ESVTranslationIssues 

In my circles, we started referring to the particular era of mistranslated idioms as "Good Arms" errors, because of a particular example I made back in 2010 (translating the Japanese "ude ga ii" as "I have good arms", when it actually means "I have talent"; the literal translation is "the arms are good"). A particularly heinous example, which is actually a double example (since it went Hebrew to Latin to English) can be found in the original Douay version at Isaiah 5.1b: "A vineyard was made to my beloved in horn the son of oil."

Wonderful to hear your teaching again Professor! Exemplary!

This video came across my feed today. As one who appreciates the reliability of the ESV, and the helpfulness of the ESV Study Bible, you can imagine my curiosity... It's hard to argue against the points that are made here, and I believe that if we want to get Scripture into more hands of those who have had no previous connection to it, the translation of the Bible must be readable and comprehendible. The majority not being scholars in the areas of ancient cultures and languages has us at a disadvantage where idioms are carried over from the original language. The difficult question is which of the more modern translations is to be trusted? Which is the most reliable? Why would I choose the NIV over the NET, CSB, NLT, or even the BSB, which I am finding quite enjoyable and helpful? Everyone has an opinion, and not all of the modern translations agree on their definitions. This can cause no small amount of misunderstanding, debate, and bickering among well-meaning Christians who sincerely desire to know the truth.

I'd rather have people behind my face. Especially if they're talking in front of my back.

Excellent!

Sorry for the profuse Commenting but this reminds me of needlessly difficult-to-read scholarly writing. I'm always left thinking, 'They should translate that into English.'

I've read Mark Strauss's paper on this and in the vast majority of criticisms from the lengthy list of verses he cites, the exact same concern would apply to virtually every other translation on the literal end of the spectrum. The ESV certainly has some quirks, but these criticisms, when evaluated against all other literal translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, LSB) demonstrate that this is really just a critique of translation philosophy, where dynamic equivalence/thought for thought is being argued for as the superior method of conveying the meaning of the biblical text. It seems to me Strauss may have ulterior motives for directing his criticisms at the ESV alone. Surely he has enough knowledge of all the other major literal translations to see how similar they are in wording to the ESV in so many of the places where he's being critical.

Sorry, but Strauss cannot be trusted. He was part of the NIV translation team, which is an awful translation, with blatant Evangelical Protestant biases. Where "tradition" (paradosis) is portrayed positively in the NT, NIV uses "teachings." But where tradition is stated in a negative light, NIV, of course, always uses "tradition."