-
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
Does the choice of purpose, rather than kind intentions or good pleasure alter the message? Yes. God's purpose could lack benevolence, such as choosing Judas as betrayer, The benevolence adds to the praise of the glory of His grace. Yet another reason to exclude benevolence would be to deny that God's kindness toward those chosen might reflect some characteristic of those chosen, such as faith in the truth. Note that HCSB renders it His favor and will.
Last edited:
He has predestined us for adoption as his own sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his good pleasure and will, to the praise of the glory of his grace with which he has highly favored us in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of trespasses, in accordance with the richness of his grace which he lavished upon us with all wisdom and insight.
Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, vol. 42, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 9.
And here are the prime points of disagreement we regularly have.
1. You have an obsession with "correspondence," that is, each word or phrase from the Greek should be rendered the same way upon each occurrence. The Bible is not an instruction manual written by engineers and translated into some pidgin tongue. You seem to want a mathematical text, one devoid of any literary (and emotional) power. Language is not mathematics; it is fraught with context and denotations and connotations.
When the Geneva translators wrote (it may go back earlier, but I haven't found it) "O death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?" they threw out correspondence, yet I cannot believe that all the modern versions (including the ESV) that have embraced correspondence on this point have improved upon that rendering.
2. "Without merit." You know, if you would simply suggest that a rendering is less than ideal or that another might have been better, you would be on solid ground. But your slash-and-burn tendencies require you not simply to say that another rendering might have been better, but that your target is just wrong. Look, neither of us knows enough Greek to be pontificating on this point. But to suggest that a rendering is wrong, when there is adequate justification for it, is well, just wrong. (BTW, the ESV was using the rendering from the RSV in the case of Ephesians 1:5)
There is quite a bit of literature on this topic, and while I would not necessarily say it is the best rendering, I can't say it falters. Besides, as a modern kind of guy, I would ask you to explain what good pleasure means. I would venture to say that it means nothing to anyone reading modern English and might perhaps best be rendered by "the desire of His heart," which conveys both His will and his benevolence. But that's just me, and I don't pretend to be a translator.
Last edited:
For the umpteenth time - "each word or phrase from the Greek should be rendered the same way upon each occurrence" is not my view. How about truth? My view is each word meaning, repeat meaning, repeat meaning, got it MEANING, should be rendered the same way at each occurrence.
Lets talk specifics. Lots of translations render Ephesians 1:5 "according to the good pleasure of His will."
So we are not talking about two or more meanings, we are talking about the exact same meaning. Nothing in the context to suggest purpose rather than good pleasure. These same ESV translators render the Greek word good pleasure elsewhere (Philippians 2:13).
You are correct the ESV translators simply "followed" the RSV at Ephesians 1:5 and ignored the NRSV.
Copying mistakes of earlier versions is also without merit.
There is no merit in not providing correspondence and transparency. There is no merit in translating several Greek word meanings into the same English word, obliterating the distinctions made in the inspired text.
Lets talk specifics. Lots of translations render Ephesians 1:5 "according to the good pleasure of His will."
So we are not talking about two or more meanings, we are talking about the exact same meaning. Nothing in the context to suggest purpose rather than good pleasure. These same ESV translators render the Greek word good pleasure elsewhere (Philippians 2:13).
You are correct the ESV translators simply "followed" the RSV at Ephesians 1:5 and ignored the NRSV.
Copying mistakes of earlier versions is also without merit.
There is no merit in not providing correspondence and transparency. There is no merit in translating several Greek word meanings into the same English word, obliterating the distinctions made in the inspired text.
Last edited:
My, my, aren't our knickers twisted? A "material false statement?" That, in lawyer speak, means I'm lying. Of course, you are free to prove I'm a liar, but I don't think you can.
I thought you were a literal, word-for-word kind of guy. Now you want meaning to be the standard.
Of course, meaning comes from context and denotation and connotation.
And you still haven't answered what in the world good pleasure means to a modern English reader, now that you've embraced meaning as the gold standard of translation. Hint;: It means nothing, or if it means something, it is probably the opposite of the Greek.
Much less the literature on why purpose is a reasonable rendering.Probably because you haven't bothered to look it up, but I could be wrong on that. But I won't call you a liar on account of that.Guess we're just different on that point.
You want it both ways, but you can't have it. Feel free to call me a liar if you want. Those who have followed these conversations can judge for themselves. I like the ESV, but I don't consider it perfect. Unlike the Van version of the Bible.
I thought you were a literal, word-for-word kind of guy. Now you want meaning to be the standard.
Of course, meaning comes from context and denotation and connotation.
And you still haven't answered what in the world good pleasure means to a modern English reader, now that you've embraced meaning as the gold standard of translation. Hint;: It means nothing, or if it means something, it is probably the opposite of the Greek.
Much less the literature on why purpose is a reasonable rendering.Probably because you haven't bothered to look it up, but I could be wrong on that. But I won't call you a liar on account of that.Guess we're just different on that point.
You want it both ways, but you can't have it. Feel free to call me a liar if you want. Those who have followed these conversations can judge for themselves. I like the ESV, but I don't consider it perfect. Unlike the Van version of the Bible.
Not sure what you mean. The TR and MT have Hades rather than Death. So a literal (CT) version might read "Death! where [is] your sting, Death! where [is] your victory, but a literal version of the TR would read "Death! where [is] your sting, Hades! where [is] your victory.
Is your point they translated Hades as grave?
Hi RSR, please re-read post #126. It does not include the "material false statement" stuff, I deleted it before you posted.
Now you say "good pleasure" has no meaning for the modern reader. Fine, but the ESV used it at Philippians 2:13. Therefore you cannot justify its non-use because its meaning was thought to be obscure.
Yes, I am sure what you believe about me does not match reality. Otherwise we would have a cordial conversation. I am constantly misrepresented by those wanting to find fault.
The way I arrive at a subset of differing meanings for a Greek word is I look at the lexicon, and then at every usage. Some words obviously have two or more very distinct meanings, such as destroy and render powerless. Now what I find over and over (using an Exhaustive Concordance) is that the same word Meaning, it translated using several different English words or phrases, when a few or one would do. Such a practice is without merit. And next, I see where they use the same English word for several different Greek word meanings. For example the NIV uses "purpose" to translate 7 different Greek words.
Now you say "good pleasure" has no meaning for the modern reader. Fine, but the ESV used it at Philippians 2:13. Therefore you cannot justify its non-use because its meaning was thought to be obscure.
Yes, I am sure what you believe about me does not match reality. Otherwise we would have a cordial conversation. I am constantly misrepresented by those wanting to find fault.
The way I arrive at a subset of differing meanings for a Greek word is I look at the lexicon, and then at every usage. Some words obviously have two or more very distinct meanings, such as destroy and render powerless. Now what I find over and over (using an Exhaustive Concordance) is that the same word Meaning, it translated using several different English words or phrases, when a few or one would do. Such a practice is without merit. And next, I see where they use the same English word for several different Greek word meanings. For example the NIV uses "purpose" to translate 7 different Greek words.
It's not practical. The particular context of a given passage determines meaning --not your narrow lexicon-driven method.
Isn't his will the same as his purpose? If God purposes something --he wills it.
CEB : his good purposes
HCSB : his good purpose
NIV : fulfill his good purpose
REB : his own chosen purpose
It is practical, and achievable, and needed.
No "purpose" is not the same as good purpose, or kind intention, or good pleasure. Purpose leaves out half the meaning of the inspired Greek word.
Demonstrating that lots of translations translate the word meaning inconsistently supports my view. Good purpose certainly is a viable translation choice, but "chosen purpose" is simply a mistranslation, making the text say what it does not say nor mean.
No "purpose" is not the same as good purpose, or kind intention, or good pleasure. Purpose leaves out half the meaning of the inspired Greek word.
Demonstrating that lots of translations translate the word meaning inconsistently supports my view. Good purpose certainly is a viable translation choice, but "chosen purpose" is simply a mistranslation, making the text say what it does not say nor mean.
Lets consider Luke 2:14, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!" (ESV). The coming of Christ certainly brings glory to God in heaven, but what does Christ bring to mankind? Peace to everybody? Nope. Peace among humans of [His] good pleasure. You bet.
Respond to the above.
Some snips from the NIV :
Romans
8:28 : according to his purpose
9: 11 : God's purpose
9:17 : this very purpose
2 Cor.
5:5 : this very purpose
Ephesians
1:9 : he purposed in Christ
1:11 : the purpose of his will
2:15 : His purpose
3:11 : his eternal purpose
Philippians
2:13 : his good purpose
2 Tim.
1:9 : his own purpose
Heb.
6:17 : his purpose
Rev.
17:17 : his purpose
Romans
8:28 : according to his purpose
9: 11 : God's purpose
9:17 : this very purpose
2 Cor.
5:5 : this very purpose
Ephesians
1:9 : he purposed in Christ
1:11 : the purpose of his will
2:15 : His purpose
3:11 : his eternal purpose
Philippians
2:13 : his good purpose
2 Tim.
1:9 : his own purpose
Heb.
6:17 : his purpose
Rev.
17:17 : his purpose
Not sure why anyone would think purpose means the same as will. Our purpose is our goal or intention, or the reason for existence. Will is like volition, what we decide to pursue. Thus Ephesians 1:11 uses both ideas, the purpose of His will, i.e. the goal or intention of His volitional choice.
Lets consider "thelema" G2307, which appears about 59 times in the NT. The ESV translates it 58 times as "will" providing very good correspondence and transparency. However, lets turn our attention to the one exception, Ephesians 2:3, where instead of will of the flesh, we get "desires of the body." Needless failure to translate concordantly. Yes, other translations are worse, but the idea is the modern translations pay lip service to a very good goal.
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5pm Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 5pm Pacific.
The ESV misses the mark in many areas.
1) Rather than being based on the RSV, it should have been based on the NRSV.
2) Many of the mistakes identified in this thread are also found in the RSV, but corrected in the NRSV.
3) Some mistranslations (2 Thessalonians 2:13, Revelation 13:8 and Ephesians 1:5) seem to be agenda driven.
4) The lack of correspondence and transparency indicates lip-service to those goals mentioned in the Preface.
1) Rather than being based on the RSV, it should have been based on the NRSV.
2) Many of the mistakes identified in this thread are also found in the RSV, but corrected in the NRSV.
3) Some mistranslations (2 Thessalonians 2:13, Revelation 13:8 and Ephesians 1:5) seem to be agenda driven.
4) The lack of correspondence and transparency indicates lip-service to those goals mentioned in the Preface.
- Status