What are some verses you think can be improved in the ESV?

I didn't edit you. You need to clean your specs.

What are you referencing here? If you are speaking of the NIV,NET (which used to be on your approved list)NIV (which also was on your approved list and NLT --you are barking up the wrong tree. Take a look at the scholars of these teams and the books they have authored --then try to convince your audience that these versions are liberal.

 

The authors were not, but they did bow to the Feminist move towards inclusive language big time!

 

Van wrote: These are actual "word for word" translation philosophy versions.
Mr. Rippon responded: Actually there are no actual word-for-word bible translations.
Van responded: Note Mr. Rippon's edit to remove "philosophy" from my words to distort my view.
Mr. Rippon responded: I didn't edit you.

Bottom line: Liberal rewrite text so it suits their purpose. Genesis 3:16 case in point.

 

So if I am to understand you, you're saying the translation team of the ESV are liberals??

 

Hi Aneriogios, why not address what I did say, Liberals rewrite text so it suits their purpose. Genesis 3:16 case in point.

The RSV is a more liberal translation than the NASB, LEB or NKJV. The ESV is slightly less liberal than the RSV.

How many rewriten verses in the ESV would it take to conclude it is not trustworthy as a study bible? 5, 10, 25?

 

They all hold to full inerrancy/inspiration, and the doctrines of the faith, so would that be call liberal?

 

Absolutely spot on!!

 

Your worn-out complaint is a bunch of nonsense. You just are too stubborn to admit it.

 

Oh, get over it. How in the world did I distort your view?

There is no such thing as actual word-for-word translations.

There are no actual word-for-word philosophy versions either.

The NASB and NKJV adhere to what the preface of the NIV has. The PR departments of your current favs may say
that they strive for the word-for-word approach --but the translations actually go with the phrase-for-phrase and clause-for-clause method more than you'd care to admit.

 

More fake theology, the NASB, LEB and NKJV are word for word philosophy versions. Mr Rippon pushes a false narrative. Take a look at the many "translation comparison" charts with word for word at one end and thought for thought at the other. The ESV is worthless as a study bible.

 

A translation can be a formal one, literal, but there are none that would atually be a strictly word for word version, as there are some terms with no real direct equivalence, and also issues with it sounding rightreading right when translated.... The Nasv/Nkjv do come closest to that though!

 

Even though its true?

 

Nonsense is not true.

 

What is truly worthless? Your incredibly infantile edicts.

 

That is nonsense. To say that would also put the NASB close to "worthless". When I use text comparison Logos, the ESV and NASB are almost always the two most similar translations. The ESV is one of the better translations available.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Can we get back to listing specific verses and quit sniping about word-for-word and equivalency translations and trading insults?

 

Hogwash. The ESV rewrote Genesis 3:16 to fit man-made doctrine.

Pay to no attention to the blarney spewed forth to justify liberal translation choices. Words have meaning.

Stick with the LEB, NASB, and NKJV