ESV

General Christian Theology
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: ESV

Post by silentreader »

ohio jones wrote:On the continuum between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence, I have a definite preference for formal equivalence, and that means using primarily NKJV and ESV.

Formal equivalence doesn't mean that the translator wore a tuxedo, of course, it means that the structure and grammatical format stick close to the original when possible, though obviously the languages are different enough that not everything can be matched up. But as a matter of principle, where there's a pun in the original, there should be a pun in the translation as well.
...punny that it should be you that mentions that...
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
undershepherd
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:45 pm
Location: Harrisonburg VA
Affiliation: Mountain Valley Menn
Contact:

Re: ESV

Post by undershepherd »

Ernie wrote:
undershepherd wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote:The ESV has J.I. Packer and Wayne Grudem as leaders of the translation committee. Can't get any more Calvinistic than those two.
J.M.
You either don't know what hardcore Calvinism is or you don't know Packer and Grudem. They are hardly considered Calvinists by many self identified Calvinists - especially Grudem.
cmbl wrote:Quick googling indicates that both the men J.M. mentioned are Calvinist in their soteriology. Packer is probably too ecumenical for some, and Grudem's eternal submission thing will be rejected, perhaps by the same group. Internal divisions in Calvinism aside, cursory examination appears to show both are still Calvinist.
Yes, there are Calvinists, and then there are uber-Calvinists. Uber-Calvinists would likely not recognize those who diluted the "pure Calvinist" theology.

A person may teach salvation and the atonement according to Calvinist understanding, while differing on other less consequential points.
I was just reacting to J.M.'s statement that you "Can't get any more Calvinistic than those two". Clearly you can get a whole lot more Calvinistic than those two.
0 x
Ernie
Posts: 5446
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:48 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Anabaptist Umbrella
Contact:

Re: ESV

Post by Ernie »

undershepherd wrote:I was just reacting to J.M.'s statement that you "Can't get any more Calvinistic than those two". Clearly you can get a whole lot more Calvinistic than those two.
Ok. Got ya.
0 x
The old woodcutter spoke again. “It is impossible to talk with you. You always draw conclusions. Life is so vast, yet you judge all of life with one page or one word. You see only a fragment. Unless you know the whole story, how can you judge?"
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3878
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: ESV

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

undershepherd wrote:
Ernie wrote:
undershepherd wrote:
You either don't know what hardcore Calvinism is or you don't know Packer and Grudem. They are hardly considered Calvinists by many self identified Calvinists - especially Grudem.
cmbl wrote:Quick googling indicates that both the men J.M. mentioned are Calvinist in their soteriology. Packer is probably too ecumenical for some, and Grudem's eternal submission thing will be rejected, perhaps by the same group. Internal divisions in Calvinism aside, cursory examination appears to show both are still Calvinist.
Yes, there are Calvinists, and then there are uber-Calvinists. Uber-Calvinists would likely not recognize those who diluted the "pure Calvinist" theology.

A person may teach salvation and the atonement according to Calvinist understanding, while differing on other less consequential points.
I was just reacting to J.M.'s statement that you "Can't get any more Calvinistic than those two". Clearly you can get a whole lot more Calvinistic than those two.
Ok, I will confess to a bit of hyperbole here. Who would you consider a "hardcore calvinist? John Gresham Machen? B. B. Warfield?

JM
0 x
:hug:
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV

Post by Valerie »

lesterb wrote:
Josh wrote:The ESV not being ideal is just my opinion. My most major gripe is a biased translation of 1 Co. 11.

My opinion is that any Bible translation, even one that's not very good, is still used by God and can be effective for both a believer and an unbeliever to hear his word.
I would share your concerns about this. But this is an old tradition as well. Luther used the German word Weib for woman in this passage. While this can mean the more generic "woman" it does lean in the direction of being a "wife-woman". The old order people that I grew up with did not advocate an unmarried woman wearing the veiling for everyday life. They wore it to church after baptism, but not elsewhere until they were married. That was how they understood the German reading.

I have heard, but can't document, that the Russian Bible used by the Old Believers also translated this as wife or married woman.

Here is the etymology from Wiktionary...
German[edit]
Etymology[edit]
From Old High German wīb, related to Old Saxon wīf (whence Low German Wief), Middle Dutch wijf (whence Dutch wijf), Old English wīf (whence English wife), Old Norse víf (whence Common Scandinavian viv). Ultimately from Proto-Germanic *wībą.

Yes, but the footnote in the ESV (this translation is used by the church we are presently attending) says the wearing of the veil by 'married' women in the 'first century culture' then makes it appear that if we are wearing a head covering now, that we just didn't get the memo that the practice was only done in the first century. I would like to know how they came to this conclusion- I suppose that since I wear one in a Church whose pastor uses ESV and so then does congregation, they would see me as wrongly informed about head covering. According to these folks that came out with ESV

Additionally, in that same passage's footnote- the "because of the angels" (vs 10) the footnote says: "Or messengers, that is, people sent to observe and report". Where do they get this from? How do they conclude that the angels in this passage are people, and not angels? Now you're messing with theology/doctrine regarding angels. It causes me to then question this translation as to whether it is trustworthy if in just one passage there are misleading footnotes.
0 x
User avatar
JimFoxvog
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:56 pm
Location: Northern Illinois
Affiliation: MCUSA

Re: ESV

Post by JimFoxvog »

Valerie wrote:Additionally, in that same passage's footnote- the "because of the angels" (vs 10) the footnote says: "Or messengers, that is, people sent to observe and report". Where do they get this from? How do they conclude that the angels in this passage are people, and not angels? Now you're messing with theology/doctrine regarding angels. It causes me to then question this translation as to whether it is trustworthy if in just one passage there are misleading footnotes.
The Greek word can mean either human or supernatural messenger. The footnote is just saying either is a possible interpretation. See http://biblehub.com/greek/32.htm for a brief discussion of the word. I like it when the footnotes alert me to different possible interpretations.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: ESV

Post by Valerie »

JimFoxvog wrote:
Valerie wrote:Additionally, in that same passage's footnote- the "because of the angels" (vs 10) the footnote says: "Or messengers, that is, people sent to observe and report". Where do they get this from? How do they conclude that the angels in this passage are people, and not angels? Now you're messing with theology/doctrine regarding angels. It causes me to then question this translation as to whether it is trustworthy if in just one passage there are misleading footnotes.
The Greek word can mean either human or supernatural messenger. The footnote is just saying either is a possible interpretation. See http://biblehub.com/greek/32.htm for a brief discussion of the word. I like it when the footnotes alert me to different possible interpretations.
Interesting- I cannot imagine why the headcovering would be required 'because of the angels' if they are talking about human messengers. Makes no sense. I wonder if so many Christians today really don't understand the angelic realm and the part they play in our lives, and churches. I guess I am not in agreement Jim, I do not like all the different possible interpretations, I prefer the most ancient understanding.
0 x
Post Reply