Does the ESV & NIV corrupt Biblical Creationism?

[evangelist6589]

Perhaps the wording was incorrect in my subject, but I was skimming a Henry Morris book on the book of Job and was looking up many of the verses mentioned from the KJV and I noticed that in many cases the ESV & NIV translate differently than the KJV/NKJV. I know that this is due to different manuscript evidences and I am aware of this argument. However what concerned me was perhaps the ESV & NIV's rendering of various passages. Job 28:9-10 is one example that takes the authority of God and moves it to man.

NIV
People assault the flinty rock with their hands
and lay bare the roots of the mountains.
10 They tunnel through the rock;
their eyes see all its treasures.

ESV

“Man puts his hand to the flinty rock
and overturns mountains by the roots.
10 He cuts out channels in the rocks,
and his eye sees every precious thing.

NKJV
He puts his hand on the flint;
He overturns the mountains at the roots.
10 He cuts out channels in the rocks,
And his eye sees every precious thing.

There are many other passages that I looked up from the book which render very different in the ESV/NIV. If the author had those translations available before he died or wrote this book I doubt he could have made the arguments he did. What do you say? I am aware that Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis thinks that the ESV & NIV are not the best translations and he prefers the KJV.


John

 

[MorseOp]

I don't have a major problem with the KJV, NKJV, NASB, or ESV in this regard. The NIV, as a dynamic equivalent translation, takes an extra interpretive step that can prove problematic. I have been asked by my church members what bible I would recommend for serious bible study. While I am a critical text guy, I feel comfortable recommending the KJV and NKJV along with the NASB and ESV. I would avoid the NIV for serious study.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Translation of the Book of Job is very difficult because a number of the words are only found once in the scriptures (in Job). Biblical Hebrew was originally written without vowels, only consonants, and is reliant upon context in order to determine what the root word. Once you determine the root word, you have to interpret the meaning according to the context. Most of the time it works out well because you have a familiar context and the words are routinely used in a similar way, but the Book of Job is a very early book and has many unfamiliar words.

 

[Havensdad]

Perhaps the wording was incorrect in my subject, but I was skimming a Henry Morris book on the book of Job and was looking up many of the verses mentioned from the KJV and I noticed that in many cases the ESV & NIV translate differently than the KJV/NKJV. I know that this is due to different manuscript evidences and I am aware of this argument. However what concerned me was perhaps the ESV & NIV's rendering of various passages. Job 28:9-10 is one example that takes the authority of God and moves it to man.

NIV
People assault the flinty rock with their hands
and lay bare the roots of the mountains.
10 They tunnel through the rock;
their eyes see all its treasures.

ESV

“Man puts his hand to the flinty rock
and overturns mountains by the roots.
10 He cuts out channels in the rocks,
and his eye sees every precious thing.

NKJV
He puts his hand on the flint;
He overturns the mountains at the roots.
10 He cuts out channels in the rocks,
And his eye sees every precious thing.

There are many other passages that I looked up from the book which render very different in the ESV/NIV. If the author had those translations available before he died or wrote this book I doubt he could have made the arguments he did. What do you say?

Because that is what the text says. If you read from the beginning of verse 1, EVEN in the KJV, it is talking about mining and refining gold and silver, and mankind's work on the earth. The text in the KJV does not say "God puts His hand" it says "He"...

The ESV translation is exactly right.

I am aware that Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis thinks that the ESV & NIV are not the best translations and he prefers the KJV.


John

Where did you hear this? All he sells on his site are ESV Bibles and HCSB Bibles...he does not even carry the King James Version. I know they use the King James version (with updated words...so not exactly the KJV translation anymore) at the Creation museum, but I believe that was because most of their clientele are fundies...

 

[IANMO(IAMNTMYOWN)]

God's Word Shall Stand

Beware of rash statements, friend. I went online curious as to whether that claim is true. I found KJV Bibles on his sight as well as ESV; but seriously what is the point here? Do we need to contend over such matters? Members and staff of AnswersinGenesis have stepped up and taken some stands that sadly, most of us would shy from.

The versions have been an issue of the past century, I agree. Personally, I prefer the KJV. It was translated from the original texts, and appears from what I have reasearched to be the most accurate. I have had friends and family, including my twin sister, use other versions. It is a personal conviction that I believe is for someone to decide. God promises in His Book that His words shall not return unto Him void. No matter what man may do in seeking to contort, dilute, or destroy what our God has said, I do believe it will remain ever powerful. He gives of the free choice, yes, but He is still the Master of the Universe, and there is nothing that finite man can do to weaken the power of God and His words.

 

[Havensdad]

Beware of rash statements, friend. I went online curious as to whether that claim is true. I found KJV Bibles on his sight as well as ESV; but seriously what is the point here?

Correcting a misstatement. You are partially right. I missed the Henry Morris study Bible, which only comes in KJV, and is a Creationist staple. However, all of the other Bibles in their store are ESV or HCSB...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/catalog/Bibles-Study-Tools,227.aspx

Do we need to contend over such matters? Members and staff of AnswersinGenesis have stepped up and taken some stands that sadly, most of us would shy from.

I don't think that is true at all! Answers in Genesis is one of the most godly, consistent ministries in the world. I agree with Ken Ham on almost everything he says, and when I don't, it is a minor disagreement.

The versions have been an issue of the past century, I agree. Personally, I prefer the KJV. It was translated from the original texts, and appears from what I have reasearched to be the most accurate.

My friend, this is laughable. The KJV, whatever one thinks about it, was not translated "from the original texts." In fact, the Erasmian text that formed the basis of the KJV, cannot be found before the 15th century. Most of the texts that underlie it, were not much older.

Modern versions such as the ESV, utilize MUCH older texts in their translations. Not only this, the ESV better renders the Greek inflection, and does not have the "Roman Catholic" bent that the KJV has (since the KJV was translated by Anglicans...)

I have had friends and family, including my twin sister, use other versions. It is a personal conviction that I believe is for someone to decide. God promises in His Book that His words shall not return unto Him void. No matter what man may do in seeking to contort, dilute, or destroy what our God has said, I do believe it will remain ever powerful. He gives of the free choice, yes, but He is still the Master of the Universe, and there is nothing that finite man can do to weaken the power of God and His words.

Well I agree with {most} of this....

 

[IANMO(IAMNTMYOWN)]

You do have a point here. I didn't clarify. I meant the original Greek texts. I am aware that the actual originals were not used.

 

[Havensdad]

You do have a point here. I didn't clarify. I meant the original Greek texts. I am aware that the actual originals were not used.

But that is still not accurate. Erasmus assembled the Textus Receptus. It is not the "original" anything. The ESV comes far closer to being translated by the "original" Greek texts..

 

[Jerome]

Answers in Genesis VBS curriculum is KJV/NKJV.


Ken Ham's son Nathan Ham, pastor of Harvest Baptist Church, Cincinnati, Ohio:

http://nathanham.blogspot.com/search/label/translation issues

the standard line is that we need to update the KJV because it is archaic and uses words that we don't use anymore. Of course, the modern versions change the wording in 20,000-30,000+ places and go way above and beyond just updating the archaic language. The argument is simply an alibi for justifying an entirely new translation from corrupt texts and duping the public into buying them because they have up-to-date language.

Look up these verses in modern versions, and you'll see how degraded or generic the language is compared to the KJV and how the change of words makes it hard to compare Scripture with Scripture. Once again, the good old-fashioned Authorized Version of the Bible wins

 

[thomas15]

If I may quote from The New Defender's Study Bible, pg 1 Introduction to the Old Testament..."Furthermore, no English translation of the Bible is perfect (though it is my conviction that the so-called King James Version comes closest to that ideal) and neither is any specific Hebrew manuscript of the text. ...."

I think that if Dr. Morris had issues with the popular NIV rendering of critical verses such as those under consideration in this thread he would have mentioned them in this SB.

 

[Deacon]

Uhhh guys, the passages here were written in Hebrew not Greek.

The translators of older versions were at a distinct disadvantage, not having modern archeological data and the various texts found near the Dead Sea.

My opinion, the ESV is particularly friendly to an old earth interpretation but it has nothing to do with "manuscripts", rather the translators worked within the semantic range of the Hebrew words to make a more accurate translation.

EXAMPLE:

before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; Genesis 2:5 (NKJV)


When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, Genesis 2:5 (ESV)


This distinctive translative change clears up many problems inherent in the old translations, particularly concerning whether are two creation stories or one story with a clarification.

On this subject I'd recommend C. John Collins book, "Genesis 1-4, A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary" (2006).

Rob

 

[quantumfaith]

Uhhh guys, the passages here were written in Hebrew not Greek.

The translators of older versions were at a distinct disadvantage, not having modern archeological data and the various texts found near the Dead Sea.

My opinion, the ESV is particularly friendly to an old earth interpretation but it has nothing to do with "manuscripts", rather the translators worked within the semantic range of the Hebrew words to make a more accurate translation.

EXAMPLE:

before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; Genesis 2:5 (NKJV)


When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, Genesis 2:5 (ESV)


This distinctive translative change clears up many problems inherent in the old translations, particularly concerning whether are two creation stories or one story with a clarification.

On this subject I'd recommend C. John Collins book, "Genesis 1-4, A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary" (2006).

Rob

Good book by Mr. Collins, about half way complete reading it now.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

But that is still not accurate. Erasmus assembled the Textus Receptus. It is not the "original" anything. The ESV comes far closer to being translated by the "original" Greek texts..

They are older...that is the sum total of their claim to being "closer" to the original autographs. There are also two of them, two. They also disagree with each other in hundreds of locations in the gospels alone. Erasmus compiled thousands of manuscripts. Many were indeed not very old, but many were MUCH older than the 16th Century as you are implying. Nonetheless, a manuscript's age, is not the only thing a critic needs to consider when deciding on it's value or accuracy. So, IAMNOTMYOWN did not, in fact, say anything

"laughable"

.

 

[preachinjesus]

Job is a complicated book in the original Hebrew.

Since it is an epic poem, sort of like Homer's Odyssey, it uses construction and forms often not seen in other OT books. In fact over 140 hapax legomena (a word only appearing once in the entire Bible...in the original language) occur in Job. Of those hapax there are something like 60 that have no similar root word in the rest of the Hebrew OT.

Frankly the newer translations are better because, as others have mentioned, they are informed by archeology and linguistic studies. When the KJV was revised, in its last revision (not the NKJV,) Ugaritic wasn't even known. The NKJV relies on the same manuscripts as the KJV, which is part of the problem, though with slightly better scholarship, but even that was translated in 1979.

This passage has some unusual renderings and uncommon. The more modern translations (ESV, NIV, NET, etc) get the translation better than the KJV or NKJV. It doesn't water down "creation." Let's not forget the Bible is specific as to the "how" of creation but is tremendously more concerned with the "who" and "why."

 

[evangelist6589]

Job is a complicated book in the original Hebrew.

Since it is an epic poem, sort of like Homer's Odyssey, it uses construction and forms often not seen in other OT books. In fact over 140 hapax legomena (a word only appearing once in the entire Bible...in the original language) occur in Job. Of those hapax there are something like 60 that have no similar root word in the rest of the Hebrew OT.

Frankly the newer translations are better because, as others have mentioned, they are informed by archeology and linguistic studies. When the KJV was revised, in its last revision (not the NKJV,) Ugaritic wasn't even known. The NKJV relies on the same manuscripts as the KJV, which is part of the problem, though with slightly better scholarship, but even that was translated in 1979.

This passage has some unusual renderings and uncommon. The more modern translations (ESV, NIV, NET, etc) get the translation better than the KJV or NKJV. It doesn't water down "creation." Let's not forget the Bible is specific as to the "how" of creation but is tremendously more concerned with the "who" and "why."

Good point. There have been many replies to this thread and I have learned some things that I did not know. I like the NIV for its dynamic beauty, however for technical renderings usually the ESV is better. I guess after reading this thread Morris may have had a harder time writing his book and some chapters which are based solely on the KJV renderings which you say are not as accurate as the NIV or ESV due to later advanced in archeology which is accurate.

 

[evangelist6589]

I don't have a major problem with the KJV, NKJV, NASB, or ESV in this regard. The NIV, as a dynamic equivalent translation, takes an extra interpretive step that can prove problematic. I have been asked by my church members what bible I would recommend for serious bible study. While I am a critical text guy, I feel comfortable recommending the KJV and NKJV along with the NASB and ESV. I would avoid the NIV for serious study.

I do not agree. Numerous times have the dynamic renderings illuminated the text for me after being left clueless by the more literal translations. I will however agree with you that do Greek word studies the NASB is the best however. But for application, understanding, and such the NIV is better. However ones like the Message take it a step further and sometimes make thE text easier to understand.