Esv

[Van]

I'm not being disingenuous. I'm really curious. Unwarranted attack on the character of Calvinists aside, do you have a link to that previous post?

I asked you to provide what in your mind would be evidence for the ESV being a Calvinistic version. I did not see where you addressed the issue.

Lets start with Revelation 13:7 where the ESV has names being (not) written "before" the foundation of the world. This is consistent with the idea that individuals were chosen (or not) before the foundation of the world, the Calvinistic view of Ephesians 1:4.

What I expect to be the response, "one verse does not demonstrate a Calvinistic bias," or some such deflection.

Like a lawyer building a brief, he first wants to see all the evidence, so he can construct a response that addresses all the evidence and tells a story advantageous to his side.

That is why without criteria, any effort would be akin to shoveling sand against the tide.

 

[RLBosley]

Think that it is "so popular" for the same reasons that the Niv became the version of choice by so many Evangelical /Baptists did in the 80's!

It has the push of a major publisher behind it, getting it into church curriculums

It has the translators/persons using it and recommended it as big names within reformed/Calvinistic circles

It does use the critical gtexts, and is somewhat more smoother reading than say the nasb is, the closest comparison to it among MV

Would say that the esv is a fine version to use to study from, but to me, its big flaw is that it tries to mediate between the Niv/Nasb, as it reads easier then the Nas, but not as easy as the Niv, nor as accurate to the texts as the nasb!

Think that the esv is THE choice among reformed, Niv among evangelicals, while Nasb/NKJV still popular among conservative Baptists!

And also think that the SBC version HCSB does better what the esv attempted to do!

I agree with the bold 100%.

I see what the ESV tried to do, I just think it misses the mark. I prefer to use either my NASB and HCSB.

 

[RLBosley]

I asked you to provide what in your mind would be evidence for the ESV being a Calvinistic version. I did not see where you addressed the issue.

Lets start with Revelation 13:7 where the ESV has names being (not) written "before" the foundation of the world. This is consistent with the idea that individuals were chosen (or not) before the foundation of the world, the Calvinistic view of Ephesians 1:4.

What I expect to be the response, "one verse does not demonstrate a Calvinistic bias," or some such deflection.

Like a lawyer building a brief, he first wants to see all the evidence, so he can construct a response that addresses all the evidence and tells a story advantageous to his side.

That is why without criteria, any effort would be akin to shoveling sand against the tide.

Well it doesn't.

I think you picked the wrong verse. Revelation 13:7 says: [Rev 13:7 ESV] 7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation,

As for criteria. I would say an obvious (or at least arguable) passage that has been translated in such a way that it supports Calvinistic theology only in the ESV. Particularly passages not traditionally seen as Calvinist "proof texts". I think that would be a good don't you?

 

[Van]

Yes, sorry, I relied on my memory, always a mistake. Revelation 13:8 has the "before" where the non-biased versions have from or since.

I think at odds with the NASB, NKJV, HCSB, and NET, would demonstrate the bias. When you throw in only in the ESV, the ESV could cite the NLT and NIV, which are also, in my view, biased.

Bottom line, I have cited a verse that supports Calvinistic theology and is at odds with the non-cal versions.

 

[RLBosley]

Yes, sorry, I relied on my memory, always a mistake. Revelation 13:8 has the "before" where the non-biased versions have from or since.

I think at odds with the NASB, NKJV, HCSB, and NET, would demonstrate the bias. When you throw in only in the ESV, the ESV could cite the NLT and NIV, which are also, in my view, biased.

Bottom line, I have cited a verse that supports Calvinistic theology and is at odds with the non-cal versions.

You think the NIV and the NLT are Calvinistic?

Also saying "before the foundation of the world" or "from the foundation of the world" seems like a distinction without a difference. Same meaning in each.

Nor does that explicitly say why their names were written. I don't see this as supporting Calvinism. Really it's only contrary to Open Theism IMO.

 

[go2church]

Crossway has really stepped up the marketing of the ESV offering many, many editions. Also the neo-reformed movement has adopted the ESV.

ESV is a fine translation so it's good that people are using it. It does have a reformed lean, but not enough to make it unusable by those not of the reformed point of view.

I like and use the NIV.

 

[Van]

As I expected, your move along, nothing to see here, response demonstrates no evidence could be supplied that you are not ready to dismiss as a distinction without a difference.

But what cannot be denied is this translation differs from the non-Cal translations, and therefore meets my criteria as demonstrating Calvinistic bias.

What Calvinists do here is claim something happening before the foundation of the world happens at the same time with actions taking place from or since the foundation of world. Irrational, yes, but there you have it, the Calvinist distinction without a difference.

 

[RLBosley]

As I expected, your move along, nothing to see here, response demonstrates no evidence could be supplied that you are not ready to dismiss as a distinction without a difference.

But what cannot be denied is this translation differs from the non-Cal translations, and therefore meets my criteria as demonstrating Calvinistic bias.

What Calvinists do here is claim something happening before the foundation of the world happens at the same time with actions taking place from or since the foundation of world. Irrational, yes, but there you have it, the Calvinist distinction without a difference.

Oh come on. :BangHead:

If that is your only evidence then you have no case! I hope I'm not the only one who sees Revelation 13:8 as being laughable "evidence" of a Calvinistic bias. The ESV is a revision of the RSV, which also had "before the foundation of the world." Is the RSV then to be considered a Calvinistic Bible?

The KJV has the clause "from the foundation of the world" as modifying the death of the Lamb. Does that mean then that the death of Jesus was only planned since Gen 1:1 or was it planned in eternity past? Clearly from all eternity is what is intended so "before the foundation" and "from the foundation" is indeed a distinction without a difference.

If you have real evidence of a Calvinistic bias, let's see it. Otherwise, stop being silly.

 

[Deacon]

Posted by Rob:
Why do I like the ESV?

1. Essentially literal
2. Modern formatting aids in delineating structure
3. Modernized eclectic Greek text
4. Updated Hebrew text utilizing early sources when appropriate.

OK. So in what ways is this superior over the NASB then? Is the updated text that different? Or is it just the sheer volume of "extras"?

I grew up on the NASB as a Christian, it was difficult to make the switch - I still like it and use it when I compare text.

1. The NASB does not use modern formatting to show quotes, poetry, and various other changes in the structure of the text.

2. While I do not detest Westcott-Hort's Greek text (much to the contrary), I feel the NASB follows it too closely for my tastes.

3. The NASB translators were reluctant to use the Hebrew Qumran texts, since then other texts discovered have helped to clarify difficult portions.

Rob

 

[RLBosley]

[/LIST]

I grew up on the NASB as a Christian, it was difficult to make the switch - I still like it and use it when I compare text.

1. The NASB does not use modern formatting to show quotes, poetry, and various other changes in the structure of the text.

2. While I do not detest Westcott-Hort's Greek text (much to the contrary), I feel the NASB follows it too closely for my tastes.

3. The NASB translators were reluctant to use the Hebrew Qumran texts, since then other texts discovered have helped to clarify difficult portions.

Rob

OK. Thank you for the input. I'm still trying to work my way through the various translation issues.

What are your thoughts on the HCSB?

 

[Deacon]

I'm not very familiar with the HCSB.
There were some distractions (not errors) in the NT translation that I could not overcome.

Rob

 

[RLBosley]

I'm not very familiar with the HCSB.
There were some distractions (not errors) in the NT translation that I could not overcome.

Rob

OK. To each his own.

 

[Van]

Oh come on. :BangHead:

If that is your only evidence then you have no case! I hope I'm not the only one who sees Revelation 13:8 as being laughable "evidence" of a Calvinistic bias. The ESV is a revision of the RSV, which also had "before the foundation of the world." Is the RSV then to be considered a Calvinistic Bible?

The KJV has the clause "from the foundation of the world" as modifying the death of the Lamb. Does that mean then that the death of Jesus was only planned since Gen 1:1 or was it planned in eternity past? Clearly from all eternity is what is intended so "before the foundation" and "from the foundation" is indeed a distinction without a difference.

If you have real evidence of a Calvinistic bias, let's see it. Otherwise, stop being silly.

1) Setting aside the banghead emoticon as effort to demean.

2) Now the evidence of bias is not only a distinction without a difference, but is laughable.

3) To repeat, before means before and from or since means after. They are opposites. However, with all things Calvinistic, we have a Calvinist claiming the opposite, before means after and after means before.

4) Compare Revelation 17:8 and ask if the names were (not) written from rather than before. Ask yourselves why the ESV translators did not translate "apo" as from in Revelation 13:8 as they did in Revelation 17:8. Then consider the RL argument from the KJV.

5) It appears that no evidence of bias will be accepted, it is all to be disparaged as laughable and without merit.

Bottom line, the ESV is a Calvinistic version, with several verses badly mistranslated in support of Calvinism. The ESV is almost as bad as the NIV and NLT.

 

[Van]

If the names were written or not written since or after the foundation of the world, why were they not written before the foundation of the world if God chose individuals before the foundation of the world? However, if individuals were chosen for salvation from or since the foundation of the world, then it makes sense that their names would be written or not in the same time frame, from creation to the end of the age.

 

[InTheLight]

Also saying "before the foundation of the world" or "from the foundation of the world" seems like a distinction without a difference. Same meaning in each.

I think there is a difference.

 

[RLBosley]

1) Setting aside the banghead emoticon as effort to demean.

2) Now the evidence of bias is not only a distinction without a difference, but is laughable.

3) To repeat, before means before and from or since means after. They are opposites. However, with all things Calvinistic, we have a Calvinist claiming the opposite, before means after and after means before.

4) Compare Revelation 17:8 and ask if the names were (not) written from rather than before. Ask yourselves why the ESV translators did not translate "apo" as from in Revelation 13:8 as they did in Revelation 17:8. Then consider the RL argument from the KJV.

5) It appears that no evidence of bias will be accepted, it is all to be disparaged as laughable and without merit.

Bottom line, the ESV is a Calvinistic version, with several verses badly mistranslated in support of Calvinism. The ESV is almost as bad as the NIV and NLT.

1) Not an effort to demean. Just expressing my frustration at your continued silliness.

2) If that is all you have then yes it is laughable. Saying an entire translation is Calvinistic off one verse. Since the ESV copied the RSV here was the RSV a Calvinistic Bible?

3) Never did I say before means after or vice verse. Again you misrepresent me.

4) This actually shows one of my dislikes regarding the ESV, it's inconsistency with words.

5) you've presented one verse. That's it. If you have more, please share!

 

[annsni]

Another benefit of the ESV - it is free in all digital forms. So I can tell someone to get a Bible and help them load it immediately onto their digital device. I understand you can do that with the KJV as well but not many people are comfortable with the language - especially if they are not saved.

 

[Van]

Another Calvinist drinks the coolaid!

3) Never did I say before means after or vice verse. Again you misrepresent me.

RL equated before and from as a distinction without a difference, thus saying they mean the same thing. Yet, he then charges me with misrepresentation.

Calvinists seem to be all the same. Shuck then jive.

Unless you will admit the ESV mistranslates the text in a manner consistent with Calvinist theology at Revelation 13:8, there is no need to show you more evidence.

 

[Greektim]

Another Calvinist drinks the coolaid!



RL equated before and from as a distinction without a difference, thus saying they mean the same thing. Yet, he then charges me with misrepresentation.

Calvinists seem to be all the same. Shuck then jive.

Unless you will admit the ESV mistranslates the text in a manner consistent with Calvinist theology at Revelation 13:8, there is no need to show you more evidence.

Jive... now there is an apt description of someone I know.

 

[RLBosley]

Another Calvinist drinks the coolaid!



RL equated before and from as a distinction without a difference, thus saying they mean the same thing. Yet, he then charges me with misrepresentation.

Calvinists seem to be all the same. Shuck then jive.

Unless you will admit the ESV mistranslates the text in a manner consistent with Calvinist theology at Revelation 13:8, there is no need to show you more evidence.

:laugh:
OK. So you have no others, got it.