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

[Van]

That is nonsense. To say that would also put the NASB close to "worthless". When I use text comparison Logos, the ESV and NASB are almost always the two most similar translations. The ESV is one of the better translations available.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

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.

The better translations are the LEB, NASB and NKJV. All English translations have flaws, where they miss the mark. But at some point the number of misses reveals the translation as less than the best. Case in point, the ESV.

 

[Rippon]

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.

You haven't made a point at all. Translations are versions. Of course they read differently.
There are thousands of places that the NASB, NKJV and LEB aren't worded the same way.
Duh!

 

[Rippon]

Hogwash. The ESV rewrote Genesis 3:16 to fit man-made doctrine.

You are an exceptional individual --real special.

Pay to no attention to the blarney spewed forth to justify liberal translation choices.

You're Vanasizing.

Words have meaning.

And your words carry no weight.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nonsense is not true.

You deny that manu have issues with the 2011 Niv revision then?

 

[Yeshua1]

That is nonsense. To say that would also put the NASB close to "worthless". When I use text comparison Logos, the ESV and NASB are almost always the two most similar translations. The ESV is one of the better translations available.


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

That would be the real truth!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hogwash. The ESV rewrote Genesis 3:16 to fit man-made doctrine.

Pay to no attention to the blarney spewed forth to justify liberal translation choices. Words have meaning.

Stick with the LEB, NASB, and NKJV

Actually, the Esv is a very good translation!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hogwash. The ESV rewrote Genesis 3:16 to fit man-made doctrine.

Pay to no attention to the blarney spewed forth to justify liberal translation choices. Words have meaning.

Stick with the LEB, NASB, and NKJV

Don't think any of the Esv team would regard themselves as being liberal!

 

[Van]

LOL - Note how liberals put words in the mouths of opponents. I said the ESV is more liberal than the NASB. Look at any comparison chart. It is. So rather than address the facts, they change the subject.

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. The turned desire for into desire contrary, they turned since into before, and they turned a noun (salvation) into a verb (saved).

 

[evangelist6589]

More fake theology, the NASB, LEB and NKJV are word for word philosophy versions. Mr Rippon pushes a false narrative. Take a look at the many "translation comparison" charts with word for word at one end and thought for thought at the other. The ESV is worthless as a study bible.

Excuse me?????? Actually the ESV makes a great study bible. You are simply confused Van at best.

 

[evangelist6589]

Hogwash. The ESV rewrote Genesis 3:16 to fit man-made doctrine.

Pay to no attention to the blarney spewed forth to justify liberal translation choices. Words have meaning.

Stick with the LEB, NASB, and NKJV

Not hogwash van.

 

[Rippon]

The authors were not, but they did bow to the Feminist move towards inclusive language big time!

First of all what you had quoted was my reply to Van. He had called the various translations liberal. Which is just plain crazy.

Your sentence above is just as crazy.

 

[Van]

Getting back to actual examples of ESV mistranslation verses,
I said the ESV is more liberal than the NASB. Look at any comparison chart. It is. So rather than address the facts, they change the subject.

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).

 

[Yeshua1]

First of all what you had quoted was my reply to Van. He had called the various translations liberal. Which is just plain crazy.

Your sentence above is just as crazy.

Even though there is a known Feminist movemnent with some evangelical circles that refuses to accept male headship/leadership, and so what male/females exactly same roles/positions before god, hence the agressive Inclusive languaging?

 

[Van]

Here are some of the places the ESV would have been better if it had adopted the NRSV renderings:

Genesis 3:16 ESV "contrary" should read "for" as per NRSV.
Matthew 23:13 ESV "would enter" should read "going in" as per NRSV
John 1:9 ESV "gives light to" should read "enlightens" as per NRSV
2 Corinthians 2:20 ESV "hostility" should read "selfishness" as per NRSV
Ephesians 1:5 ESV "purpose" should read "good pleasure" as per NRSV
2 Thessalonians 2:13 ESV "to be saved" should read "for salvation" as per NRSV
Revelation 13:8 ESV "before the foundation" should read from the foundation as per NRSV.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here are some of the places the ESV would have been better if it had adopted the NRSV renderings:

Genesis 3:16 ESV "contrary" should read "for" as per NRSV.
Matthew 23:13 ESV "would enter" should read "going in" as per NRSV
John 1:9 ESV "gives light to" should read "enlightens" as per NRSV
2 Corinthians 2:20 ESV "hostility" should read "selfishness" as per NRSV
Ephesians 1:5 ESV "purpose" should read "good pleasure" as per NRSV
2 Thessalonians 2:13 ESV "to be saved" should read "for salvation" as per NRSV
Revelation 13:8 ESV "before the foundation" should read from the foundation as per NRSV.

The NRSV is jsut as inclusiveas the 2011 Niv, so you support it as a translation?

 

[Van]

I support the LEB, WEB, NET and NKJV, as helpful translations and of course the NASB95 as the best study bible.
Do you support the ESV over and against the NRSV translations of the listed verses? Or is staying on topic too much to ask?

 

[Yeshua1]

I support the LEB, WEB, NET and NKJV, as helpful translations and of course the NASB95 as the best study bible.
Do you support the ESV over and against the NRSV translations of the listed verses? Or is staying on topic too much to ask?

Yes, as see the Esv being overall superior, and would also say the Net version is dynamic version, and still regard the 1977 Nas as better than the 1995 revision in some regards!

 

[Van]

LOL Yeshua1, you think Genesis 3:16 "desire contrary" is superior than nearly all English translations.
You think Matthew 23:13 actually reads would enter rather than entering? The vast majority of translations disagree.
You thing "gives light to" rather than enlightens is superior.
Hostility is not found in almost all English translations.
Ditto for "purpose!"
And you think it is OK to change nouns into verbs to alter the message?
Or that changing "since" to before is OK?

Folks liberal translations do not convey the actual word of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

LOL Yeshua1, you think Genesis 3:16 "desire contrary" is superior than nearly all English translations.
You think Matthew 23:13 actually reads would enter rather than entering? The vast majority of translations disagree.
You thing "gives light to" rather than enlightens is superior.
Hostility is not found in almost all English translations.
Ditto for "purpose!"
And you think it is OK to change nouns into verbs to alter the message?
Or that changing "since" to before is OK?

Folks liberal translations do not convey the actual word of God.

Think the translators of the esv are more conservative then you are though!

 

[Rippon]

The NRSV is jsut as inclusiveas the 2011 Niv, so you support it as a translation?

It is more inclusive than the TNIV, which in turn was more inclusive than the 2011 NIV.