Esv

[Van]

Yes, that many translators saw a hole is not in question, why not address the choice of words to fill the hole? About filling it with "poor to the world, yet rich in faith....

Your comment provides no support whatsoever to filling the hole with a word that reverses the meaning. In the NWT, the "scholars" turned ...and the Word was God, into ...and the Word was a god. Now since there are no other gods, beside YHWH, the effect was to make it mean, "...and the Word was not God."

So you can fill the holes with missing words to convey the message, but if you fill them to reverse the message you are mistaken.

And we already have your post with Gill's comment showing the insertion was to alter the message to make it conform to a preconceived notion. In the case of Coke, we have an Arminian leaning fellow whose preconceived notion is that folks were chosen before the foundation of the world based on foreseen faith, thus according to his bias, chosen to be rich in faith.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, that many translators saw a hole is not in question, why not address the choice of words to fill the hole? About filling it with "poor to the world, yet rich in faith....

Your comment provides no support whatsoever to filling the hole with a word that reverses the meaning. In the NWT, the "scholars" turned ...and the Word was God, into ...and the Word was a god. Now since there are no other gods, beside YHWH, the effect was to make it mean, "...and the Word was not God."

So you can fill the holes with missing words to convey the message, but if you fill them to reverse the message you are mistaken.

And we already have your post with Gill's comment showing the insertion was to alter the message to make it conform to a preconceived notion. In the case of Coke, we have an Arminian leaning fellow whose preconceived notion is that folks were chosen before the foundation of the world based on foreseen faith, thus according to his bias, chosen to be rich in faith.

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

And the Niv/Nlt did that in even more cases, correct?

 

[Revmitchell]

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"

"Clunky" :laugh:

Talk about nit picky. Who in the world cannot understand either one of those?

 

[Van]

And the Niv/Nlt did that in even more cases, correct?

I presented three cases, all of which have been dismissed by some Calvinists. Have you said, yes, I see that the ESV, NIV, and NLT mistranslated those three verses?

 

[Van]

Although, as Moises Silva has said:"The unwary reader can hardly suspect how many major syntactical transformations are adopted by the ESV."

Comparing the NIV to the ESV is a little like comparing Obama to B. Clinton; when Clinton was in office, I was ashamed of our President, but now, in light of the lawless tyranny of Obama, I look fondly back at B. Clinton. I did not like the NIV but now in light of the ESV, it looks better, or more accurately, not as bad as it did.

 

[Hermeneut7]

I presented three cases, all of which have been dismissed by some Calvinists. Have you said, yes, I see that the ESV, NIV, and NLT mistranslated those three verses?

Van, I'd be interested in knowing where you got the idea that all of these translations MIS-translated in order to support Calvinism. Is it some particular preacher, Greek scholar, denomination or seminary where you got this? It reminds me of KJO folks who look at other translations and when it varies from the KJO, they assume the KJV is the inspired version that Paul used therefore all others must match that or they are false. With you it seems to be that any version that opposes your preconceived theology, has to be a slanted and biased translation, no matter how many translations and various, recognized Greek scholars worked on the translations you choose to reject. I do not see you referencing Greek scholars of repute to support your contention these verses are in error. The only mention of "scholars" you mentioned that come to my mind is what you referenced to the NWT by the Watchtower! Please, "scholars"? LOL

 

[Van]

Hi Heremeneut7, I presented evidence from well respected translations, not one, but more than 15 different versions each differing from of one or more of the ESV's mistranslations. So why not address all the scholarship I provided? Why question where I got the idea, when I presented the versions that agree with my view?

1) Why compare me with KJVO folks?

2) Why not recognize more than 14 different versions from the 14th century to the present agree with me on some points.

3) Why forget I mentioned Dr. Wallace on more than one occasion?

4) I showed how the NWT scholars assumed an ellipsis and inserted "a" to reverse the meaning of John 1:1. ending up with the translation indicating Jesus was not God. And I showed how the ESV scholars assumed an ellipsis and inserted "to be" to reverse the meaning of James 2:5, ending with a translation meaning God did not choose folks rich in faith.

5) Rather than saying it seems to me that you [Van] are biased, why not address all the translations that agree with me, the vast majority when all three verses are totaled.

6) Where did I get the idea that from does not mean before? Or the idea that rich in faith does not mean to be rich in faith, or a noun translated into a noun is more accurate? Give me a break. This is not rocket science.

Bottom line, the ESV has been demonstrated to mistranslate three verses in order to mesh with the preconceived notions of the translators.
This behavior mirrors the mistaken translation methodology used in the NWT.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Heremeneut7, I presented evidence from well respected translations, not one, but more than 15 different versions each differing from of one or more of the ESV's mistranslations. So why not address all the scholarship I provided? Why question where I got the idea, when I presented the versions that agree with my view?

1) Why compare me with KJVO folks?

2) Why not recognize more than 14 different versions from the 14th century to the present agree with me on some points.

3) Why forget I mentioned Dr. Wallace on more than one occasion?

4) I showed how the NWT scholars assumed an ellipsis and inserted "a" to reverse the meaning of John 1:1. ending up with the translation indicating Jesus was not God. And I showed how the ESV scholars assumed an ellipsis and inserted "to be" to reverse the meaning of James 2:5, ending with a translation meaning God did not choose folks rich in faith.

5) Rather than saying it seems to me that you [Van] are biased, why not address all the translations that agree with me, the vast majority when all three verses are totaled.

6) Where did I get the idea that from does not mean before? Or the idea that rich in faith does not mean to be rich in faith, or a noun translated into a noun is more accurate? Give me a break. This is not rocket science.

Bottom line, the ESV has been demonstrated to mistranslate three verses in order to mesh with the preconceived notions of the translators.
This behavior mirrors the mistaken translation methodology used in the NWT.

There are NO exact word for word translations, as its just not that way between the Biblcal Greek/hebrew and English!

There are some passages where either the best manuscripts have known issues, where
there are legitmate differences on which are the correct varients, and there are honest disagreements among scholars of the texts as to at times which way to go in the renderings!
!
its NOT nearly as black and white as you make it out to be, and IF my chose to follow in this area is between a Dr wallace and yoursef van, I have to go with a recogized greek expert

Since the Niv has many non cals on the team, did all of them agree to be dishonest?

 

[Rippon]

Van, I'd be interested in knowing where you got the idea that all of these translations MIS-translated in order to support Calvinism. Is it some particular preacher, Greek scholar, denomination or seminary where you got this? It reminds me of KJO folks who look at other translations and when it varies from the KJO, they assume the KJV is the inspired version that Paul used therefore all others must match that or they are false. With you it seems to be that any version that opposes your preconceived theology, has to be a slanted and biased translation, no matter how many translations and various, recognized Greek scholars worked on the translations you choose to reject. I do not see you referencing Greek scholars of repute to support your contention these verses are in error. The only mention of "scholars" you mentioned that come to my mind is what you referenced to the NWT by the Watchtower! Please, "scholars"? LOL

You are perfectly correct on this Herm.

 

[Van]

There are NO exact word for word translations, as its just not that way between the Biblcal Greek/hebrew and English!

There are some passages where either the best manuscripts have known issues, where
there are legitmate differences on which are the correct varients, and there are honest disagreements among scholars of the texts as to at times which way to go in the renderings!
!
its NOT nearly as black and white as you make it out to be, and IF my chose to follow in this area is between a Dr wallace and yoursef van, I have to go with a recogized greek expert

Since the Niv has many non cals on the team, did all of them agree to be dishonest?

1) No translation version is perfect, but some translation decisions more accurately present the intended message than mistaken ones.

2) The underlying text in all three verses is basically the same, from rather than before, salvation rather than saved, and rich in faith rather than to be rich in faith.

3) The ESV mistranslations are obvious, black and white.

4) No, you go against Dr. Wallace and the vast majority of other scholars on two out of three mistranslations.

5) When translators miss the message because of preconceived notions, they are not being dishonest, just mistaken.

Bottom line, the ESV mistranslates at least three verses in order to make them more consistent with Calvinism.

 

[Rippon]

1) No translation version is perfect, but some translation decisions more accurately present the intended message than mistaken ones.

Well duh!

The ESV mistranslations are obvious, black and white.

With all your expertise I suppose you'd expect the ESV team to meet with you at once and heed your clarion call.

Bottom line, the ESV mistranslates at least three verses in order to make them more consistent with Calvinism.

Bottom line, you are quite the pest. Your "mission" is futile. I am sure I am not the only one here who sees your effort as on the crazy-side.

 

[Van]

Yet another Calvinist post, addressing my character rather than the topic.

The ESV mistranslates 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5 and Revelation 13:8 in order to alter God's message to be more Calvinistic.

All or nearly all the Calvinist rebuttal posts have claimed these are not mistranslations:

From does mean before at Revelation 13:8, but the majority of scholars disagree.

Rich in faith does mean to be rich in faith at James 2:5, but at least a dozen translations disagree.

Salvation (noun) should be translated as saved (verb) at 2 Thessalonians 2:13, but the vast majority of the translations disagree.​

And you have got to love them folks, because anyone who disagrees looks foolish, is a pest, has flipped his lid, and gone off on a tangent.

 

[Rippon]

The ESV mistranslates 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5 and Revelation 13:8 in order to alter God's message to be more Calvinistic.

Your proof is lacking Mr. Van. You do like witch hunts don't you? A Calvinist conspiracy is bubbling under every nook and cranny as far as you are concerned. Do you think the RSV translators were Calvinists? You know of course that the ESV is basically a lightly dusted off RSV;don't you?

 

[Van]

I presented my evidence, and supported it with the majority of translation decisions. The ESV mistranslates at least three verses to make the verses more consistent with Calvinism. Case closed.

So the Calvinist introduces another topic, the old change the topic ploy, lets talk about Van's character, or the RSV or anything but the Calvinistic bias demonstrated by at least three verses in the ESV. Go figure.

 

[Rippon]

The ESV mistranslates at least three verses to make the verses more consistent with Calvinism.

You came to that personal conclusion all by your lonesome Van. You are an isolated individual. Your decrees mean nothing outside of your little conclave --if that. Wanna' take a survey of how many people here --Cals and non-Cals agree with you?

Case closed.

Sez u alone.

You have not answered legitimate questions. Since the ESV is essentially the RSV warmed over and we know that most, of not all the RSV translators were not Calvinists --how does your conspiracy theory have any merit whatsoever?

 

[Hermeneut7]

Hi Heremeneut7, I presented evidence from well respected translations, not one, but more than 15 different versions each differing from of one or more of the ESV's mistranslations. So why not address all the scholarship I provided? Why question where I got the idea, when I presented the versions that agree with my view?

1) Why compare me with KJVO folks?

2) Why not recognize more than 14 different versions from the 14th century to the present agree with me on some points.

3) Why forget I mentioned Dr. Wallace on more than one occasion?

4) I showed how the NWT scholars assumed an ellipsis and inserted "a" to reverse the meaning of John 1:1. ending up with the translation indicating Jesus was not God. And I showed how the ESV scholars assumed an ellipsis and inserted "to be" to reverse the meaning of James 2:5, ending with a translation meaning God did not choose folks rich in faith.

5) Rather than saying it seems to me that you [Van] are biased, why not address all the translations that agree with me, the vast majority when all three verses are totaled.

6) Where did I get the idea that from does not mean before? Or the idea that rich in faith does not mean to be rich in faith, or a noun translated into a noun is more accurate? Give me a break. This is not rocket science.

Bottom line, the ESV has been demonstrated to mistranslate three verses in order to mesh with the preconceived notions of the translators.
This behavior mirrors the mistaken translation methodology used in the NWT.

Van, cherry picking versions, and then reading into the English not only what is not stated, but is flat contradicted by the grammar is NOT "evidence" or scholarship. I will cover the 3 verses you give for my last time because this may be my last day on here.

“Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world [to be] rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?” (Jas 2:5 ASV)

I earlier quoted from an Arminian Methodist scholar as well as the Baptist John Gill, who agreed the words "to be" need to be inserted to read properly in English to avoid an absurdity. I listed a long list of accepted and standard English translations that include the words "to be". Now for an explanation from a Greek scholar:

From a 19th C Lutheran Greek scholar: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer

"πλουσίους ἐν πίστει] is not in apposition with τοὺς πτωχοὺς (Luther, Baumgarten, Semler, Hottinger, Gebser, Bouman, Lange, and others), but the completion of ἐξελέξατο, stating to what God has chosen the poor (Beza, Wolf, Morus, Knapp, Storr, Schneckenburger, Kern, Theile, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others); see 2 Corinthians 3:6."

Meyer is pointing out that "rich in faith" is not in apposition with "the poor", but is the completion of "chosen", "to what God has chosen".

Van, will you please stop reading your theology into cherry picked versions that are so far in the minority on James 2:5, or give us some grammatical reasoning from the English or Greek scholars on it.

"and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed." (Rev 13:8, NET)

Van, you have to read into the preposition "since"(apo) something that is totally contradicted by the grammar of "had not been written", the associated words in the context. For the Greek preposition apo to mean what you wish to twist it to make it mean, the associated words must show that, such as:

"And beginning at(apo) Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27, KJV)
"Then beginning with(apo) Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures. (Luke 24:27, NET)

You must have such associated words for the grammar in Rev. 13:8 to support the idea that the preposition apo means a series of writings of names has been added "since" the foundation of the world until now. I repeat, the grammar in the Greek, according to Thayer, as well as the English grammar forbids such an idea.

Now to the 3rd passage:

"But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:" (2Thess 2:13, ASV)
"We are always bound to thank God for you, my friends beloved by the Lord. From the beginning of time God chose you to find salvation in the Spirit who consecrates you and in the truth you believe." (2Thess 2:13, REB)

Starting at Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning God created..." and as you trace the words "in the beginning", in reference to God's action, and without modifying words to show otherwise, it means at the creation, or as the REB stated above, "From the beginning of time"! Just as in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word"... The Word as we know existed "BEFORE" time or the foundations of the world.

Van, you present no rational evidence at all to support your 'off the wall' ideas on these verses!

 

[Van]

Hi Ned, sorry that you say you may leave. But I am also disappointed that you continue to ignore my posts.

You say I cherry picked, yet only in one verse (insertion of to be) was my view in the minority, in other two cases, my view was in the majority, therefore, it was you in two of the three verses that "cherry picked." I say this not to disparage you, but to demonstrate your charge against me is without validity.

Next you say that my views were contradicted by the grammar. No, your views were contradicted.

From means from and not before. No grammar suggests from means before. Strike one.

Greek grammar renders "salvation" as an accusative noun, not a verb, so the ESV translators violated the grammar at 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Strike two

In Greek grammar, some verbs can take more than one object, such as "choose" so God chose the poor to the world, rich in faith, and ... is grammatically correct, with rich in faith complimenting, i.e. more closely describing, those chosen. Strike three.​

Next, the "absurdity" seems to mean differs from Calvinist doctrine, i.e. this is absurd because Calvinist doctrine says otherwise. Some suggest those "rich in faith lovers of God" could not be "heirs" when chosen, i.e. chosen because they were heirs, seeing it as saying they were already children of God and thus heirs to the kingdom of God. But that is just hogwash. The actual idea is they had laid hold of the promise of God to those who love Him. They loved God and so were heirs to what God had promised.

Next, you ignore my answer to your had been written argument, where I pointed out the setting was end times, with the beast having arisen from the sea. So in that setting, then the whole time period from creation to the end of the age is available to write names in the book of life, and they all then would have been written before, and therefore in the past tense, during End Times. I have explained this to you twice before.

Absolutely no Greek or English grammar forbids "apo" from meaning from, just as the ESV renders it at Revelation 17:8. It is the same Greek and the same English. Totally bogus argument.

Finally, apparently you have forgotten the issue with 2 Thessalonians 2:13, our issue is not "from the beginning" but chosen for salvation (noun) being mistranslated in the ESV as chosen to be saved (verb).

Ned, you have presented no rational evidence at all in support of the ESV mistranslations. None, zip, nada. But you have presented much very useful information from your studies that have illuminated our discuss. Farewell and may God be with you. Van

 

[Van]

You came to that personal conclusion all by your lonesome Van. You are an isolated individual. Your decrees mean nothing outside of your little conclave --if that. Wanna' take a survey of how many people here --Cals and non-Cals agree with you?

Sez u alone.

You have not answered legitimate questions. Since the ESV is essentially the RSV warmed over and we know that most, of not all the RSV translators were not Calvinists --how does your conspiracy theory have any merit whatsoever?

Yet another Calvinist attack, attempting to change the subject. The Evidence has been posted and rejected by all or nearly all Calvinists. But all the rebuttals have been bogus.

From does not mean before, rich in faith does not mean to be rich in faith, and the noun salvation should not be turned into a verb (saved).

 

[Van]

Just for grins, I looked compared the ESV, RSV and RSVCE, with the NRSV, NRSVA, and NRSVCE.

All six versions had inserted "to be" in James 2:5, which matches the majority of translations, and is counter to the 14 versions I listed which do not mistranslate the verse.

The ESV, the RSV, and the RSVCE all have "before" where the text reads "from" at Revelation 13:8, but, surprisingly, the new versions - NRSV, NRSVA and NRSCE, all corrected the mistranslation and have from rather than before.

Likewise, the ESV, RSV and RSVCE have "to be saved" at 2 Thessalonians 2:13, but again the new versions (NRSV, NRSVA, and NRSVCE) have "for salvation" the correct translation.

 

[Van]

Lets take a look at the Calvinist doctrine of being regeneration, made alive, quickened before, and not after believing the gospel. So if a verse says someone believes into Christ, or believes into righteousness, or believes into justification, that would be absurd to the Calvinist. So lets fix it in the translation so a person believes and so is saved, meaning only a saved person believes after the gift of faith (irresistible grace) is instilled in the person. But to pull this off, we must mistranslate "eis" a preposition meaning among other things "into", as a verb (is). No problem, if anyone notices, we will claim he has flipped his lid, cherry picked his translation, and so forth.

Although, as Moises Silva has said:"The unwary reader can hardly suspect how many major syntactical transformations are adopted by the ESV."