ESV

General Christian Theology
cmbl
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 pm
Affiliation: Pilgrim, NMB
Contact:

ESV

Post by cmbl »

From this thread, emphasis mine:
Josh wrote: The ESV's translation does support a Reformed Calvinist viewpoint, as it often does. Yet another reason to avoid the ESV.
Where else have you seen this? I was under the impression that while Reformed people really liked the ESV, and while the ESV Study Bible was Reformed, the translation itself was pretty good. CA's won't be happy about the historical-cultural arguments elevated to translation in 1 Corinthians 11, but I found, e.g., Hebrews 6 and James 2 to be translated in ways that seem quite problematic for Calvinism, more so than the NIV translation.
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
appleman2006
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm
Affiliation: Midwest Mennonite

Re: ESV

Post by appleman2006 »

A proper understanding of scripture only comes by comparing all scriptures in their context. I do not see the ESV as being any different in that sense than any of the other good translations out there.
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: ESV

Post by lesterb »

I've noticed pro-Calvinistic statements in the KJV. Probably the Puritan members of the KJV translation team had some influence on the translation.

I haven't noticed that in the ESV, though I suppose it could be there. All of these translations are the work of men. I think God kept his hand in the mix as it were, because of his interest in the Bible. But the work was still done by humans with human weaknesses, no matter how hard they tried to be accurate.

That is why I think it is important to use at least several good translations and compare them. Unless you are a really knowledgeable Greek or Hebrew scholar, you will be safer doing this than trying to retranslate verses by using a Greek dictionary. I do use dictionaries for additional clarification at times, since often the meaning of word can take a lot more than one word to clarify.

Personally, I avoid translations or versions that are the work of one person. I also avoid special interest versions, like the New World translation, because they are translated to back up existing doctrine. I know that all translators have a frame of reference. A translator with strong Calvinistic leanings will understand the Greek readings from the perspective. It about can't be helped. That is why it is important to have broad range of scholars represented on the translation committee.

I did a comparison of versions for a book I was working on some years ago. I picked out what we could call distinctive Anabaptist doctrines and listed the normal proof texts for them from each version. It was interesting to note that in at least some cases, versions like the NIV were actually clearer to understand as supporting these than the KJV was. In a few cases, they tried to neutralize these somewhat by using footnotes, but mostly the actual translation was clear and honest. That was before the days of the NLT or the HSCB and the ESV, so I didn't include them in the comparison.

The point of this is that I don't think it is the modern versions that are destroying Christianity, it is the people who read them (or don't read them) that do that. As Geisler and Nix say in their book, A General Introduction to the Bible, the problem is that people spend more time reading between the lines of Scripture than they do reading the actual lines themselves, even in fundamentalist churches that claim to be very Bible oriented.

Well that's enough rambling. I'm sorry if this goes too far beyond the intentions of the OP. Someone can move this post if it is.
0 x
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3881
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: ESV

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

lesterb wrote: Personally, I avoid translations or versions that are the work of one person. I also avoid special interest versions, like the New World translation, because they are translated to back up existing doctrine. I know that all translators have a frame of reference. A translator with strong Calvinistic leanings will understand the Greek readings from the perspective. It about can't be helped. That is why it is important to have broad range of scholars represented on the translation committee.
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.
0 x
:hug:
KingdomBuilder
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:00 pm
Affiliation: church of Christ

Re: ESV

Post by KingdomBuilder »

So what's the ESV alternative? Back to the ye olde KJV?
0 x
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
cmbl
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 pm
Affiliation: Pilgrim, NMB
Contact:

Re: ESV

Post by cmbl »

KingdomBuilder wrote:So what's the ESV alternative? Back to the ye olde KJV?
Well, many CA's haven't left ye olde KJV.

There's a danger in picking translations based on what reinforces what we want to say. I have no problem avoiding the New World Translation, but at what point in avoiding specific translations does the intellectual honesty of our scholarship deteriorate to that of the JW's?
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
undershepherd
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 8:45 pm
Location: Harrisonburg VA
Affiliation: Mountain Valley Menn
Contact:

Re: ESV

Post by undershepherd »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
lesterb wrote: Personally, I avoid translations or versions that are the work of one person. I also avoid special interest versions, like the New World translation, because they are translated to back up existing doctrine. I know that all translators have a frame of reference. A translator with strong Calvinistic leanings will understand the Greek readings from the perspective. It about can't be helped. That is why it is important to have broad range of scholars represented on the translation committee.
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.
0 x
Neto
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: ESV

Post by Neto »

lesterb wrote: Personally, I avoid translations or versions that are the work of one person.
I know that this is not what you are talking about here, but in Bible translation work for minority languages, it is unavoidable that only one or two people will be the actual translators. In translation missions like WBT, we get around that problem by subjecting the translation to a rigorous translation checking process. Open doctrinal biases are not allowed to be incorporated into the translations, although I suppose that if both the translator and the consultant were of the same doctrinal persuasion, the consultant may in all honesty not notice the bias, so I suppose it should be an area of concern. On the other hand, however, in our case at least, we had around half a dozen different consultants, and sometimes even more than one for a single book.
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3881
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: ESV

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

undershepherd wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
lesterb wrote: Personally, I avoid translations or versions that are the work of one person. I also avoid special interest versions, like the New World translation, because they are translated to back up existing doctrine. I know that all translators have a frame of reference. A translator with strong Calvinistic leanings will understand the Greek readings from the perspective. It about can't be helped. That is why it is important to have broad range of scholars represented on the translation committee.
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.
I do know about Packer (Taught adult electives out of "Knowing God" and "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God " and had to repeatedly explain why I was using "such a book") and Grudem, and have a copy of his Systematic Theology, and I will assure you, both of them are quite reformed in their outlook. Grudem goes as far as to say that a person is regenerated before they believe.(Page 302, abridged edition) If that is not calvinist, I don't know what is. Are you around Primitive (Hardshell) Baptists or the like, they are the only ones that are more reformed than these two.

I was not really thinking about historic calvinism as much as the "new" calvinism that is taking over the evangelical world. It is infecting most SBC seminaries and even had an impact on the C&MA. Actually, my daughter used his systematic theology as a assigned textbook in a C&MA college, and I felt the need to write a rather pointed letter.

For the new calvinist fans, Grudem is "it." His systematic theology was printed in abridged form, edited by Jerry Purswell of Sovereign Grace fame. His books are top of the table at Gospel Coalition events, and I have listened to him spout his latest stuff at ETS, admittedly by CD. Look up "Eternal Submission of the Son" if you want a piece of it.

I avoid this stuff like the plague now.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
cmbl
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 pm
Affiliation: Pilgrim, NMB
Contact:

Re: ESV

Post by cmbl »

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.
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
Post Reply