What are some verses you think can be improved in the ESV?

For readability and clarity, too many to list. It seems the translators chose some words to avoid stepping on other translations. My pastor preaches out of the ESV, I read the NIV. Virtually every Sunday I shake my head at the needless complications the ESV injects into the text.

For accuracy, there are quite a few. I've created threads on this topic. Search for NIV vs. ESV in the Bible Translation forum.

One that comes to mind is Matt. 18:34. ESV does not convey the idea that the unmerciful servant would be tortured in jail.

Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

 

Well, the N.T. translation team can start with replacing the text with the existing alternatives when it comes to inclusive language. Brothers and sisters should be in the text now. I think there are about 151 instances of this. In that way the ESV will edge closer to the NIV and CSB.

The NIV is the real deal. Other versions such as the NET and CSB are mere copycats. You can probably add the CEB also.

 

Hey there. Good question.

Several things come to mind:
- the gospel narratives' use of "reclined at table"
- Matthew 6:34's "Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."
- personally, I think a modern translation shouldn't be using "behold", "lest", or "shall"
- Though the NASB has been accused of being "wooden", I feel the ESV uses more archaic language and senternce structure than the NASB '95 update.
- If there were just a few better translation choices I think the HCSB would be the ideal bible...though it's still good.

sidenote: I still quote the ESV at times however.

 

Lev. 26:10 has got to be redone:"You shall eat old store long kept..."

The ESV team simply must remove the overabundance of the word and -- it's beyond absurd for an "English Standard" translation.

 

Revelation 13:8
8and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain

This mistranslation is egregious. First they mistranslate "apo" as "before' in order to confuse the time period when our names are written into the Lamb's book of life. Scripture actually says "whose name has not been written since (or from) the foundation of the world."

Originally, the NIV included the same agenda driven error, but have subsequently fixed it. I

 

What happened to Acts 8:37, Acts 28:29 in the ESV?

Proverbs 11:30 in the ESV says captures souls. Should be winneth souls

Genesis 3:16 ESV
“To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.
‭‭
‭‭
Should read
Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

 

Yeah, Genesis 3:16 is a doozie.

Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

 

I've wondered how this one got past the complementarianism censors:

Ro 16:2b ESV
she has been a patron of many and of myself as well.

OED

 

I'm still on the fence about Genesis 3:16.

 

How can you be on the fence? The ESV translation is an agenda driven rewrite. Look at the NASB, the LEB, the NKJV. These are actual "word for word" translation philosophy versions. Look at any interlinear.

Note the ESV uses desire for (rather than against or contrary) at Song of Solomon 7:10. Selective hermunuetics is on display.

 

So then are you saying the RSV was agenda driven??

 

I'm aware. I was just trying to figure out if Van is accusing ESV of the same liberalism/modernism agenda. If so, why? And if not, with the ESV being a slight modification of the RSV, why not?

 

Hi Aneriogios, I did niot address the RSV or the NRSV, but Genesis 3:16 in the ESV. The ESV is based on the RSV and for reasons I do not know, did not incorporate the RSV improvements made in the NRSV.

The RSV translates Genesis 3:16, Genesis 4:7, and Song of Solomon 7:10 consistently as "desire for."

Various translations rewrite Genesis 3:16 to say what it does not say, including the ESV, NLT, NET and Douay-Rheims..

 

I see. Maybe you can convince me otherwise but I've always leaned towards Gen. 3:16 being translated "in opposition to".

 

Words have meanings. Either we stick with them or rewrite the text.

 

Actually there are no actual word-for-word bible translations.

They come closer --but what good are they? They don't even qualify as translations as such.

 

Colossians 3:5, list of some of the things Christians should put to death:

ESV has "passion"
NIV has "lust"
KJV has "inordinate affection"

NIV for the win, IMO.

Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

 

Note Mr. Rippon's edit to remove "philosophy" from my words to distort my view. Liberal rewrite text so it suits their purpose.
And interlinears are translations. For study, stick with the NASB95, the LEB, and the NKJV. Now for insight into how folks understand the actual text, look at the rewrites such as the NIV, ESV, NET, and NLT. At Genesis 3:16, the NET, NLT and ESV offer not what the text says, but what a minority faction thinks it meant.