Esv

The topic of this thread is the ESV. Future off topic posts will be deleted

 

Does anyone here who actually uses a hard copy of the ESV really believe that it is "essentially literal " ? I for one do not agree with that , though it is touted that way in the marketing of the ESV . I find it a bit more formally equivalent than the HCS and TNIV , certainly not enough to be an accurate summation of their light revision philosophy . I too am looking forward to the ESV update in a few years . Every translation needs an overhaul -- some are long overdue .

 

Rippon, you told me once that you refused to read Translating Truth, the book describing the "essentially literal" method, since Grudem, one of the authors, criticized the TNIV so roundly. So how can you even say if the ESV follows the "essentially literal" philosophy or not? You refuse to read the other side, do you not?

 

Because I have read the ESV EXTENSIVELY . And I have read Ryken's book which virtually extolls the ESV and its so-called translation philosophy .

 

BTW , the Leland Ryken book I'm referencing is " The Word Of God In English : Criteria For Excellence In Bible Translation " .

He hardly mentions the TNIV . However he tries to run-down the NIV at every availability . He constantly says it is very conservative on the dynamic side but lumps it alongside of the Message , The Living Bible and the TEV . The NIV is much closer to the ESV than he is willing to concede .

I have possibly more notes in that book than almost any other that I own . He makes some legit points but fails to be consistent . First of all , he doesn't know the original languages ( just like me ) , so why is he considered an authority on translation ? It is his considered opinion that this or that verse is wrongly translated in the NIV , and that the ESV and others such as the NKJ are on the right path .But he conveniently hides the fact that there are many times when the NIV rendering is virtually the same as the ESV wording . Also , he is not fond of the NRSV but it is almost identical in scores of passages he cites from the ESV . He has an arbitrary method of evaluating Bible translations .

 

Hey, just asking! :saint:

But why would you call it a "so-called" translation philosophy? After all, they did translate a Bible using it. Unless you want to call the translators dishonest or some other such name. If so, I'm out of here. I'm interested in scholarship, not heat. :type:

 

I had unintentionally put my caps lock on when I said EXTENSIVELY . But I thought I would keep it anyway . I did not mean to come across as yelling . I hardly ever put things in emphasis here on the BB .

I called it the so-called translation philosophy of the ESV because that's how it was marketed . The men who worked on the team were not necessarily responsible for the term "essentially literal" . The ESV just doesn't qualify as essentially literal . It's hardly a smidgen more literal or formal than the TNIV . But the team on the TNIV ( or their marketing arm ) don't call their revision essentially literal . The ESV "translation" was just a light dusting , not a real honest-to-goodness translation . And it was a rush job to try to ward off what they thought was a bad translation in the TNIV . I am looking forward to the updated ESV . I think it will be a big improvement . I also think it will move more in the direction of de . That's just a hunch .

So I am not disparaging anyone on the ESV team . It used to be my favorite Bible afterall . But be sure to treat the NIV/TNIV translators fairly . In the past you said some negative things about the NIV translators . You had mentioned that they just translated what they thought would sound better or read better . Now that just generates heat , not light .

 

Since according to your own words you have no language skills how can you make the statements you do? Are you reading what someone else said and just parroting thier thoughts?

 

Well , POB , I do a lot of reading . I read a lot of articles on the issue and have done a lot of comparisons between the various versions . Maybe you haven't kept up on these threads very much . If the echo-chamber effect is going on -- it's certainly not from my end . World magazine and other sensationalistic rags have done more than their share of parroting the words of others . I am in the minority here and it feels good .

If you want only those who are accomplished in the orginal languages to participate in these threads we will be watching only a few post here .

 

Order a correspondence course in Greek. The alphabet is easy to learn, you could get some basic vocabulary and grammar under your belt and be more effective with your arguments. Download e-sword if you don't already have it and you can tell from it what the parts of speech are.

 

Seems like if they want to call it "essentially literal" (as opposed to "completely literal," I assume), IMO they ought to be allowed to do so without niggling about terminology.

Your memory is faulty. I misspoke myself, said truly that I didn't mean to insult the translators but only the method. and apologized. And I did not mention the TNIV, which if you remember I said later I have not read and will thus not comment on.

 

I doan lik Eastern Standard Version

Hey Aubry, you doan like peeples that doan speak Engleesh

Eef I need Engleesh I got King Jamez (which I doan unnerstan so well) to meesinterpret.

Maybe I start thread: Spangleesh Verzon Only!

How dat make U feel Aubry?

Gotta go; truck out front to get me to work.


We doan need no stinkin Eastern Standard Verzon!

 

When you are pushy and dogmatic in your positions you need to be able to back them up or you will be questioned.

JoJ is right plus if you just type "learn Greek" in your search window and hit find you will find many free resources willing to teach you Greek.

 

Wow! Look here

http://www.biblicaltraining.org/classes/greek/greek_f.html

I already have the books - amazing!

 

Looks good!

 

JoJ , you did not mean to insult the translators of the NIV -- only the method of translation . For all practical purposes -- there is no difference . That doesn't exactly put you on a better moral plane .

I recognize weaknesses in the optimal equivalence , formal equivalence and essentially literal methods but I have never insulted those translational methods . I have already stated that the translation teams of the NKJ , NASU , and ESV were theologically sound . If you and others insist on insulting the translational teams of the NIV and TNIV -- the Lord will judge you ( plural ) for it .

 

Oh come now, of course there is a difference between insulting a translator and insulting a method. I don't apologize at all for believing that the DE method is flawed. And since I'm not talking about morality, of course it doesn't put me on a higher moral plane.

I have never discussed here whether the translators were theologically sound. What matters much more to me is whether the method is sound. You say you recognize weaknesses in the optimal equivalence method, etc. I say that you are widely read in the literature--I applaud you for that. But I also say, go out and really learn a language, put in the hundreds of hours it takes to become fluent, translate a few documents and then I'll believe you are qualified to criticize methodology.

I don't mean this unkindly--you seem to have a good head on your shoulders and I am sure you could learn Korean (and/or Greek) if you were to get a good teacher and put a few hundred hours of study into it.

As to whether the Lord will judge me for my view of a translation method? Now you've quit preaching and gone to meddling. I'll ignore it. It means nothing.

 

Now you've stopped preaching and commenced to meddlin .

That famous phrase was said in reference to some powerful preachers in the past who got specific in their preaching on sin . Some congregants got upset because it hit a little too close to home .

 

For the record and anyone who wants to know, this is what I said (on p. 4 of the recent Dynamic Equivalence thread) which was interpreted by Rippon as being an attack on the character of the NIV translators. Make your own judgment.

 

Having taken 2 years of formal Greek in seminary I have comr to the following conclusion:

The ESV is an EXCELLENT translation that bridges the end result of the NASB and the NIV. While one may not personally "like" the ESV or anything else but what they use, that is not grounds for a total dismissal of any translation. One of the resons I chose the ESV as my primary ministry text was when I did my own translation work, the closest approximation was the Esv. Couple that with the lack of "Americanisms" found in other translations makes it a great choice for using in other countries where english may be a second language.

I believe that Dr. Packer and the translation team has provided an excellent tool that many will benefit from for years to come.

I will never understand the energy and anger that propel some to become so bitter and angry over such pointless pursuits.