-
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!
ESV Compared with The NASBU
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
Let me make it clear. I do not hate the ESV. I think it is a conservative and serviceable translation. I have defended it on numerous occasions from Van-attacks.
However, it suffers from poor English throughout much of the text. Incremental improvements are being made; but it needs an extensive overhaul. Yet, if that would indeed transpire --it would look much like the NIV. That is the essential quandary for Crossway.
However, it suffers from poor English throughout much of the text. Incremental improvements are being made; but it needs an extensive overhaul. Yet, if that would indeed transpire --it would look much like the NIV. That is the essential quandary for Crossway.
I think I will make this signature to all my posts now
I have no issue reading it(ESV) on my own. I will say, I read the NIV much easier out loud. The NIV is what I read to my 5 year old.
McCree, you should read the NIrV to your young child. It's more suitable to *thon's age.
*I'm trying out this third person gender-neutral pronoun. It was first tested in the late 19th century. I attempted "tah" before, but thon works better for a few reasons.
*I'm trying out this third person gender-neutral pronoun. It was first tested in the late 19th century. I attempted "tah" before, but thon works better for a few reasons.
I see where Mr. Rippon says he defends the ESV from "Van attacks." Anyone who pays any attention to how Mr. Rippon characterizes the views of others is naive.
The NASB95 is superior as a study bible to thought for thought translation philosophy versions. They are more suited as comparison versions providing sometimes insightful commentary.
The NASB95 is superior as a study bible to thought for thought translation philosophy versions. They are more suited as comparison versions providing sometimes insightful commentary.
Well, the ESV is the winner in the Yoda category. My favorite is from Leviticus 26:10 :
"You shall eat old store long kept..."
Sentence one: "The NASB95 is superior as a study Bible..."
Sentence two: " They are more suited as comparison versions..."
Because I had cited numerous posts of yours in which you constantly derided other versions in a very deplorable manner.
I have been quite factual, in contrast to your unique takes.
...and don't you forget it. ESV the official Bible of Yoda!
Did I " constantly deride other versions?" Nope
Were my objections to the ESV, NIV and NLT supported by objective evidence? Yes
Currently, the Godless left is having Christian views declared "hate speech." It is a form of censorship. People who stand firm in their beliefs are not motivated by hate, but by a love of Truth (Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.) God's Word is truth. Those that revise God's Word to fit their agenda are in error.
Were my objections to the ESV, NIV and NLT supported by objective evidence? Yes
Currently, the Godless left is having Christian views declared "hate speech." It is a form of censorship. People who stand firm in their beliefs are not motivated by hate, but by a love of Truth (Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.) God's Word is truth. Those that revise God's Word to fit their agenda are in error.
What a bold lie Van. Of couse you demeaned versions other than your favs. Last summer you hit the bottom. The following are samples of your wares.
7/4/2014 at 8:44 AM : the NIV and ESV mistranslate the inspired words of God.
7/10/2014 at 5:31 PM: the NIV 2011 and ESV 2011 are worthless
7/12/2014 at 9:33 AM : both the ESV and NIV are worthless
7/12/2014 at 4:21 PM : both the ESV and NIV are worthless
7/18/2014 at 11:20 AM : Both the ESV and NIV are worthless
7/18/2014 at 6:33 PM : The NIV and ESV are worthless as study bibles because they intentionally present what they think scripture should say, rather than what it actually says.
8/7/2014 at 12:57 PM :Bottom line, the NIV goes overboard and recklessly mistranslates the inspired words of God. It is worthless as a study bible.
8/8/2014 at 9:20 PM : Bottom line, the NIV goes overboard and recklessly mistranslates the inspired words of God.
_________________________________________________________________
You were warned by an Administrator to cease and desist with your vile tirade.
Of course not. Van, objective?! That does not compute.
And you have done just that countless times in your "word study" threads. Those threads were filled with your revisions and Vanolgy agenda.
Pay no attention to these edited snippets which do not reflect what was actually being said. Thought for thought translations are worthless as study bibles because they are more like commentaries.
The Greek word "apo" (Strong's 575) means out of or from or since or after. To translate "apo" as "before" is a mistranslation.
Then Mr. Rippon again adds ad homenim arguments such as I am not objective. Pay no attention to logical fallacies.
One more thing, do any of the English translations perfectly translate God's word? Nope. They all contain mistranslations, including my beloved NASB95. This is truth, and is not motivated by hate. But the most accurate in my opinion are those that attempt to use the word for word translation philosophy, such as the NKJV, WEB, and NASB plus interlinears.
The Greek word "apo" (Strong's 575) means out of or from or since or after. To translate "apo" as "before" is a mistranslation.
Then Mr. Rippon again adds ad homenim arguments such as I am not objective. Pay no attention to logical fallacies.
One more thing, do any of the English translations perfectly translate God's word? Nope. They all contain mistranslations, including my beloved NASB95. This is truth, and is not motivated by hate. But the most accurate in my opinion are those that attempt to use the word for word translation philosophy, such as the NKJV, WEB, and NASB plus interlinears.
Last edited by a moderator:
No one listens to you Van. You have no "folks" to call upon.
You have called the NIV and ESV worthless and other crass expressions over and over. That's why you were rebuked by the admins to drop your nasty habit or suffer the consequences. That's a fact Jack.
What is called "thought-for-thought" means phrase-by-phrase and clause-by-clause. It is an age-old way to translate. Your favs employ this method more than you innocently think --especially the HCSB and NET Bible.
Yeah, stating that you are not objective is a real nasty ad hominem. LOL!
Yet another off topic post, simply attacking me personally.
Thought for thought translations are worthless as study bibles in my opinion. That is a fact Jack.
Mr. Rippon again claims mind reading ability.
Using ad hominems, which are logical fallacies, is nasty, and results in off topic derailment of threads.
The NASB95 is superior to the more thought for thought versions such as the NET, and HCSB in my opinion, but I use them and others, for comparison.
One more thing, note how Mr. Rippon keeps making the same claims. Thus you could snip the same response from post 35 and 37 and claim I am constantly deriding. See how its done.
Thought for thought translations are worthless as study bibles in my opinion. That is a fact Jack.
Mr. Rippon again claims mind reading ability.
Using ad hominems, which are logical fallacies, is nasty, and results in off topic derailment of threads.
The NASB95 is superior to the more thought for thought versions such as the NET, and HCSB in my opinion, but I use them and others, for comparison.
One more thing, note how Mr. Rippon keeps making the same claims. Thus you could snip the same response from post 35 and 37 and claim I am constantly deriding. See how its done.
Last edited by a moderator: