Featured Moving on from the NIV

How many examples of mistranslation would be enough for you to conclude the ESV does not adhere to formal equivalence?

 

One would be good to start. Seeing as you have yet to provide one.

 

Oh no, why would you ask that question???!!?!?!?!?!

 

And I thought the question was how many examples of mistranslation in the ESV would indicate the ESV does not meet the standard of formal equivalence.

Interlinears, NASB, KJV, NKJV, and LEB. It the translation does not earmark the translators additions to the text (italics, etc) then the translation does not meet the "formal equivalence" standard."

 

Again, italics is NOT the standard of formal equivalence.

 

Nonsense

 

It's not nonsense, it just shows you are ignorant on the topic.

 

Which versions meet the test of formal equivalence?
Interlinears, NASB, KJV, NKJV, and LEB. It the translation does not earmark the translators additions to the text (italics, etc) then the translation does not meet one of the standards of "formal equivalence."

"The LEB uses ⌊lower corner⌋ brackets to indicate such expressions, with a literal rendering given in a note. Third, words which have no equivalent in the original language text must sometimes be supplied in the English translation. Because the LEB is designed to be used alongside the original language texts of Scripture, these supplied words are indicated with italics. In some cases the need for such supplied words is obvious, but in other cases where it is less clear a note has been included." (LEB version information)

 

Who has made this a standard for formal equivalence? This is nonsense.

 

I think you have done the right thing. The old (1984) NIV was a bit loose, but it had the virtue of reading very well. The new version has some definite improvements, but in its efforts to be gender neutral while limiting its use of the plural (a bit!) it read horribly in places:
John 11:25. “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die.” (my italics).
Job 33:26. ‘Then that person can pray to God and find favor with him, they will see God’s face and shout for joy; he will restore them to full well-being.'

Yuk! Am I the only person who finds that sort of rendering unbearably grating?

However, before you settle into the ESV, I recommend you have a go at the NKJV> Much better IMHO..

 

Dont listen to him @alexander284 . Martin is European....his really name isnt even Martin!
...and as a Brit his is probably legally required to use a Bible with "King James" in the title!

I am just kidding with my brother. If I felt the TR was a better witness than the NA I would definitely be using the NKJV. However, I don't and I use the ESV as my primary English....I mean American Bible.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

No expert says that the ESV is word-for-word. No translation lives up to that. It would be gibberish if the attempt would be made.

 

What you guys don't realise is that all Yanks pay 10 cents on every KJV Bible to H.M. the Queen as the successor to King James. That's what pays for all those palaces she lives in

I always worry when I agree with @Van about anything, but I do prefer to have additions to the text italicized. There are times when it's very helpful. Also, notwithstanding Don Carson, I don't like 'Only begotten Son' being changed to 'Only Son,' mostly because it isn't true (Galatians 3:26; 4:6-7).

 

The One and Only, meaning Unique, Singular, Son of God.

 

In the word for word translation philosophy.

 

No translation can be word-for-word. Both the ESV and the NASB try to be as literal as possible. That is helpful when using an English text for serious study. However, that does mean a dynamic equivalent does not have it's place. It does. I like comparing the 1997 NASB to the NET.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

 

Hello Rippon!
Good to see you back again.
With respect, @Van was speaking of the ESV, and so was I. And the ESV has 'only.' But the NIV is only marginally better. The very reason that the Lord Jesus is the 'unique' Son of God is that He is the only begotten Son. 'Begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made.'
'Begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light etc.'

 

I would like it as well, but Van isn't preferring it, he said that is the standard of formal equivalence which is false.

 

How many mistranslation examples does it take to conclude the ESV does not meet the formal equivalence standard? 3 or 4 would be too small, but how a dozen or two?