Top Three Bible translations

That is Niv, there is also one in esv!

 

I rarely look at those three. They would be poor choices indeed for Bible reading and Bible study. I'll stick with my NIV/TNIV, NLT, NET and the others that you had been blissfully unaware of.

 

Poor choices for Bible Reading and Study? Oh brother.

 

I don't think I have to state the obvious with respect to the KJV. The 1977 NASB is written in an awkward, stilted manner. The NASB95 is better, but I gave mine away. The only reason I have the ESV is to underline its terrible English.

 

Primary Study Bible NASB95
Favorite Comparison Bibles
NET
CSB
NKJV
WEB
LEB

 

Here's an example of too many words in the ESV compared to the succinct NIV:

The last phrase of Esther 4:5
ESV : and ordered him to go to Mordecai to learn what this was and why it was.
NIV : and ordered him to find out what was troubling Mordecai and why.

Four unnecessary words in the ESV in the last phrase of the verse.

 

And what deems them unnecessary? They convey the actual translation of the Hebrew better. So what deems them unnecessary? That is a subjective point of view.

 

The basic things that need to be expressed are what and why.
The CSB : what he was doing and why.
NRSV & LEB : what was happening and why.
NIV : what was troubling Mordecai and why.

Conciseness is a good thing. You must have heard the adage "There is wisdom in brevity."

 

Extra verbiage is also found in 1 Samuel 13:2, not only in the ESV, but a number of other versions.

Here is the ending in the ESV and other translations:

The rest of the people he sent home, every man to his tent. (13 words)

NIV : The rest of the men he sent back to their homes.(11 words)
NET : He sent all the rest of the people back home. (10 words)
ISV : He had sent the rest of the people home. (9 words)
CEB : He sent the remaining men home. (6 words)

The winner here is the CEB.

 

And that depends on your philosophy of translation. I don't want a summary of what was written, I want to know what was written.

 

Since the ESV is supposed to be an English translation, it would be best to make the English accurate and readable. It fails in this example (and in many, many more.)

Why do we even need an ESV? Or an NIV? Look at these verses. Surely, the translation conveys the actual translation of the Hebrew better, doesn't it?

2 Corinthians 6:11-13
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

 

Again, that is subjective, not objective.

 

You make the rules and declare the winner. Quite convenient.

God forbid you should look in the Hebrew or Greek and find too much verbiage in any of Moses's or Paul's writings.

 

Any translation work has an element of subjectivity to it. It's the nature of the work.

 

Have you noticed that even in your favorite translations footnotes say "Heb. …." If it was so vital to include the phraseology why not put it in the text? Answer, because it's unwieldly; awkward. In an English equivalency it's not necessary to say all of that. A briefer form of words many times communicates the meaning clearly; whereas Biblish does not.

 

Don't swear by taking the Lord's name in vain.

 

Did not have a real response, eh? If you honesty think I used the Lord's name in vain you should report my post to the BB moderators.

 

Yes, possibly 2 dozen times in the KJV, including OT and NT.

The expression may also be found in Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, RV, ASV -- not so much in newer translations.