-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Critique of the ESV
- Thread starter Jordan Kurecki
- Start date
Jordan, it would be nice if you'd start off with a few comments. That would help get things rolling.
Edit: is there a good reason to watch an hour long kjv vs esv video?
Is there a particular point of time we need to see? I'm old....I fall asleep too easy.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Edit: is there a good reason to watch an hour long kjv vs esv video?
Is there a particular point of time we need to see? I'm old....I fall asleep too easy.
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Is he KJVO. If he is I have no interest in listening to him. I don't care if he has 30 phd's. KJVO folks are titled a little off.
Th.B., Th.M, Th.D. - Andersonville. Th.G. - Indiana Fundamental Bible Institute.
Wrote "Does God Care What You Wear".
President of the American Association of Bible College Educators for International Development (AABCEID).
Founder and director if the Accelerated Baptist Missions Institute.
And yes, he is KJVO (not sure which version).
Sent from my TARDIS
Dr. Dan doesn't live up to his credentials. I listened to the entire thing and he brought nothing to the table.
Although he is more personable than many KJVO folks, he still brings up a litany of stupid stuff.
The ESV team does not follow Origen and Marcion in their theology.
Dr. Dan confuses Rudolf Kittel (1853-1929) with his son who was a Nazi apologist.
Just because the ESV uses the words "people" and "anyone" does not mean it has capitulated to some evil modern agendas. Dr. Dan was going down some bunny trails that had absolutely nothing to do with the ESV translation.
Really Jordon, you need to exercise some better discernment. Dr. Dan is a blind guide. You need to read Dan Wallace, James White, Stanley E. Porter, Philip W. Comfort and others to arrive at a better understanding of textual issues.
Although he is more personable than many KJVO folks, he still brings up a litany of stupid stuff.
The ESV team does not follow Origen and Marcion in their theology.
Dr. Dan confuses Rudolf Kittel (1853-1929) with his son who was a Nazi apologist.
Just because the ESV uses the words "people" and "anyone" does not mean it has capitulated to some evil modern agendas. Dr. Dan was going down some bunny trails that had absolutely nothing to do with the ESV translation.
Really Jordon, you need to exercise some better discernment. Dr. Dan is a blind guide. You need to read Dan Wallace, James White, Stanley E. Porter, Philip W. Comfort and others to arrive at a better understanding of textual issues.
Add to that list Maurice Robinson and the late William Pierpont. Include the works of Zane Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad. That will give you a counter balance to the above without going over into the completely unsupported (and unsupportable) folly of KJVOism.
So many translation evaluations are based on demonstrating a translation is based on a different text, i.e. not the TR or MT. But if we post verses where the ESV messed up the translation of the CT, then the thread might actually have value.
What are the two worst ESV NT verse translations?
1) Rev. 13:8: and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Here the Greek word "apo" is mistranslated "before" rather than "from" or since. This appears to be a doctrine driven error. Note that at Rev. 17:8, the ESV does translate "apo" as "from."
2) 2 Thess. 2:13: 13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
Here a noun (salvation) is mistranslated as a verb (saved). Again this appears to be a doctrine driven mistranslation. Most other translations, i.e. NASB, NKJV, LEB, and NET, have "for salvation. The effect of the alteration is to say we are saved through faith in the truth, rather than what the text says, we are chosen through faith in the truth.
What are the two worst ESV NT verse translations?
1) Rev. 13:8: and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Here the Greek word "apo" is mistranslated "before" rather than "from" or since. This appears to be a doctrine driven error. Note that at Rev. 17:8, the ESV does translate "apo" as "from."
2) 2 Thess. 2:13: 13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
Here a noun (salvation) is mistranslated as a verb (saved). Again this appears to be a doctrine driven mistranslation. Most other translations, i.e. NASB, NKJV, LEB, and NET, have "for salvation. The effect of the alteration is to say we are saved through faith in the truth, rather than what the text says, we are chosen through faith in the truth.
It's been a long day. We moved my mother-in-law in with us several years ago and are now getting her settled into a nursing home. So there's a sense of sadness, perhaps failure as we could no longer provide for her needs, and relief that she is cared for. So, it's been a long day and maybe the answer is obvious but I'm simply too tired to see it right off....so I'll just ask.
What is the difference if my name was written "before" the foundation of the earth compared to it being written "from" the foundation of the earth?
Rev 13:8 " apo" being translated as before fits the range of usage provided by Mounce (distance in time) and by Strong's(before).
2 TH 2:13. aparchen eis soterian, "first fruits to salvation". Not much different than " first fruits to be saved. The key to verse is aparchen. Which means firstfruits, first portion, firstlings. God choose you as firstfruits. The ESV and the NIV nail this verse. "theos heilato hymas aparchen eis soterian" "God chose you firstfruits to salvation" The ESV and NIV made this readable while maintaining original meaning. They give the best rendering of any modern translation I have read.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
The English Standard Version is an evangelical translation based upon the theologically somewhat liberal 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version. http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html
Thus,
Revelation 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. (RSV, 1971)
But revised to read,
Revelation 13:8 and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered. {Or [written in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered from the foundation of the world]} (NRSV)
However,
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. (RSV, 1971)
But revised to read,
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters {Gk [brothers]} beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits {Other ancient authorities read [from the beginning]} for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth. (NRSV)
Unfortunately, when the ESV was revised in 2011, the wording in these two verses was not revised, and this is a good example why the ESV is not suitable for a careful study of the Bible. Indeed, even the first edition of the New Testament in the RSV got it right in 1946, as did its predecessor, the ASV, in 1901!
Note: In the NRSV as quoted above, the words included in brackets { }, also known as braces, curly brackets or squiggly brackets, are in the printed text of the NRSV words placed in the footnotes).
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
I find it interesting that there is this King James Research Council at the beginning of the video that persons are encouraged to join and pay some sort of fee (whether optional or not). Yet, the thing is KJVO'ers are the same ones who use the 'Other versions are only there to make money' accusation. There are many inconsistencies from those in this camp in their arguments not to mention the double standards.
Glad not to be a part of this deceptive sect. Those who join these types of KJVO councils are being bamboozled and led down a dangerous unsustainable path of the inventions and precepts of men - Matthew 15:9; Colossians 2:8.
Glad not to be a part of this deceptive sect. Those who join these types of KJVO councils are being bamboozled and led down a dangerous unsustainable path of the inventions and precepts of men - Matthew 15:9; Colossians 2:8.
Before the foundation of the world refers to before creation, and thus would make sense if we had been chosen individually before the foundation of the world. If we had been chosen, then our names could/should have been entered then - before creation. However, if our names are being entered from or since the foundation of the world, that time period starts at creation and spans until the end of the age. Someone whose name was entered today, has his or her name entered "from the foundation of the world."
So the proper translation supports the idea that Ephesians 1:4 refers to our corporate election and not our individual election. Otherwise the text would read at Rev. 13:8, before the foundation of the world.
The word (apo) means out of, or from, or since, and it never means before. Note the ESV properly translates the same phrase (Rev. 17:8) as from the foundation of the world.
Consider Hebrews 12: 23 where born anew believers are enrolled in Heaven.
Contrary to the Mounce absurdity, you cannot go backword because the word means out of. Even the NIV corrected this error.
If John had wanted to say "before" he would have used a different Greek word, one that actually means before. Compare Rev. 17:8, where the same word (apo) is translated from.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Just speaking out loud here, but why start a thread, then start other ones and never respond back to this one?
ESV one of the best modern versions of the Bible, being essential literal version...
And there are NO essential doctrines being compromised by it, nor NASB/NKJV/NIV et all versions!
to say that different translations do not change or weaken essential doctrines is absolutely not true.
I do have a problem when so called "readability" weakens the translation. Those who are over the top supporters of certain translations are not willing to admit that does occur.
Please post verses which show any newer version changes or weakens essential doctrines. Thank you.
