into English is the NASB, the ESV and NIV contain too many mistranslations, where the opposite of what scripture actually says is put forward as scripture. See Revelation 13:8 for example.
I think it is clear, those advocating the NIV for use as a study bible do not do bible study. They accept the rewritten passages as if they did not need to be checked against other views of scripture.
The best word for word, historical and grammatical translation into English is the NASB, the ESV and NIV contain too many mistranslations, where the opposite of what scripture actually says is put forward as scripture. See Revelation 13:8 for example.
How about answering my question about the use of Exhaustive concordances, rather than simply making up a question suggesting my view might be absurd. Shuck and jive folks, shuck and jive.
I think it is clear, those advocating the NIV for use as a study bible do not do bible study. They accept the rewritten passages as if they did not need to be checked against other views of scripture.
The best word for word, historical and grammatical translation into English is the NASB, the ESV and NIV contain too many mistranslations, where the opposite of what scripture actually says is put forward as scripture. See Revelation 13:8 for example.
Exhaustive concordances are great Bible study tools, and if you would look at the Greek/hebrew texts , there is not that much of a real difference between all of the legit versions, so while prefer the Nasb, the esv and Niv still are useful to read and study from!