ESV 2011 changes

YOu can see all the changes at the link below provided by crossway. Save yourself the trouble and just follow the link.

http://d3p91it5krop8m.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/misc/esv_2011_changes.html

 

Fascinating video of ESV committee voting to morph slave to bondservant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx06mtApu8k

 

Bond servant is the more accurate term as far as the Scriptures are concerned.

 

double post

 

Slave is more correct. The Greek word is doulos meaning slave as opposed the word oiketes meaning household servant. Paul made it clear he was a doulos (slave) of Christ.

As in the video, slave isn't politically correct, so it's avoided. Who cares what the Greek says.


Even the KJV got it wrong and never uses slave. Instead uses "servant" of Christ even though it should have been translated slave.

 

But the word is doulos/slave. Why would they translate it servant? As someone in the video pointed out, there is a difference between a servant and a slave.

I wouldn't have really thought much about it except I heard a John MacArthur sermon a few weeks ago in which he talked about this very thing. Do a word study and you'll see.

 

Slavery in ancient times does not equal slavery that we know of. So using the word "slave" may not communicate the most accurate thought. It has nothing to do w/ political correctness. It has to do w/ the most effective way to communicate the original language in the new language.

 

Has our language changed that much in just a decade?

 

A slave and a servant are not the same thing regardless of what century one lives in. Personally, I prefer accuracy and a translation that represents the original language as much as possible. I don't have a problem with "slave". I know what a slave is. I'm a bond slave of Christ. (Ex 21:16)

 

Maybe we shouldn't be so lazy in our bible study that we can't search out the meaning of slave.

 

But if "doulos" translated as "slave" doesn't connote the same concept that we think of, then it is the wrong translation. It has nothing to do w/ Bible study. It has everything to do w/ proper translation philosophy.

 

This is true!

Another good point is that in the American context, slavery definitely is a loaded...very loaded...term. Part of ensuring an accurate translation is also about locating and marking these kinds of sociological landlines.

I'm about as strict an interpreter as you'll find on these issues and I am more comfortable with bond servant (because it gives me a chance to explain the word) than I am with other terms. Granted, you can't, by default, just translate something one way throughout the text.

 

So basically we change the Word of God to suit our culture (slave) to appease our consciences, to smooth things over so that we and others are not offended. Perhaps if God were speaking live through an interpreter the interpreter should maybe, being culturally "wise," tweak a few of His Words?

Maybe they should change the version from ESV to the PCV (Politically Correct Version)?

I wonder what change "we" will justify next?

I really believe Americans are becoming a bunch of pansies.

*one fellows reasoning for changing this is (on the video) is that (if interpreted accurately) we would be slaves/slaving for God. God forbid!!!! Aren't we higher than this and closer to His level?

 

No. Doulos is the correct translation. You just don't like it. And the "philosophy" should include loyalty to the original language. Why do you have a problem with the word slave?

 

Well we wouldn't want to do that now would we. Good grief.

 

Clearly you have not been following the train of thought here. We are not changing the word of God. We are merely arguing for a translation that best fits the society of the receptor language. A "bondservant" is closer to the meaning than "slave" b/c douloi were paid back in the day. It was the method of welfare back then. It was not a means of free servitude to subordinate races or individuals.

 

Doulos is the Greek word, not a translation. Case and point that you are the last person who should be arguing for proper translation philosophy.

You know very little about loyalty and clearly little about the original language (and history). I don't mind the word slave, but it does not connote what a doulos was. Douloi were paid. Big difference.

 

I usually agree with your posts, but this is just ridiculous. We're talking about God's word for heaven's sake, not an article in People magazine.

A slave is owned by someone. A servant is not. Jesus owns me. He bought me with His own blood. The word should be translated correctly and then you can explain it. (Assuming there is actually someone who doesn't know what a slave is.)