Featured Why the ESV Falters

The "all we can do is wave experts" is off the mark. If we post what the experts say, as I did with both the grammar footnote and the Barnes blurb, we can evaluate the differing arguments for ourselves.

 

How will you evaluate the differing arguments? You know no Hebrew and therefore lack the basic equipment with which to evaluate. Waving experts is exactly what you are doing.

 

I am not sure what you are claiming, because I read so called experts arguments all the time, and determine they present coherent arguments or hogwash. If you do not believe in the priesthood of believers, fine. I do.

For example, the KJV reads "my holy hill" (Psalm 2:6) rather than the hill of my holiness. Why do you suppose they did not follow the same Hebrew grammar at Psalm 4:1? You do not need to know Hebrew to evaluate inconsistent translation.

 

You are [edited by Moderator] to spout such nonsense.

[I agree but you can't say that. The Moderator. ]

 

You would be in error if you did not understand that the revision of ther Niv went too far in inclusive language renderings, as while their goal was good, their execution was lacking!

 

I would agree with you better to use say the Nasb for serious studies of the scriptures, but the contrast was between the 1984/2011. and the 1984 was still decent enough to do that, but can't say same for the revision!

 

Here is yet another example of the ESV faltering. Matthew 23:13 reads “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

The correct translation would read, those who are entering, or going in. Note that in the parallel passage, Luke 11:52, the ESV does translate the same word as entering. (Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”

 

You are impossible to deal with because facts are never your friends. I had a thread a few years ago in which I never mentioned the NIV --although you insisted on bring it up. I had listed passages from various versions such as the NET,HCSB,ESV and a few others. I was demonstrating the inclusive language that was employed by these translations.The NET translation topped them all. I asked if you had a problem with the way any of the versions rendered the verses. You couldn't quite say no or even yes. You just went by your principle of "inclusive language is bad." I had repeatedly asked you where your line in the sand was. You, at long last, replied that any inclusive language that the NKJV was acceptable. However, since you never dealt with the various renderings of the various versions I had cited --your 'answer' was less than satisfactory.

You recoil when asked to supply specifics. That is your very nature.

 

If someone did an analysis of the differences between the RSV and the NRSV, and then compared those differences to the ESV, it might generate a whole slew of falters.

 

Yet another example of a faltering translation in the ESV is found at Hebrews 2:14.

 

I never stated that is is always bad thing, just that the Niv 2011 went to far in regards to revising their renderings, too far into inclusive languaging their translation!

 

Let us consider John 1:9, "The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world." (ESV)

The translation choice, gives light, misses the mark. The word's more probable meaning is enlighten. A better translation might read, " The true Light, which enlightens every person, was coming into the world. In a similar way, Christ, high and lifted up, draws every person, because of the lovingkindness demonstrated by dying for their sins.

 

You quote my entire post yet do not respond to its specifics. Typical.

 

Hi RSR, your question claims that the verses I identified as faltering were because they were literal renderings. Let us review:

The ESV at Hebrews 2:14 translates G2673 (katargeō) as destroy which is one of two primary meanings. The other "literal" meaning is to render powerless. But the context should require use of the second meaning, just as literal as the first meaning, because Satan was not destroyed, He stalks us today.

The ESV at John 1:9 translates G5461 (phōtizō) as "give light to," which is one of four primary meanings. But another primary literal meaning is to "enlighten" (to inform.) Thus again, the ESV falters by using the wrong literal meaning which should be obvious based on context. Jesus is not the light of the world because, like the Sun, He lights up the physical world, rather Jesus enlightens our hearts.

 

Hi RSR, if you cannot see from the context that the ESV (and others) used the wrong meaning, there is nothing more I can say. If you deny that enlighten conveys the transfer of information, rather than photons. there is nothing more I can say. If you deny that Satan has not yet been destroyed, again there is nothing more I can say.

 

The ESV is a good translation. KJVO people make the assumption that the KJV is right and so any wording that differs is wrong. Many Non-KJVO people make the assumption that they're right in all details and that if a translation doesn't fit what they believe then the translation is wrong.

There are many bad translation, like the Holman and NIV. But, I wouldn't fault either of them for a "fair" translation of a word, even if I'd prefer something else. There are two things bad translations have in common. They push agendas/doctrines and they paraphrase -- some of this is unavoidable, but a good translation does it as little as reasonably possible.

 

RSR, please count the number of "you" entries in post #78. Why is it appropriate to ascribe to me, rather than the lexicons, the different meanings of the words in question? How do you know that the translators think gives light to means to enlighten? And Satan has not been destroyed. Why, at Ephesians 1:18 did not the translators of the ESV use "gives light to" if the words mean essentially the same thing.