Picking Translations

[Radagast]

Its weird because I've heard so many bad things about the ESV. Or maybe what i was hearing was coming from "KJV only" people?

Probably.

 

[Eloy]

I translate the Holy Scriptures, and next to the actual Hebrew and Greek scriptures, the most accurate English translation on the market is the 1560 A.D. Geneva Bible, excluding the apocrypha which is nonScripture. And in comparison, the 1560 A.D. Geneva Bible is a more accurate translation than the KJV.

 

[Radagast]

the most accurate English translation on the market is the 1560 A.D. Geneva Bible

That's just nonsense.

 

[hedrick]

Oh my word, you just about had me ROLLING on the floor with that statement.

If ESV is a Calvinist translation, so is the KJV. Especially considering Lutherans use it (including The Lutheran Study Bible) and we are the COMPLETE opposite of Calvinists (we only agree on maybe half of a TULIP). It doesn't have a Calvinistic bent. ESV is a literal translation and was done so with more than 100 people being involved from many denominations. It is like the KJV with modern English (maketh is makes, thou is you, etc.). It's very similar to RSV (most Catholics use).

Perhaps that was a mistake. The general editor certainly is. The first ESV that I used was a study Bible that came out at the same time as the translation (the Reformation Study Bible). It was certainly Reformed in tone. But I haven't seen any sign that the translation is biased in any way except towards conservative preferences.

There's no surprise that it's similar to the RSV. It was based on it.

 

[Eloy]

That's just nonsense.

Truth is nonsense to the unlearned, but falsehood seems right to them.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I use the ESV. The wording it uses just clicks with me better than other translations. The message is cool, but the absence of verses confuses me.

 

[Soverinth]

I use the ESV. The wording it uses just clicks with me better than other translations. The message is cool, but the absence of verses confuses me.

So then there are verses missing?

 

[hedrick]

Its weird because I've heard so many bad things about the ESV. Or maybe what i was hearing was coming from "KJV only" people?

I would assume so. You'll find varying reviews of every translation. But the most extreme ones I've seen are by KJV only folks. There are similar negative reviews of the NIV and other translations.

Every translation has passages that people would prefer to have been done differently. But the major translations differ primarily on style and whether they are conservative or liberal. Even the conservative / liberal difference isn't that great anymore, as long as you're dealing with conservatives that accept current textual scholarship. (Those that don't typically produce translations with KJ in the name.) It shows up these days primarily in how OT passages that are cited in the NT are treated.

The main thing that characterized the ESV when it was released was the translators' view that not just the thoughts but the form of the original was significant to preserve, because even that was inspired. Of course they wanted it to be understandable, so it is certainly not completely literal. But they tried to stick as close to the original form as possible.

Of current major translations, NIV (at least the original one -- I haven't checked the newest) may have a stronger evangelical bias than some other conservative translations such as ESV. See e.g. The New International Version (NIV) - A History and Evaluation. [Note that I disagree with the reviewer about the translation of "begotten." As far as I know, one and only is that best understanding of what the term meant. However the review is useful in indicating just how the NIV committee's commitment to inerrancy affected the translation. The worst example, which isn't cited there, is the translation of 2 Tim 3:16. But note that criticisms like those made in the review can be made against any translation. No reviewer will be fully happy with any translation.]

 

[hedrick]

So then there are verses missing?

Yes. All translations other than KJV and KJV-based omit some sections that are not present in the earliest and best manuscripts. The clearest examples are

1 John 5:7. Most of this verse is quite clearly spurious. See Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark after 16:8. The extra endings are pretty clearly later additions. See Mark 16 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But there are also individual phrases throughout the Bible. Some are as obvious as the examples above. Others are a judgement call.

 

[truelove1]

The New King James version and English Standard Version work for me but I'm open minded to a few other translations as well which I don't use often.

 

[Ark100]

NLT version "16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

KJV version "16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Looks like its saying the same things to me. Where is the difference?
I love something sooooo much I gave it something....
I sooooooo loved something I gave it something....
It looks the same to me.

The difference here is that in the KJV is says, "For God so loved the world"

In the NLT it says, "For God loved the world so much"

The conflict is that the bible is not focusing on the quantity of God's love but the quality of it. The NLT gets this wrong sadly.

Saying
God loved the world 'SO MUCH' that....
is the same emphasis and same meaning as saying
God 'SO LOVED' the world that...

SO MUCH and SO LOVED are the emphasis here and both are actually saying the same things in context. If you 'SO LOVED' something, then you definitely "LOVE IT SO MUCH'

Not sure if you get it but I really dont know what the problem is with so many people getting many things confused. Its the Holy Spirit who eventually does reveal true meaning to us as we Invite Him to do so.

I like NIV and KJV, but it doesn't matter what other versions say as long as they are not perverting the word of God or changing it to suit their own selfish purposes and needs.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


This thread is closed for review and clean up. There is some flaming going on.