-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why the ESV Falters
- Thread starter Deacon
- Start date
- Status
I am not sure what you are claiming, because I read so called experts arguments all the time, and determine they present coherent arguments or hogwash. If you do not believe in the priesthood of believers, fine. I do.
For example, the KJV reads "my holy hill" (Psalm 2:6) rather than the hill of my holiness. Why do you suppose they did not follow the same Hebrew grammar at Psalm 4:1? You do not need to know Hebrew to evaluate inconsistent translation.
For example, the KJV reads "my holy hill" (Psalm 2:6) rather than the hill of my holiness. Why do you suppose they did not follow the same Hebrew grammar at Psalm 4:1? You do not need to know Hebrew to evaluate inconsistent translation.
You are [edited by Moderator] to spout such nonsense.
[I agree but you can't say that. The Moderator.
]
Last edited by a moderator:
You are [edited by Moderator] to spout such nonsense.
[I agree but you can't say that. The Moderator.
You would be in error if you did not understand that the revision of ther Niv went too far in inclusive language renderings, as while their goal was good, their execution was lacking!
I would agree with you better to use say the Nasb for serious studies of the scriptures, but the contrast was between the 1984/2011. and the 1984 was still decent enough to do that, but can't say same for the revision!
Here is yet another example of the ESV faltering. Matthew 23:13 reads “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
The correct translation would read, those who are entering, or going in. Note that in the parallel passage, Luke 11:52, the ESV does translate the same word as entering. (Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”
The correct translation would read, those who are entering, or going in. Note that in the parallel passage, Luke 11:52, the ESV does translate the same word as entering. (Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”
You are impossible to deal with because facts are never your friends. I had a thread a few years ago in which I never mentioned the NIV --although you insisted on bring it up. I had listed passages from various versions such as the NET,HCSB,ESV and a few others. I was demonstrating the inclusive language that was employed by these translations.The NET translation topped them all. I asked if you had a problem with the way any of the versions rendered the verses. You couldn't quite say no or even yes. You just went by your principle of "inclusive language is bad." I had repeatedly asked you where your line in the sand was. You, at long last, replied that any inclusive language that the NKJV was acceptable. However, since you never dealt with the various renderings of the various versions I had cited --your 'answer' was less than satisfactory.
You recoil when asked to supply specifics. That is your very nature.
I never stated that is is always bad thing, just that the Niv 2011 went to far in regards to revising their renderings, too far into inclusive languaging their translation!
Let us consider John 1:9, "The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world." (ESV)
The translation choice, gives light, misses the mark. The word's more probable meaning is enlighten. A better translation might read, " The true Light, which enlightens every person, was coming into the world. In a similar way, Christ, high and lifted up, draws every person, because of the lovingkindness demonstrated by dying for their sins.
The translation choice, gives light, misses the mark. The word's more probable meaning is enlighten. A better translation might read, " The true Light, which enlightens every person, was coming into the world. In a similar way, Christ, high and lifted up, draws every person, because of the lovingkindness demonstrated by dying for their sins.
You quote my entire post yet do not respond to its specifics. Typical.
Hi RSR, your question claims that the verses I identified as faltering were because they were literal renderings. Let us review:
The ESV at Hebrews 2:14 translates G2673 (katargeō) as destroy which is one of two primary meanings. The other "literal" meaning is to render powerless. But the context should require use of the second meaning, just as literal as the first meaning, because Satan was not destroyed, He stalks us today.
The ESV at John 1:9 translates G5461 (phōtizō) as "give light to," which is one of four primary meanings. But another primary literal meaning is to "enlighten" (to inform.) Thus again, the ESV falters by using the wrong literal meaning which should be obvious based on context. Jesus is not the light of the world because, like the Sun, He lights up the physical world, rather Jesus enlightens our hearts.
The ESV at Hebrews 2:14 translates G2673 (katargeō) as destroy which is one of two primary meanings. The other "literal" meaning is to render powerless. But the context should require use of the second meaning, just as literal as the first meaning, because Satan was not destroyed, He stalks us today.
The ESV at John 1:9 translates G5461 (phōtizō) as "give light to," which is one of four primary meanings. But another primary literal meaning is to "enlighten" (to inform.) Thus again, the ESV falters by using the wrong literal meaning which should be obvious based on context. Jesus is not the light of the world because, like the Sun, He lights up the physical world, rather Jesus enlightens our hearts.
My main objection, actually is to describe the ESV rendering as a "falter." Destroy is by far the most common rendering in Hebrews 2:14 (Lexham, Holman, RSV, NRSV, NET, Common English Bible,etc.), both historically and among contemporary translations. A disagreement on this point is not "faltering."
The same with John 1:19. The Holman, Common English Bible and Lexham all have the same rendering. You are trying to force a glaring distinction between "enlightens" and "gives light to." A difference of translation, not a "falter."
The same with John 1:19. The Holman, Common English Bible and Lexham all have the same rendering. You are trying to force a glaring distinction between "enlightens" and "gives light to." A difference of translation, not a "falter."
Hi RSR, if you cannot see from the context that the ESV (and others) used the wrong meaning, there is nothing more I can say. If you deny that enlighten conveys the transfer of information, rather than photons. there is nothing more I can say. If you deny that Satan has not yet been destroyed, again there is nothing more I can say.
Hard to believe you have nothing more to say.
As usual, you find a rendering that you like and insist it must be the best one.
You insist that "gives light to" means something radically different from "enlightens." Some translators, who have done fine work, think otherwise. Of course, you must be right and find fault with those incompetent translators who don't render it exactly the way you want.
You don't like destroy even though many, many translators believe it to best represent the Greek. So you must be right that it is a failure of immense proportions.
I just get tired of nitpicking over minor translational differences and condemning versions of the basis of renderings that are really unexceptional.
As usual, you find a rendering that you like and insist it must be the best one.
You insist that "gives light to" means something radically different from "enlightens." Some translators, who have done fine work, think otherwise. Of course, you must be right and find fault with those incompetent translators who don't render it exactly the way you want.
You don't like destroy even though many, many translators believe it to best represent the Greek. So you must be right that it is a failure of immense proportions.
I just get tired of nitpicking over minor translational differences and condemning versions of the basis of renderings that are really unexceptional.
The ESV is a good translation. KJVO people make the assumption that the KJV is right and so any wording that differs is wrong. Many Non-KJVO people make the assumption that they're right in all details and that if a translation doesn't fit what they believe then the translation is wrong.
There are many bad translation, like the Holman and NIV. But, I wouldn't fault either of them for a "fair" translation of a word, even if I'd prefer something else. There are two things bad translations have in common. They push agendas/doctrines and they paraphrase -- some of this is unavoidable, but a good translation does it as little as reasonably possible.
RSR, please count the number of "you" entries in post #78. Why is it appropriate to ascribe to me, rather than the lexicons, the different meanings of the words in question? How do you know that the translators think gives light to means to enlighten? And Satan has not been destroyed. Why, at Ephesians 1:18 did not the translators of the ESV use "gives light to" if the words mean essentially the same thing.
- Status