Featured The English Standard Version (ESV)

Which translation is most correct?:

[Luk 2:14 KJV] 14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

[Luk 2:14 ESV] 14 "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!"

The difference is very significant.

I consider the ESV translation to be more in agreement with other passages than the KJV.

 

This is textual issue and I align with the KJV/NKJV here.

Both statements are true. After all, God sending His Son to die for sins can certainly be summed up as "good will toward men" also. It too agrees with several passages of scripture, such as Titus 2.11, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." It does not suggest universalism, just as Titus 2.11 does not.

Blessings.

 

Well said! I use it in my study as well. If I had to choose a 'critical-text' Bible among my favorites, I would choose the ESV.

 

Many do not though! It all depends if one is into Inclusive language or not!

 

Neither translation does it wrong, its just that the saving favor of God rests upon those in Christ, not towards all sinners!

 

Yes, I agree with your statement. I am just implying that passages such as Luke 2.14, Titus 2.11, John 3.16, 2 Peter 3.9, etc. demonstrate God's goodness towards humans in general (in wanting to save any of us).

 

The #1 English Bible translation, or perhaps ANY Bible translation in the world, got there because of the English style, faithfulness to the originals, and being a general purpose, all-round Bible.

Crossway has done a lot of expensive marketing for the ESV. and it's probably going to hold at a relatively strong #5 position for a while.

 

Why do you think it will slip to #5? It has been consistently #4 since atleast 2016. I am pretty sure in 2015 it was #3, but Christian book expo no longer reports sales from that long ago.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Also got there being forcing all of the ministries and churches to crease using 1984 edition, to cancel making it, and to have massive PR push for the new version!

 

Wonder where the new Legacy bile wish arrive on that list?

 

You meant 'cease,' not 'crease,'.

No one, or no publishing house forced anything regarding the 1984 edition. Think about this, the TNIV is no longer published. Was this an example of coercion? Why isn't the 1996 edition of the NLT available? Why can't folks secure the 2004 or 2007 editions? Is Tyndale House to blame? Do you see how absurd you are being?

Was there indeed a "massive PR push" for the current NIV? I say no, not at all. Crossway has spent far, far more in their push of the ESV.

 

Zondervan made it very clear to all that the 1984 would cease to be published,and churches had better get on board and get the 2011 edition in order to have sunday sch bibles!ool materials and pew bibles!

 

Please, please edit your post Y-1. It has gone beyond the point of no return.

 

My guess is it will replace the NASB 1995 in sales. Perhaps chip away at the NKJV and ESV. It could be top 10, I doubt we ever see it hit the top 5. The CSB struggles to stay in the top 5....I think it was #6 in 2019 ..and it has a ton of promotion behind it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Not exactly a fair comparison. The NIV 2011 already had its name firmly established by the '84 edition. No need to advertise hard when you are at the top and your translation is the best known in the USA.

From Crossway or Holman's stand point....if you are going to get into the Bible market, you best have the ability to promote your product. Otherwise you won't make it. The NIV and KJV can survive on name recognition alone.....anybody else...not so much.

That being said, Zondervan has promoted several study Bibles and children's bibles hard. It is not like they don't promote their product.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Here is an example of the ESV translating the same Greek word meaning (selfish ambitions) as "selfish ambitions" four times, but then as rivalries, hostility, and self seeking.

Lets look at Philippians 1:17, where the ESV now says selfish ambition. An earlier version (my hard copyright 2006, has rivalry. So they changed rivalry to selfish ambition. However, at Galatians 5:20 we still find "rivalries" rather than selfish ambitions.

Next, let us look at 2 Corinthians 12:20, where the ESV renders the same word "hostility"rather than "selfish ambitions."

And to complete the list of flawed translations , we return to Romans 2:8, where. self seeking is used rather than selfish ambition.

So in these three cases, their translation lacks correspondence and transparency.

Now if we compare to the LEB, we find selfish ambition all seven times, so there does not appear to be any valid reason for the lack of transparency. Yes, even the formal equivalence versions fail this test too with inconsistent translation following the herd rather than following the meaning.

For a different sort of flaw, lets look at Genesis 3:16:
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, (ESV)
your desire will be for your husband, (NASB)
Your desire shall be for your husband (NKJV)
your husband shall be your desire. (LEB)

Here is yet another verse: Ephesians 1:5:
he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (ESV)
He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, (NASB)
having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, (NKJV)
having predestined us to adoption through Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will, (LEB)
The ESV deleted "kind or good" part of the meaning of the word, but kind purpose or good purpose would have accurately conveyed the meaning of the word. Compare with the ESV version of Philippians 1:15.

ITL also cited Revelation 13:8 where "apo" which means "out of" or from or since, is translated as "before" for doctrinal reasons. It mistranslates 2 Thessalonians 2:13, changing the noun "salvation" into the verb "saved" to alter the message of conditional election.

Clunky has been used to describe some or many ESV verses, here is an example where many would need to reread the verse:

Eze 3:18 (ESV)
If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.
Eze 3:18 (NIV)
When I say to a wicked person, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.

 

Just hope that they will keep 1977 Nas in circulation, Thompson used it, but now guessing switching to 1995!

 

Zoindervan made a hugh push in marketplace, as many felt that they got back-slapped, as Zondervan promised to get rid of Tniv due to complaints, but just repackaged it as 2011 pretty much! And did they pull the 1984, as they knew that version might vstill outsell new one!

 

I will cite some other versions:

REB : Glory to God in highest heaven, and on earth peace to all in whom he delights.
CEB : Glory to God in heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors.
NJB : Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace for those he favours.
NIV : Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.
NET : Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among people with whom he is pleased.
NLT : Glory to God in highest heaven, and peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased.