I am answering two questions/comments on my other videos that I thought would be good for all to see about why I don't and won't use the ESV. Link to article in the video: baylyblog.com/blog/2011/03/mo...
What is your view of the late in my view great Dr J.I. Packer the General Editor of the ESV translation and theological editor of the study Bible. Dr Jack Collins in the Old Testament and Dr Bill Mounce in the NT on the translation team. The ESV has a top flight conservative Translation team and Bible study team look at their academic credentials.
Don’t have any issues with these men. Like I said in all of these videos, they are all complementarian theologians and used that as a governing principle in their translating, even when they did not need to. There are a couple of times where they blatantly show their interpretive bias in how they translate, but that is their prerogative. My issue is mostly about how the president of Crossway and Wayne Grudem deny that the birth of the ESV came out of the gender inclusion controversy over the NIVI. That is what the article is about and why he is calling them out for it. The writer of the article wanted them to admit it because he wanted that. and that is why there is such a controversy about it. I don’t personally like it, but when I feel like I am being gaslighted about it… that makes me feel like I can’t trust what they did. I also don’t find it genuine to blatantly translate something like “en tois apostolois” grk. For “among the apostles” as “to the apostles” because a couple of guys in the 90’s wrote a paper that said you could that was heavily critiqued and debunked. I go over that in two of my other videos. Hope that helps clear this up.
@@guymontag349 ya… I just wanted to clarify that he wasn’t involved in the translation, but it looks like he got the whole firestorm against the NIV kicked off in 1997.
So I’m asking this because I’m not sure I’m understanding the problem. So I’m asking out of wanting to know. The gender language in the ESV is the same as the KJV and NKJV am I correct? So when the original language is basically saying “people” the ESV says “brothers”. Is that the issue?
No. They have on purpose mistranslated a few passages to fit a complementarian theology that might actually speak against it. Romans 16:7 about a woman named Junia who Paul labeled among the apostles. Most of the early church fathers, who understood Greek natively, write about her as an apostle. But they changed the translation and ignored a preposition to make it read that she was known “to” the apostles. I go over that in another video. They also translate Genesis 3:16 that the curse given to Eve is all one sided and Adam was always meant to rule over her and not that it is a result of the fall. They translate a word “contrary” instead of “for” There are more… but then they said they weren’t doing this when they 100% were.
Ok thanks for replying. I had no clue. I’ll go back watch your other video. I preach from the NKJV. What’s your take on that translation? I’m not great with translation philosophies and definitely not fluent in Greek and Hebrew lol
@@chris2fur401 I like the NKJV… it comes from a different Greek manuscript tradition for the New Testament, but they aren’t that significantly different outside of some passages (beginning of John 8 and longer ending of mark and several other verses that don’t affect doctrine)
While I do not deny that the Colorado Springs controversy was a motivating factor for many of the people involved, the simple fact is that the guidelines were issued two years after the release of the 1995 update of the NASB, and the ESV came out another four years after that. The NASBU was about as complementarian as the ESV and in full agreement with the subsequent guidelines; in fact, it went further than the ESV would later do and used the dubious "Junias" form of Junia's name in Romans 12.7. (The 2020 edition has since corrected that problem . . . but has also "corrected" the suggestion that Junia[s] was an apostle in any sense.) So the driving force behind the ESV was not simply complementarianism. If it were, the men who went on to translated the ESV could have simply endorsed the NASB instead. (One of the emails mentioned that the "American" part of the New American Standard's name was an issue, but we've already seen from the Legacy Standard Bible that it's easy enough to rebrand the NASB '95 without making many substantial changes to it.) Rather, the threat of inclusive language was the last straw for a group of people who already had plenty of other gripes against the NIV but who knew that the NASB was an inferior product to the RSV regardless of its conservative bias.
I know you are Sola scriptura and are trying to remain faithful to both interpretation and true teachings, but is this not to be expected? If everyone personally determines truth based on personal preferences or understandings one must expect bad translations or interpretations.
yes. absolutely. And it compounds when it is done, and then they say, "but we didn't do that" when they clearly were doing that and then confronted about it by people from their own camp who want them to just admit it. Like I said in the video, if they just would have said, "this is what we are doing because we feel it is right" then great. I don't follow that theological framework, so I won't use it... but at least they would have been forthright.
@@petermillist3779 the translation committees interpret their own theology into the translation in these versions openly disregarding the meaning of the original language.
This is answering the question of why I don’t recommend the ESV. I made a claim, somebody said my claim wasn’t true, and I am showing that my claim was actually warranted.
I feel that it is important that if I make a claim, and someone asks me why, that I share with them the reasons. As I said in previous videos, all of this is well documented and if they would have just been forthright with why they did this, we wouldn’t have to talk about any of this. Did you read the article? There have been plenty of times where they have been confronted about this and they deny deny deny… even when the evidence and truth is presented to them. My sole purpose is to explain why I don’t use or support the version.
