Esv

[Yeshua1]

Summary of thread, about 8 Calvinist leaning folks have posted in effect from the foundation of the world actually means before the foundation of the world, whereas at least two non-Calvinists have agreed that there is a difference, one referring to before creation, and one referring to after creation.

The truth is that God kn oiws all who were to get saved, always knew that, and he predestined/willed tht those were his elect, c hosen by Him to receive the benefits of the Cross...

There NEVER was a time God did not know that their names were written down in the book of Life, as that was according to His will and purposes!

 

[Van]

The truth is that God kn oiws all who were to get saved, always knew that, and he predestined/willed tht those were his elect, c hosen by Him to receive the benefits of the Cross...

There NEVER was a time God did not know that their names were written down in the book of Life, as that was according to His will and purposes!

Yet another totally off topic post by a Calvinist, again trying to change the subject.

From the foundation of the world refers to the time period from creation to the end of the age. Names of non-believers were not written in the Lamb's book of life during this period, and by inference, the names of those whose faith God credited as righteousness were written.

There is no need to change the inspired word of God because men claim John's text does not mean what it says. The ESV contains several verses that have been mistranslated to be consistent with Calvinism.

 

[Van]

Here is my last illustration of how the ESV, NIV and NLT alter the underlying text and grammar to modify the meaning to be more Calvinistic.

James 2:5 reads: (ESV) "Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?"

1) Reading this, you would see that God chose poor people who had no wealth in the world. But the NASB footnotes "in the world" with the comment "literally to the world." So according to the text they may have been poor financially, but certainly the world saw their treasures as worthless. In fairness, the NIV uses the variant, poor in the eyes of the world, which accurately, presents the same message. So the ESV is slightly inaccurate, but not in a Calvinistic way.

2)Next appears the phrase ...to be rich in faith. So reading this the folks were not chosen because they were rich in faith, no they were chosen to make them rich in faith in the future. Very Calvinistic. Again, the NASB also has "to be" but in "italics." This tells us the translators have added the phrase for whatever purpose. So what the text actually says, as identified by the NASB footnotes is God chose those poor to the world, rich in faith. Very different and very unCalvinistic. Some verbs in the Greek take more than one object, like saying I chose a car, red in color. The "red in color" describes and defines more closely what was chosen. In this verse, for example, "...God chose those poor to the world yet rich in faith...." Again in fairness, none of the translations present this truth very clearly, but the ESV, NIV and NLT provide no footnotes, which blinds the reader to what is actually being said.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is my last illustration of how the ESV, NIV and NLT alter the underlying text and grammar to modify the meaning to be more Calvinistic.

James 2:5 reads: (ESV) "Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?"

1) Reading this, you would see that God chose poor people who had no wealth in the world. But the NASB footnotes "in the world" with the comment "literally to the world." So according to the text they may have been poor financially, but certainly the world saw their treasures as worthless. In fairness, the NIV uses the variant, poor in the eyes of the world, which accurately, presents the same message. So the ESV is slightly inaccurate, but not in a Calvinistic way.

2)Next appears the phrase ...to be rich in faith. So reading this the folks were not chosen because they were rich in faith, no they were chosen to make them rich in faith in the future. Very Calvinistic. Again, the NASB also has "to be" but in "italics." This tells us the translators have added the phrase for whatever purpose. So what the text actually says, as identified by the NASB footnotes is God chose those poor to the world, rich in faith. Very different and very unCalvinistic. Some verbs in the Greek take more than one object, like saying I chose a car, red in color. The "red in color" describes and defines more closely what was chosen. In this verse, for example, "...God chose those poor to the world yet rich in faith...." Again in fairness, none of the translations present this truth very clearly, but the ESV, NIV and NLT provide no footnotes, which blinds the reader to what is actually being said.

the verses do NOT address the source of their faith, as that was the Gift of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another totally off topic post by a Calvinist, again trying to change the subject.

From the foundation of the world refers to the time period from creation to the end of the age. Names of non-believers were not written in the Lamb's book of life during this period, and by inference, the names of those whose faith God credited as righteousness were written.

There is no need to change the inspired word of God because men claim John's text does not mean what it says. The ESV contains several verses that have been mistranslated to be consistent with Calvinism.

NO unsaved sinner ever had their name written down, and God knew ALL whose names were written in there from Eternity, correct?

he did not have to wait to see their faith before knowing they were saved, correct?

Do you state that the scholars who did the Niv/Esv had their calvinistic bias creeping in, despite not all being either reformed or calvinists?

 

[Hermeneut7]

Here is my last illustration of how the ESV, NIV and NLT alter the underlying text and grammar to modify the meaning to be more Calvinistic.

James 2:5 reads: (ESV) "Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?"

1) Reading this, you would see that God chose poor people who had no wealth in the world. But the NASB footnotes "in the world" with the comment "literally to the world." So according to the text they may have been poor financially, but certainly the world saw their treasures as worthless. In fairness, the NIV uses the variant, poor in the eyes of the world, which accurately, presents the same message. So the ESV is slightly inaccurate, but not in a Calvinistic way.

2)Next appears the phrase ...to be rich in faith. So reading this the folks were not chosen because they were rich in faith, no they were chosen to make them rich in faith in the future. Very Calvinistic. Again, the NASB also has "to be" but in "italics." This tells us the translators have added the phrase for whatever purpose. So what the text actually says, as identified by the NASB footnotes is God chose those poor to the world, rich in faith. Very different and very unCalvinistic. Some verbs in the Greek take more than one object, like saying I chose a car, red in color. The "red in color" describes and defines more closely what was chosen. In this verse, for example, "...God chose those poor to the world yet rich in faith...." Again in fairness, none of the translations present this truth very clearly, but the ESV, NIV and NLT provide no footnotes, which blinds the reader to what is actually being said.

Van, since you bring up James 2:5 and again accuse certain translations of having a theological bias, I thought I'd show a list of how versions translate:

KJV - "the poor of this world rich in faith"
ASV - "to be rich in faith"
RSV - "to be rich in faith"
NRSV- "to be rich in faith"
NEB - "to be rich in faith"
REB - "to be rich in faith"

NASB -"to be rich in faith"
NIV - "to be rich in faith"
NKJV- "to be rich in faith"
ESV - "to be rich in faith"
NLT - "to be rich in faith"
NET - "to be rich in faith"
NAB - "to be rich in faith" A Roman Catholic Translation

I once had an early translation by the Lutheran William F. Beck who accused the KJV of being biased toward Calvinism and pointed to 1 Pet. 2:8. In the above list of translations, not listing Greek-English Interlinear translations, it seems the KJV is the only one who would escape your charge of such a doctrinal bias by adding the words "to be". Even the RCC Bible would be Calvinistic to you. :smilewinkgrin: John Gill gives a reason for the addition:

"rich in faith; not that they were so, or were considered as such, when chosen, and so were chosen because of their faith; for then also they were, or were considered as heirs of the kingdom, which would be monstrously absurd; and yet there is as much reason, from the text, for the one, as for the other; but the sense is, that they were chosen 'to be rich in faith'"

 

[Van]

As clearly indicated by the last two posts, the addition to scripture of "to be", without italics, demonstrates a modification of the text without warrant, and clearly alters the text to be consistent with Calvinism.

Now if you are a Calvinist, then "to be rich in faith" would seem the sense of the text, yet opposite from what it says.

So yet again we see a change in the text to reverse its meaning, from becomes before, rich in faith becomes to be rich in faith, i.e. not having faith, and chosen for salvation through faith becomes saved through faith. The ESV, NIV, and NLT contain mistranslations to alter the text to be consistent with Calvinism. Case closed.

 

[Yeshua1]

As clearly indicated by the last two posts, the addition to scripture of "to be", without italics, demonstrates a modification of the text without warrant, and clearly alters the text to be consistent with Calvinism.

Now if you are a Calvinist, then "to be rich in faith" would seem the sense of the text, yet opposite from what it says.

So yet again we see a change in the text to reverse its meaning, from becomes before, rich in faith becomes to be rich in faith, i.e. not having faith, and chosen for salvation through faith becomes saved through faith. The ESV, NIV, and NLT contain mistranslations to alter the text to be consistent with Calvinism. Case closed.[/QUOTE

Do you mind to list just why you can judge the scholars who translated those passages the way they did then?
.
And since the Niv was translated by a mixture if cal and arm, did the cals somehow sneak those all by other scholars?

 

[Van]

Yet another off topic post, questioning my credentials, rather than admitting all three verses reflect a "cook the books" mentality, where uninspired men feel they know better than the inspired authors. Amazing.

 

[Rippon]

Yet another off topic post, questioning my credentials,

So exactly what are your credentials? If you have none then we can't question them.

 

[Van]

More ridicule, more disparage the poster who differs with Calvinism, and no content. This is all they have, folks, shuck and jive.

Three verses in the ESV have been shown to differ from the underlying text, from being changed to before, "to be" inserted into the text without italics, and the noun salvation changed into the verb saved.

The case is closed, but the scoffers will continue to claim after does mean before, and changing the inspired text to fit the translators view of what it should say is a sound translation methodology. To mirror the methodology on a much smaller scale of the NWT seems dubious to me.

 

[Revmitchell]

I disagree with much of calvinism but good grief we do not need to look for a boogy man under every rock. Crying wolf only looks foolish.

 

[Rippon]

The case is closed

You've lost your lid --it's not closed.

To mirror the methodology on a much smaller scale of the NWT seems dubious to me.

You specialize in absurdities. For you,van, to compare the ESV (even on a "smaller scale")with the NWT is downright foolishness. Get a hobby.

 

[Rippon]

Why has the ESV become so popular? I know Crossway has done a marvelous job of marketing it and a lot of the "big name" people have jumped onto the bandwagon, but that doesn't really answer the question of why the bandwagon exists in the first place. Why did it initially become popular?

You partially answered it. The marketing arm did a lot to propel it forward.However, a major thrust was the castigation of the NIVI which was only released in the UK. That was the precursor of the TNIV. The latter was boycotted and vilified by World Magazine in true rag-style fashion.

I have one and I use it occasionally, but IMO it really isn't an improvement over the NASB. It seems almost as wooden in many places, OT especially,

I agree. I made a thread or two demonstrating that the NASBU using more natural English in comparison with the ESV in numerous places.

and less clear than the more dynamic translations.

Well, that's a given.

If you love your ESV, why do you like it so much?

Many go for the hype and trust big names who say it's the best thing since sliced bread.

I said before that the ESV was promoted by demeaning the NIV in its various forms.

People believe the mantra that it is "essentially literal." Although, as Moises Silva has said:"The unwary reader can hardly suspect how many major syntactical transformations are adopted by the ESV."

BTW, I'm not hating on the ESV. It seems to be a fine translation. I doubt so many would accept it if it weren't. I just personally don't get it.

Me too. I have made many thread demonstrating that the ESV uses poor English. It's just unnecessarily awkward.

The revisers have made some baby steps to improve it. But it is too incremental. A whole devoted block of time needs to be devoted to the project. But,as I've also pointed out, if they do the necessary work it will look too much like the NIV --and they can't have that! :laugh:

The ESV is perfectly sound theologically and a better choice than the KJV,NKJ or Message. But the NIV and NLT will continue to outsell it.

 

[Hermeneut7]

As clearly indicated by the last two posts, the addition to scripture of "to be", without italics, demonstrates a modification of the text without warrant, and clearly alters the text to be consistent with Calvinism.

Now if you are a Calvinist, then "to be rich in faith" would seem the sense of the text, yet opposite from what it says.

So yet again we see a change in the text to reverse its meaning, from becomes before, rich in faith becomes to be rich in faith, i.e. not having faith, and chosen for salvation through faith becomes saved through faith. The ESV, NIV, and NLT contain mistranslations to alter the text to be consistent with Calvinism. Case closed.

My dear brother, Van... I sincerely believe you let yourself go off on a tangent with this idea of Calvinistic bias in translations. You referred to Dr. Wallace in an earlier post. Dr. Wallace has a web page in which he addresses what you are trying to do with a literal, word for word approach. I personally have gone off on tangents before, and I continually am refining my understandings today so we all do it even at our age. I'd suggest you read this page by Dr. Daniel Wallace of DTS.

http://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

There is another page that includes many Bible hints that can clarify matters when we try to be too literal with a text, plus many other helps:

http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/bibletips.htm

 

[Yeshua1]

My dear brother, Van... I sincerely believe you let yourself go off on a tangent with this idea of Calvinistic bias in translations. You referred to Dr. Wallace in an earlier post. Dr. Wallace has a web page in which he addresses what you are trying to do with a literal, word for word approach. I personally have gone off on tangents before, and I continually am refining my understandings today so we all do it even at our age. I'd suggest you read this page by Dr. Daniel Wallace of DTS.

http://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

There is another page that includes many Bible hints that can clarify matters when we try to be too literal with a text, plus many other helps:

http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/bibletips.htm

Guess that pretty much sums it up on this OP, as a recognized Biblical Greek scholar disputes what Van trying to sell here!

 

[InTheLight]

I said before that the ESV was promoted by demeaning the NIV in its various forms.

Me too. I have made many thread demonstrating that the ESV uses poor English. It's just unnecessarily awkward.

I started using the NIV study Bible about 2 years ago. My church uses the ESV. When I follow along and compare the ESV to the NIV the language of the ESV is clunky, less clear, and generally harder to understand. A recent example would be Matthew 17:14-20.

https://beta.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 17&version=ESV;NIV

ESV: "my son is an epileptic and suffers terribly" [I don't think they would use the word epileptic in the 1st century. I don't think the man was a doctor. Plus it implies that epilepsy is demon possession.]
NIV: "my son has seizures and suffers greatly"

 

[Yeshua1]

I started using the NIV study Bible about 2 years ago. My church uses the ESV. When I follow along and compare the ESV to the NIV the language of the ESV is clunky, less clear, and generally harder to understand. A recent example would be Matthew 17:14-20.

https://beta.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 17&version=ESV;NIV

ESV: "my son is an epileptic and suffers terribly" [I don't think they would use the word epileptic in the 1st century. I don't think the man was a doctor. Plus it implies that epilepsy is demon possession.]
NIV: "my son has seizures and suffers greatly"

that is the main complaint of my Pastor, as he usually uses the Niv, and feels that the Esv tried too hard to find a middle ground between Niv/Nasb, and ended up not as literal as the nasb, nor as readable/fluid as the Niv!

Still think the SBC verion of the HCSB does a better mediating job!

 

[Van]

My dear brother, Van... I sincerely believe you let yourself go off on a tangent with this idea of Calvinistic bias in translations. You referred to Dr. Wallace in an earlier post. Dr. Wallace has a web page in which he addresses what you are trying to do with a literal, word for word approach. I personally have gone off on tangents before, and I continually am refining my understandings today so we all do it even at our age. I'd suggest you read this page by Dr. Daniel Wallace of DTS.

http://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

There is another page that includes many Bible hints that can clarify matters when we try to be too literal with a text, plus many other helps:

http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/bibletips.htm

Hi Heremeneut7, as you can see, several Calvinists have attacked me personally, saying "you have lost your lid" or "look foolish" and your "go off on a tangent." My view of such is it is simply shuck and jive, calculated to change the subject to my behavior and avoid the actual topic.

Returning to topic, inserting words to reverse the meaning is never endorsed by Dr. Wallace. But the NET does just that at James 2:5. However, at Revelation 13:8, and 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the NET sides with presenting the literal meaning of the text.

Since the majority of English translations have inserted the "to be" into the text, it was claimed I was presenting a view with little support among translators.

But lets take a look at how some translations render James 2:5:

KJV, American KJV, 21 Century KJV, KJ 2000 Bible all say the folks chosen were rich in faith.

The Douay-Reins 1899 American Edition, Wycliffe Bible, J.B. Phillips New Testament, Darby Translation, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Tyndale's Translation, and Webster's Bible Translation all say the folks chosen were rich in faith.

In addition, even some translators who thought the idea was "to be" rich in faith, added the "to be" in italics so the reader would know the translators were radically altering the meaning. These include the Lexham English Bible, NASB, NKJV, and the Geneva Bible (1599).

Bottom line, the ESV has altered the message of God in at least three places to make the translation be consistent with Calvinism.

 

[Hermeneut7]

Hi Heremeneut7, as you can see, several Calvinists have attacked me personally, saying "you have lost your lid" or "look foolish" and your "go off on a tangent." My view of such is it is simply shuck and jive, calculated to change the subject to my behavior and avoid the actual topic.

Van, suppose we look at this man's comment on this verse, I speak of "Thomas Coke (9 September 1747 - 2 May 1814) was the first Methodist Bishop and is known as the Father of Methodist Missions" I am going to read from his commentary, online at:
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tcc/view.cgi?bk=58&ch=2

Obviously he is using the KJV and he states the following on that "to be" in James 2:5

No ellipsis is more common than that of the verb to be: we have an instance here,—chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith.

According to the 1828 Websters, an "ellipsis" is: "In grammar, defect; omission; a figure of syntax, by which one or more words are omitted, which the hearer or reader may supply; as, the heroic virtues I admire, for the heroic virtues which I admire."

So, we have this grand old Methodist, no friend of Calvinism, saying the omission of "to be" in the KJV is a "defect", an "error".