Comments on: ESV #2, by Mark Strauss

By: CD-Host

CD-Host — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:05:31 +0000

James –

Besides, shouldn’t this sort of thing be between ourselves and God, Lest we corrupt the faith of one of lessor strength in the faith?

What sort of thing?

By: James

James — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:01:52 +0000

In any case, whatever it means, I’d like to see the best scholarship expressed in idiomatic English so that I don’t have to pretend to be a scholar myself

I am afraid I have to disagree with the whole premise of crticizing any legitimate effort at translating God’s Word.

If one needs “Scholars” doing the thinking for him, wherein lies the function of the Holy Spirit?

Persoonally, I believe idomatic English translations leave much to be desired. I personally prefer the preservation of metaphors, idioms, and ambiguities. This approach lends itself to prayerful consideration rather than ignorant bliss.

If anyone believes otherwise, other translations are available.

Besides, shouldn’t this sort of thing be between ourselves and God, Lest we corrupt the faith of one of lessor strength in the faith?

By: lee

lee — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:47:29 +0000

true bible scholars defend the bible and are not always trying to disprove it
also the esv is a basic revision of the rsv not the kjv or tv like they claim to be if the kjv is so bad why mention it unless its a sales pitch

By: CD-Host

CD-Host — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:07:07 +0000

Amos 4:6, the ESV preserves the original metaphor; readers who are allergic to approaching the text thoughtfully will need time to appreciate what Amos means. Is that a bad thing? Let me put it another way: is that worse than replacing an inspired metaphor with a non-inspired interpretation of a metaphor?

Yes it is worse. When metaphors translate you can translate them. Otherwise you need to expand them. Moreover, I don’t think this is even a metaphor but rather an idiom. And idioms are very language (and often culture) specific. “Clean teeth” has no hint in modern English of “being hungry”. If you fundamentally don’t believe you can change anything in the bible then why is translation a legitimate activity? I can see the value in a footnote “being hungry (lit clean teeth)” but if you reject those sort of changes where is the legitimacy of any act of translation?

By: James Snapp, Jr.

James Snapp, Jr. — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:48:09 +0000

Several of Dr. Strauss’ criticisms are themselves open to criticism. His observation about Genesis 30:35 is certainly well-taken; however regarding Ruth 4:14-15, verse 13 closes, plain as day, with a mention of Ruth’s son: . . . “and she bore a son.” Also, at some point one has to ask if a translation should be clearer than the underlying base-text. At Acts 20:12 and 21:39, the ESV is accurately emulating the Greek text. Likewise in Amos 4:6, the ESV preserves the original metaphor; readers who are allergic to approaching the text thoughtfully will need time to appreciate what Amos means. Is that a bad thing? Let me put it another way: is that worse than replacing an inspired metaphor with a non-inspired interpretation of a metaphor?

And so forth.

By: Some fun with the ESV « chroNICHOLLS

Some fun with the ESV « chroNICHOLLS — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:55:12 +0000

[...] into English. In the Introduction to the ESV we read normal language. In the actual ESV we read very strange forms of English, that can only be explained by copying them word-for-word from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek. Just about [...]

By: T. Hanna

T. Hanna — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:32:27 +0000

A man without a city
Acts 21:39 ESV Paul replied, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city.”
Comment: Paul sounds like a man without a city. TNIV is only slightly better (“a citizen of no ordinary city”). NLT captures the sense: “Tarsus in Cilicia, which is an important city.”

I always thought Paul was a Jew from Tarsus, who was a citizen of Rome.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:49:57 +0000

Though I understand that these are pretty funny in contemporary English, one of the draws of the ESV is it’s word for word translation. It of course is not perfect, but in regard to studying, I would rather get the direct translation and rephrase it into modern English myself. If you read your Bible and don’t have to stop to figure out what some things mean, that means you’ve allowed someone else to clarify those things for you.

Funny stuff, though.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:41:35 +0000

I am an ESV user. I love the ESV. This translation is the best translation the body of Christ has to teach, preach, witness, read, and memorize. Yes, there might be some translation errors but the same thing goes for all the other translations. No translation is perfect especially the NASB and KJV. So, when is the body of Christ going to stop complaining like a teenager who cannot stand the heat of a hot summer day, and embrace God’s word. Do not we have more important things to worry about then being picky about what is right and wrong with translations. I can be picky about the TNIV and HSBC if I want to right now. Another question, if the ESV is not the best translation, then what is the best translation. Also, are any of you biased toward a certain translation of God’s word?

By: John

John — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:40:45 +0000

Hi Wayne! : )

I was just playing the ____’s advocate (never the devil’s, sorry). I wanted to offer ridicule for what was ridiculous, but not “ridicule” as in mocking, but stuff to say “wait a minute…think!”. I planned to come back and give responses and clarify that point just in case as well.

Also, I read on another blog a comment you made about switching from prescriptivist to descriptive rules: I think it just depends where you’re at: we need prescription and models of good intelligent sense and consideration of the words people use, rather than just the words that come to form an impression on a speaker/writer who then reveals them without much thought; but having a little tension in between is okay, and as for grammar, it was probably dumb to try forcing English to conform to Latin; not dumb to study it in light of the Latin (or vice versa: comparing and improving where possible, between languages, is great), but trying not to “split” infinitives? Paraphrasing your words, with my sarcastic (but not ill-meaning) touch, “sheesh”. : )