Featured Why the ESV Falters

Hi Deacon, did it say purpose, or good pleasure or kind intentions or something else?

 

Does the choice of purpose, rather than kind intentions or good pleasure alter the message? Yes. God's purpose could lack benevolence, such as choosing Judas as betrayer, The benevolence adds to the praise of the glory of His grace. Yet another reason to exclude benevolence would be to deny that God's kindness toward those chosen might reflect some characteristic of those chosen, such as faith in the truth. Note that HCSB renders it His favor and will.

 

Thanks, pretty hard to find fault with the "good pleasure" choice.

 

For the umpteenth time - "each word or phrase from the Greek should be rendered the same way upon each occurrence" is not my view. How about truth? My view is each word meaning, repeat meaning, repeat meaning, got it MEANING, should be rendered the same way at each occurrence.

Lets talk specifics. Lots of translations render Ephesians 1:5 "according to the good pleasure of His will."
So we are not talking about two or more meanings, we are talking about the exact same meaning. Nothing in the context to suggest purpose rather than good pleasure. These same ESV translators render the Greek word good pleasure elsewhere (Philippians 2:13).

You are correct the ESV translators simply "followed" the RSV at Ephesians 1:5 and ignored the NRSV.
Copying mistakes of earlier versions is also without merit.

There is no merit in not providing correspondence and transparency. There is no merit in translating several Greek word meanings into the same English word, obliterating the distinctions made in the inspired text.

 

Not sure what you mean. The TR and MT have Hades rather than Death. So a literal (CT) version might read "Death! where [is] your sting, Death! where [is] your victory, but a literal version of the TR would read "Death! where [is] your sting, Hades! where [is] your victory.

Is your point they translated Hades as grave?

 

Hi RSR, please re-read post #126. It does not include the "material false statement" stuff, I deleted it before you posted.

Now you say "good pleasure" has no meaning for the modern reader. Fine, but the ESV used it at Philippians 2:13. Therefore you cannot justify its non-use because its meaning was thought to be obscure.

Yes, I am sure what you believe about me does not match reality. Otherwise we would have a cordial conversation. I am constantly misrepresented by those wanting to find fault.

The way I arrive at a subset of differing meanings for a Greek word is I look at the lexicon, and then at every usage. Some words obviously have two or more very distinct meanings, such as destroy and render powerless. Now what I find over and over (using an Exhaustive Concordance) is that the same word Meaning, it translated using several different English words or phrases, when a few or one would do. Such a practice is without merit. And next, I see where they use the same English word for several different Greek word meanings. For example the NIV uses "purpose" to translate 7 different Greek words.

 

It's not practical. The particular context of a given passage determines meaning --not your narrow lexicon-driven method.

Isn't his will the same as his purpose? If God purposes something --he wills it.

CEB : his good purposes
HCSB : his good purpose
NIV : fulfill his good purpose
REB : his own chosen purpose

 

It is practical, and achievable, and needed.

No "purpose" is not the same as good purpose, or kind intention, or good pleasure. Purpose leaves out half the meaning of the inspired Greek word.

Demonstrating that lots of translations translate the word meaning inconsistently supports my view. Good purpose certainly is a viable translation choice, but "chosen purpose" is simply a mistranslation, making the text say what it does not say nor mean.

 

Lets consider Luke 2:14, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!" (ESV). The coming of Christ certainly brings glory to God in heaven, but what does Christ bring to mankind? Peace to everybody? Nope. Peace among humans of [His] good pleasure. You bet.

 

Respond to the above.

 

Some snips from the NIV :

Romans
8:28 : according to his purpose
9: 11 : God's purpose
9:17 : this very purpose

2 Cor.
5:5 : this very purpose

Ephesians
1:9 : he purposed in Christ
1:11 : the purpose of his will
2:15 : His purpose
3:11 : his eternal purpose

Philippians
2:13 : his good purpose

2 Tim.
1:9 : his own purpose

Heb.
6:17 : his purpose

Rev.
17:17 : his purpose

 

His purposes would be brought to pass by His own Will, correct?

Something about Him working all things according to His own divine Will thing?

 

Yes, His purpose for creation is for people to bring Him glory, and we bring Him glory when we autonomously repent and trust in Christ.

 

Not sure why anyone would think purpose means the same as will. Our purpose is our goal or intention, or the reason for existence. Will is like volition, what we decide to pursue. Thus Ephesians 1:11 uses both ideas, the purpose of His will, i.e. the goal or intention of His volitional choice.

 

Lets consider "thelema" G2307, which appears about 59 times in the NT. The ESV translates it 58 times as "will" providing very good correspondence and transparency. However, lets turn our attention to the one exception, Ephesians 2:3, where instead of will of the flesh, we get "desires of the body." Needless failure to translate concordantly. Yes, other translations are worse, but the idea is the modern translations pay lip service to a very good goal.

 

The ESV misses the mark in many areas.
1) Rather than being based on the RSV, it should have been based on the NRSV.
2) Many of the mistakes identified in this thread are also found in the RSV, but corrected in the NRSV.
3) Some mistranslations (2 Thessalonians 2:13, Revelation 13:8 and Ephesians 1:5) seem to be agenda driven.
4) The lack of correspondence and transparency indicates lip-service to those goals mentioned in the Preface.