Featured Moving on from the NIV

Seeing as how you have yet to give one.....

 

I've yet to see you, or anyone else, give one.

 

You meant to say :"However, that does not mean a dynamic equivalent does not have its place."

 

I guess you are not going to tell me how many verses it would take to cause you to consider that the ESV is not actually a formal equivalence version.

My answer is a dozen or more.

 

The 1984 Niv better then the 2011 revision!

 

Its an "essentially literal " version!

 

Perhaps in regards to Romans 16.
But overall the 2011 is vaslty superior to the NIV84.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Here is an example of the ESV translating the same Greek word meaning (selfish ambitions) as "selfish ambitions" four times, but then as rivalries, hostility, and self seeking.

Lets look at Philippians 1:17, where the ESV now says selfish ambition. An earlier version (my hard copyright 2006, has rivalry. So they changed rivalry to selfish ambition. However, at Galatians 5:20 we still find "rivalries" rather than selfish ambitions.

Next, let us look at 2 Corinthians 12:20, where the ESV renders the same word "hostility"rather than "selfish ambitions."

And to complete the list of flawed translations , we return to Romans 2:8, where. self seeking is used rather than selfish ambition.

So in these three cases, their translation lacks correspondence and transparency.

Now if we compare to the LEB, we find selfish ambition all seven times, so there does not appear to be any valid reason for the lack of transparency. Yes, even the formal equivalence versions fail this test too with inconsistent translation following the herd rather than following the meaning.

For a different sort of flaw, lets look at Genesis 3:16:
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, (ESV)
your desire will be for your husband, (NASB)
Your desire shall be for your husband (NKJV)
your husband shall be your desire. (LEB)

Here is yet another verse: Ephesians 1:5:
he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, (ESV)
He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, (NASB)
having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, (NKJV)
having predestined us to adoption through Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will, (LEB)
The ESV deleted "kind or good" part of the meaning of the word, but kind purpose or good purpose would have accurately conveyed the meaning of the word. Compare with the ESV version of Philippians 1:15.

 

how so? As many conservatives have blasted it for way too much Inclusive renderings, and saw the 1984 niv as just fine In that regard!

 

There is no good reason why any translation should translate a word in exactly the same way every time it occurs. The English language has a vocabulary that is around double the size of Koine Greek. Therefore it must be the case that every Greek word is likely to have two or more English words that might be used to translate it. The context will usually indicate the best word to use.
However, when Van quotes Eph 1:5,
'He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will' (ESV),
he is right that this is not a great translation. The Greek word is eudokia. It comes fro two words, eu, meaning 'well,' and dokeo, 'to seem.' Therefore eudokia means 'that which seems good' or 'good pleasure.'

 

Let me say it again, I did not say "word" I said "word meaning!" Is it possible for someone to actually address the view expressed, rather than construct a strawman argument.

I think we can conclude the ESV is an informal equivalence version.

 

Oh, and here I thought Van was going to give us something useful....

 

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) Some 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 James 2:5) seem to be agenda driven.
4) The lack of correspondence and transparency indicates lip-service to those goals mentioned in the Preface.

 

Oh and the broken record of ignorance continues....

 

I think you need to look at your argument again. In 2 Corinthians 12:29, the word which the ESV translates as 'hostility,' and the KJV as 'strife' is the Greek word erithia. It tends to mean 'seeking to win followers' or 'rivalries,' so although 'selfish ambitions' may work better in some places, I think 'hostility' is fine here.
I actually agree with you that the ESV is not Formal Equivalence in the same way that the NKJV and NASB are, but it will be helpful if you get your arguments right.

 

Let me be clear; like you, I don't know Hebrew at all. However, my understanding is that the word rendered 'desire' here does not mean 'sexual desire;' rather it means ambitious 'desire.' So the woman's desire is for her husband's position of authority. I think that is what the ESV is trying to get at. Whether or not the way it has done it is ideal, it may be better than the other translations you list.

 

Interesting, because most charts that I have seen actually rank ESV as more literal than both NKJV and KJV>

 

They also base it because the same Hebrew construct is found in chapter 4.