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

[Van]

Note the lack of any content concerning the specific verses that can be improved in the ESV.

Genesis 3:16
Revelation 13:8
2 Thessalonians 2:13
Philippians 2:7

What can be say about a translation that alters the text to fit an interpretation? Even if the interpretation is valid, the translation is bogus.

 

[Rippon]

What can be say about a translation that alters the text to fit an interpretation? Even if the interpretation is valid, the translation is bogus.

Interpretation goes hand-in-hand with all translation.

You are painting a false dichotomy. In reality if the interpretation is valid, the translation is indeed valid.

 

[Rippon]

Regarding Gen. 3:16: The EXB has a parenthetical explanation, it says that the word desire "implies a desire to control."

The NLT renders it as "And you will desire to control your husband."

 

[Rippon]

Concerning Rev. 13:8:
The NLT has "before the world was made."
The NIrV has "before the world was created."
GW : "before the creation of the world."
CJB "before the world was founded."

 

[Rippon]

2 Thess. 2:13

It is rendered as "to be saved" in the CEV, GW, GNT, NOG, NIrV, NIV, RSV and WE.
It's worded "You are saved" in EXB, ICB and NCV.

 

[Rippon]

Proverbs 11:30 in the ESV says captures souls. Should be winneth souls
[/quote]
No modern version should have the word winneth.

I like the wording of the NIV :
"...the one who is wise saves lives."

I really dislike the CSB :"A wise person captivates people."

 

[Van]

By the numbers:

1) If the text is rewritten to fit an interpretation, it is indeed a bogus translation. Translations should tell us what it says, commentary should tell us what people say it means. To hide commentary within a translation is bogus liberal nonsense. The ESV has demonstrated a willingness to rewrite scripture to fit doctrine.

2) Yes, one of the many interpretations of Genesis 3:16 is that the curse includes a misbegotten desire to "hen-peck" their spouse. But that idea should be left to commentary rather than rewrite the text as the ESV did.

3) Even the dreaded NIV has corrected the "before" error at Revelation 13:8. Again, when you see the ESV go "before" at Rev. 13:8 and then "from" at Rev. 17:8, you know the translation contains botched translations based on doctrine.

4) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 contains one of many "grammatical transformations" found in the ESV where a noun (salvation) is rewritten as a verb (saved) in order alter what the verse says which is God chooses individuals for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election.

5) Proverbs 11:30 while wins souls is a very popular translation choice, and takes souls is a very literal choice, I think the best translation choice, in light of other verses on the same topic is "saves lives." Captures souls (ESV choice) IMO points too much toward the witness and does not bring to mind the action of God who actually causes the increase.

 

[Yeshua1]

I wish you could express yourself in plain English.

As far as I know, the only Bible translation that D.A. Carson took part in is the NLT. The NLT uses about as much inclusive language as the NRSV. Now what is the point you are trying to make?

You and Van, two peas in a pod.

Not really, we just agree that the most formal versions are best, but we really disagree on esv, and really on Calvinism!

 

[Yeshua1]

Wrong yet again. The NRSV uses considerably more inclusive language than the NIV. You just can't seem to state any truthful facts.

The point is that BOTH of them went too far into this when translation was done!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, they have not. And the NIV is not guilty of those things as well.

Stop with your continuing falsehoods.

Did you read the points addressed by the Bible research?

 

[Yeshua1]

Some poster's disparage people, others address the thread topic.

Case in point Genesis 3:16. The NASB reads differently than the ESV.
Case in point Revelation 13:8. The NASB reads differently than the ESV.
Case in point 2 Thessalonians 2:13. The NASB reads differently than the ESV.

These three are examples of where the ESV rewrites scripture to fit doctrine. They turned desire for into desire contrary, they turned since into before, and they turned a noun (salvation) into a verb (saved).

Except that the Esv translators actually had license in the greek to make those decisions, as it is not that they had nothing from the greek allowing them to translate as they did!

 

[reformed_baptist]

4) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 contains one of many "grammatical transformations" found in the ESV where a noun (salvation) is rewritten as a verb (saved) in order alter what the verse says which is God chooses individuals for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election.

I don't know of any translation that says that, here are few to consider:

NKJ 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

KJV 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

ESV 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But awe ought always to give thanks to God for you, bbrothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you cas the firstfruits1 dto be saved, ethrough sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

NET 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters26 loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning27 for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

NIB 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you {Some manuscripts because God chose you as his firstfruits} to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

NAS 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

It looks to me that they all include the clause, 'by the Spirit' or something similar, an important clause that you seem to have left out.

Now, can you explain how 'chosen to be saved' is materially different in meaning to 'chosen to salvation'? Neither allows for it to be condition for both are 'chosen to.....' it is simply two ways of sat the same thing in English.

 

[Van]

Except that the Esv translators actually had license in the greek to make those decisions, as it is not that they had nothing from the greek allowing them to translate as they did!

You have got to be kidding. Nothing, repeat nothing, in the Greek suggests or allows those mistranslations. Apo (from) means from or since (as it does in the verse same Greek construction at Revelation 17:8. Please stop making up enabling narratives and posting them - they are fake theology. The noun salvation is a noun in the Greek, not the verb that the ESV transformed it into. And the Hebrew word means desire for in every usage except the ESV changed it without a basis except bias.

 

[Van]

RB, the clause "by the Spirit" does not alter the fact the verse says we are chosen for salvation (by the Spirit) through faith in the truth.

By adding a verb, it allows folks to say we were saved through faith in the truth, rather than chosen through faith in the truth. This grammatical transformation is thus agenda driven, to hide the biblical truth of our conditional election.

 

[Yeshua1]

RB, the clause "by the Spirit" does not alter the fact the verse says we are chosen for salvation (by the Spirit) through faith in the truth.

By adding a verb, it allows folks to say we were saved through faith in the truth, rather than chosen through faith in the truth. This grammatical transformation is thus agenda driven, to hide the biblical truth of our conditional election.

Again, they had a viable option here to translate as they did, for at times, there are more than one way open to translate a passage with!

 

[Yeshua1]

You have got to be kidding. Nothing, repeat nothing, in the Greek suggests or allows those mistranslations. Apo (from) means from or since (as it does in the verse same Greek construction at Revelation 17:8. Please stop making up enabling narratives and posting them - they are fake theology. The noun salvation is a noun in the Greek, not the verb that the ESV transformed it into. And the Hebrew word means desire for in every usage except the ESV changed it without a basis except bias.

Just curious as to what your background would be here, as john of Japan can comment like that on this, but can you?

 

[Rippon]

So all the inclusive language that the ESV and HCSB have is going too far in your opinion. Do you think they are going the feminist route and yielding to political correctness? Remember to be consistent.

Y-1, you are being hypocritical. Since the 1984 NIV is your standard for I.L. then you need to aim your squirt gun at the ESV and HCSB for being dupes of a feminist conspiracy. And now with the CSB you need to get a water hose because it sometimes uses more inclusive language than the current NIV.

 

[Rippon]

They have not yet altered the text to make it appear that God allows women to be leaders, nor seeming to seny Male headship, have they?

When you make such falsehoods on a regular basis, do you ever stop to think that it reflects badly on your testimony?

 

[Rippon]

Did you read the points addressed by the Bible research?

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[reformed_baptist]

Except that the Esv translators actually had license in the greek to make those decisions, as it is not that they had nothing from the greek allowing them to translate as they did!

The translators had license in the greek to make those translations - including Gen 3:16 is that what you are saying?