Featured Why the ESV Falters

Have discussed Romans 2:8?

Not a bad over-all rendition of the text. But lets focus in on "self-seeking." The Greek word here is G2052 eritheia and means to be contentious because of selfish ambition. And in 4 of the 7 times the ESV translates it, they do indeed use selfish ambition. And in the three places, alternate choices were made, selfish ambition fits better, including Romans 2:8. The ESV even footnotes self-seeking with contentious.

So the flaw in translation is not translating the same word meaning using the same English word or phrase.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it Tom, but said word meaning, not word.

 

So your gold standard would be the RSV and NRSV? What about the many times they differ with one another?

 

That's a blanket statement with no justification.

All translations are basically paraphrases because....(wait for it)....they are translations.

What specifically do you think were the goals of the NIV and HCSB that disqualify them in your humble view?

 

I agree, Translations are paraphrases in that they restate the original for the sake of clearness. But, relative to the translation process, a paraphrase goes far beyond what is necessary for simple clearness in another language.

For example, in Acts 6, we're told that the "Hellenists" were complaining that their widows were being neglected by the "Hebrews" in the "daily distribution". The Apostles, not wanting to waste their time "serving tables", appointed servants to handle the problem.

The Holman Bible identifies both parties of Christians as "Jews" and identifies "financial matters" as the issue.

That's not a translation. That's information added by the translators, information not in the original text. Even if I agreed with the HCSB, that Jewish factions were fighting over money (LOL, the HCSB sounds anti-semetic even when it's trying to bow to Jews), a translation that doesn't claim to be a paraphrase shouldn't gratuitously add information to the text.

(Whenever I complain about translators adding to the text, there's always someone who defend the changes, "that's what it means". Those people are YUGE idiots.)

But, that isn't what it means. Old widows were not getting a "daily" money allowance. And, "serving tables" is not an idiom for financial matters. The Greek-speaking widows were being treated poorly at meal time by Hebraic bigots. The HCSB is often dumb for no apparent reason.

The Bible also does not regard any Christians as "Jews" (*with irrelevant exceptions). The HCSB often changes and adds to the Bible to try to make the Bible support false Dispensational doctrine.

*The Bible regards Christians as the true Jews. Paul practiced Judaism, but only identified himself a Jew to other Jews.

 

The question is why was the ESV based on the RSV rather than the NRSV? The flaws in the RSV that were corrected in the NRSV might also be found uncorrected in the ESV.

My gold standard, the best English translation available remains the NASB95. The ESV simply does not live up to the claims of its preface. Rather than essentially word for word, its a words and more words for word translation. Ask yourself what do rivalry, hostility and self seeking have in common with selfish ambition?

 

Can you (Smyth) provide some examples of this? Perhaps we should start a "Where the HCSB falters?"

 

The RSV is an academically strong translation. The NRSV is just a (more) liberal bent on the RSV. The ESV is conservative, so it's pointless using the NRSV as a base. There might even have been some contract issues.

The NASB95 is excellent. But, the ESV is very good and easier to read.

 

Reading between the lines, the ESV should have been based on the NRSV, but costs were too high.
Can you link to a page that shows differences between the RSV and NRSV?

 

Don't be shocked, but I agree with you here.

I agree with you again. I have said the same thing a number of times in the past here on the BB.

 

Yes you have Mr. Rippon.

 

Consider 1 Peter 2:2, "Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—" Note the "grow up into salvation" as if newborns were not quite saved yet. Not the best translation. The preposition (eis) refers to penetrating something as in going into a room. So it carries the idea of approach (to toward) penetration (into) and continuing (beyond). Here, babies grow beyond their new born condition until they can handle spiritual meat. So the idea is not to grow toward or into salvation, as newborns they are saved already, no the idea grow beyond or with respect to salvation. The NIV has grow up in your salvation.

 

it still is at least as good as the latest Niv version though, and to be preferred for overall study purposes!

 

How many flawed translation examples would it take to consider dropping the ESV from consideration as a study bible? We have the NASB95 and LEB for CT fans, and the NKJV and WEB for MT fans.

 

Psalms 4:1
Matthew 23:13
Hebrews 2:14
John 1:9
Romans 2:8
1 Peter 2:2

How many stumbles does it take to fall?

 

One of the frequent flaws in the ESV translation choices is inconsistency. They will translate the same word meaning (i.e implore) using several different words. The ESV uses "implore" at 2 Cor. 5:20, yet goes with other words at Romans 12:1, 15:30, 16:17, and 1 Cor. 1:10.

 

You said, concerning the ESV saying "self-seeking "in one verse, "So the flaw in translation is not translating the same word meaning using the same English word or phrase." All translations translate many words different ways. Stand in the corner and ask a Catholic how to do penitence.

Stop moaning about the ESV. It's a good translation.

 

Hi Smyth, please address the topic rather than engage in personal advice. Four of the seven times, the ESV translates the word as "selfish ambition" so the flaw is in not translating the other three as "selfish ambition.

I think the NASB95 or LEB are good translations for use as your primary study bible, with the NKJV, WEB, and NET good for comparison bibles.

Apparently you are unable to provide a link that references the verses that were changed in the NRSV. Neither can I.

 

I don't understand your complaint about the ESV. All translations rightly translate same Greek words to a variety of English words, depending on context.

There are dozens of changes on every page between the RSV and NRSV. In Song of Solomon 1:5, the RSV tells of a Caucasian women who is still beautiful in spite of being darkened by the sun by working so much in the fields. The NRSV turns her into a proud African-American, "I am black and beautiful."