I am kind of thinking that it is liberal side of things that more concentrate on gender stuff. Conservatives would just like gender things to stay the way they have always been prior to ESV. There is nothing inherently wrong with either saying “Brothers” “or Brothers and sisters”. Saying brothers does not make it a bad translation, especially if the goal is to attempt to stay literal because in the Greek text does not say brothers and sisters or siblings. I think siblings or brothers and sisters is more appropriate for a less literal text such as a CSB or NIV. There is nothing wrong with that either. The previous generation of female believers could easily read “Brothers” and understand that in the context that it was also referring to them. It is like me going to a room of 10 people that make up 6 men and 4 women, and asking do you “guys” want me to order some pizza. “Guys” is thought of as masculine yet all the girls are not thinking, I guess only the guys get to eat pizza. No they completely understand that they are still included. I just think it is silly to say a translation that attempts to be literal is said that it is bad because it is acting literal.
_The previous generation of female believers could easily read “Brothers” and understand that in the context that it was also referring to them._ Why would they do that. The disciples were all men. Men were told to leave their families in order to follow Jesus. Women are told to submit to their husbands. And how would it matter how women interpret "brother" if the ones in power read it literally? The early success of Christianity, so to speak, was largely because of its inclusiveness. Women made Christianity a success. But that changed. Rome, as I'm sure you know, was a highly patriarchal society. Women had virtually no rights. Women subsequently lost all power within the church. Translation matters.
In our Greek class, our professor said “any Bible translation is fine! … except be careful with the ESV.” Plenty of examples where they claim to do a “word for word,” “literal” translation (which already betrays they don’t know how language works) but then clearly translate interpretively.
The only version I'm aware of that could be remotely called Literal is the "Young's Literal Translation." Which is a word for word translation of the oldest Bible that still exists, direct from Byzantine Greek. And it's extremely hard to read and some pages are as much footnote explaining details of linguistic and translation choices as they are scripture.
On the Hebrew side of things, I've heard students of Hebrew say that the ESV tends to be wooden and too literal at times. On the other hand, on the Greek side of things, which is all I can opine on, I think over all the ESV does a good job of striking a balance between formal and dynamic translations. No English translation of the Bible is perfect, obviously, but without some specific examples given, I can't agree with the opinion that the ESV is "not a good translation." That being said, any serious Bible student should work with multiple translations and, if possible, learn the Biblical languages themselves.
The ESV was the first Bible translation I found after I moved away from my predominantly KJV church. It'll always have a special place in my heart, but it definitely isn't the greatest translation of all time. Thanks for getting this information out there Dan!
Very funny to hear “Gender Ideology” used to describe something other than transgender people and in fact a traditionalist thing specifically targeted against trans people.
In spite of all that the ESV has the best translation of Deuteronomy 32:8 when it says “sons of God” while most other translations say “sons of Israel” when Israel didn’t even exist yet-so that’s misleading. “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” -Deuteronomy 32:8
Israel absolutely existed when Deuteronomy was written. It may or may not be a better translation to say sons of God, but claiming Israel didnt exist yet isn't a reason.
@@babydemon90 I didn’t say Israel didn’t exist when Deuteronomy was written, I was referring to the time period when God divided up the nations which was at the fall of the Tower of Babel before Abraham existed. Jacob wasn’t born yet to have his name changed to Israel.
@@NickSandt Israel existed when that was written too. All of the Bible was written during the Iron Age when Israel existed. (Ok, technically some was written after the iron age during the "classical era", but that doesn't change the point).
And the Babel story especially is just an etiology, not a historical event. I mean - they're literally using bricks in the story...and by the time Mesopotamian humans used bricks, other humans were already spread out into Europe, Australia, etc..
Your mind is finite, God's mind is infinite. Why use vain human terminology to question the Word of God? Proverbs 1:22-23 22 How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? 23 Give heed to my reproof; behold, I will pour out my thoughts to you; I will make my words known to you.
Well, I think it depends. If Paul genuinely meant adelphoi to mean strictly a male criterion, then rendering it brothers and sisters would not be a sufficient rendering of what is meant.
@@andrewhenderson6544 to suggest a tri-Omni being (as you probably believe God to be) would need or want humans to speak for them, write things down for them, or represent them in any way is ridiculous. Such a being would have no need of such representations, including those you make in their defence here. Yet the simple fact is we only *_EVER_* have humans, like yourself, claiming to know the mind of this being. Sincerely, YOU are the best evidence your proposed God does not exist.
Very unbiased video filled with vast amounts of language evidence, examples, and compelling arguments that will surely make ESV readers rethink their bible translation..... I was overwhelmed with the evidence in the presentation as to why the ESV is poorly translated, especially how he spent half the video talking about Zondervan instead of Crossway. Also, any serious student is checking multiple translations anyway, particularly in the modern era. Any decent debate about complementarian or egalitarian theology is going to cite multiple translations or original language notes. It is not that big of a deal.
Lol I’ve learned about this within the past couple weeks due to my newfound interest in bibles…they literally just appropriated the RSV (a product of decades worth of laborious scholarship by real scholars) & reworded some things to suit their agenda. Now of course it’s fast becoming the favorite translation of evangelicals. Also ironic is that hard-line types are now more or less accepting of the RSV, presumably as a result. They all raged against it when it came out. Nowadays the NRSV & especially NRSVue are the boogeyman. Seems it should only be another 10 or so years before the NRSV is acceptable & maybe another 20-30 after that for the NRSVue…
@@Narikku huh? My point isn’t that they literally didn’t make any other changes whatsoever. The point is that the vast majority is exactly the same as the RSV & the primary motivation for appropriating the RSV and altering some passages was politics and laziness, not that the DSS weren’t privileged enough in the RSV.
@@Narikku You didn’t understand anything I said. The NRSV came out 12 years before the ESV. The NRSV was the product of bona fide scholars from a wide spectrum of perspectives, continuing in the legacy of the RSV, who spent years taking pains so that it would be in accordance with the latest scholarship. The ESV is the product of a group of elite evangelicals whining about gender-inclusiveness in the NIV and buying the rights to the RSV, which did not use gender-inclusive language, so they could present such a translation to their audiences while papering over other parts that made them uncomfortable. The ESV is literally just a copy-paste of the RSV. The vast majority of it is word for word the same. Obviously it’s going to have passages in common with the NRSV, which used the RSV as its base. The difference is that one is a revision and one is an appropriation.
@@Narikku You didn’t understand anything I said. The NRSV came out 12 years before the ESV. The NRSV was the product of bona fide scholars from a wide spectrum of perspectives, continuing in the legacy of the RSV, who spent years taking pains so that it would be in accordance with the latest scholarship. The ESV is the product of a group of elite evangelicals whining about gender-inclusiveness in the NIV and buying the rights to the RSV, which did not use gender-inclusive language, so they could present such a translation to their audiences while papering over other parts that made them uncomfortable. The ESV is literally just a copy-paste of the RSV. The vast majority of it is word for word the same. Obviously it’s going to have passages in common with the NRSV, which used the RSV as its base. The difference is that one is a revision and one is an appropriation. As I said, my point isn’t that the ESV literally did not make any individual textual changes whatsoever that were not themselves a product of evangelical bias. I am talking about the project as a whole. I don’t think I can be any clearer.
@@Narikku You don’t get what I’ve said. Everything you’re saying is some kind of weird strawman. You’re fundamentally misunderstanding every single point I’m making. I don’t really think this is worth continuing.
@@Jd-808you're misunderstanding him. I'll even propose that ESV's preference for the DSS is more reflective of that academic consensus of liberal & critical scholars. Dr McLellan is just whining about "misogyny" because he's a liberal-not because ESV is a less accurate rendering of texts written in a patriachal/misogynistic ancient world
Sorry, it's not clear why the ESV is not a good translation of the Bible, which is the title of the clip. You make the claim that it's a "complementarian, mysogenist translation" of the Bible, but offer no explanation why
I think he makes it quite clear. They are translating words with gender neutral meanings in the original language using words with gendered meanings in English just because the words in the original language are grammatically gendered. That's not an accurate translation.
@@thomasdalton1508Sure, but this lone example seems a very thin basis to assert that the ESV is a "complementarian, mysogenist" translation, or even not a good translation at all. I'd have thought more forceful examples would be provided.
@@whizler It isn't a lone example. It is the entire purpose of the translation. They created it precisely and explicitly in order to make these literal (and incorrect) translations of gendered words. The claim that it is misogynistic requires an inference about their true intentions, but it is difficult to see why else they would want this translation if not to use it to support their misogyny.
@@thomasdalton1508"Conservative evangelical Christians need a complementarian, mysogenist Bible and therefore they produced one in the ESV" is I'm afraid not a very persuasive argument. At least to me. I'd expect specific examples (multiple) of how texts were fundamentally mis-translated in order to support such an argument. Such skepticism is part-and-parcel why I reject religious claims.
Probably because it is a good Bible. Keeps the poetry and is on the literal side. And it says “brothers” instead of brother’s and sisters, because that is what the Hebrews and Greek says.
God said the earth shall pass away but his word would never pass away. He said he would preserve his word for all the generations. This is why I have a hard time bordering believe that we have had a preserved word God all this time till the codex Vaticanus was “found” was God a liar? I own manny different translations of the Bible. But I find myself having to fall back on my kjv because I found too many errors/ mistranslations/ missing verses and even changes is basic Christian fundamental beliefs. The 1 thing I can say with 100% certainty. Most of us don’t speak ancient Hebrew or Greek so we are relying upon accurate translations or for “learned” people to direct us in the write direction. And everyone has their own agenda from the translators to those who except and recommend these translations. So be in the Spirit of God and ask him to reveal the script and help you discern if it’s a false teaching. I love you all my brothers and God bless.
Could you explain what you have against them? I'm not a defender of theirs or anything. I just don't know anything about Marsha Blackburn and I only know Tim Keller made some conservatives mad a few years ago by saying that Republican was not synonymous with Christian, but basically nothing else.
I'm interested in you delving more into this topic, please! It sounds like both of the Bible versions were inaccurate then as they were both trying to change language for gender sake. What did the OG stuff say is mostly what i would care about
I majored in New Testament textual criticism at UGA and have been reading the NA 28 Greek New Testsment for 30+ years and I think the ESV is quite good. You must bear in mind that the culture and time period in which it was written would be considered quite patriarchal and only a fool would exercise revisionism to suit their hermeneutics. The Bible says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. I say learn the languages yourself and don’t let RUclips scholars guide your thinking.
I would like to know more. I want to preface my question by saying I am not a Christian and have no stake in the matter. That being said, with the Bible being written in a male-dominated time, would those verses actually be gender-neutral to the original audience? While I am all for inclusivity, I also understand the desire to accurately translate the meaning of the original text (warts and all, like the slavery verses).
@revilo178 Dan does say at the end of the video that it is a misogynistic translation. To rephrase my question: Is not the Bible already somewhat misogynistic in some places and translating them to be more gender-neutral is perhaps going against the original intent of the text? While it would sadly support their view and reduce the inclusivity, it might also be more accurate to the original intent of the text? As I mentioned before, I am not a Christian and fully support inclusivity. However, I can also see where there can be tension here.
It's like translating "amigos" in Spanish as "male friends" in English. While the word is grammatically masculine, the meaning is gender neutral since in Spanish gender neutral plurals take the masculine. That's just how the language works. If you say "amigos" to Spanish speakers they aren't going to assume that you are just talking about men simply because the word is grammatically masculine. English used to do much the same thing until it began to change around the mid-20th century. Read anything from before then and you'll often see "he" used as a gender neutral pronoun. It would not have been interpreted as referring only to men if that isn't what the context suggests.
I only studied Biblical Hebrew not Greek in seminary, but in that language (through to 200 BCE) all pronouns are male for individuals, groups, or mixed groups UNLESS the individual or group were EXCLUSIVELY women. So in modern English it would be misleading to translate plural pronouns as male-only unless the text otherwise made it clear only men were being addressed. Side note: also why it’s significant that the Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2 has a FEMALE pronoun attached to the action of “hovering”, yet “literal” translations like the ESV don’t include a pronoun…
I appreciate knowing this because everybody from the Catholics to the Pentecostals is using the ESV now. Do you know if Ted Haggard was involved in the Colorado Springs meeting? Though closeted, he was a big "conservative" movement leader in Colorado at the time.
The most ironic thing is that in the majority of cases, the ESV is just as gender inclusive as NIV 2011. It's mainly the passages where "anthropous" are in a position of authority that it's left translated as "men."
I never realized until recently just how much theology and politics I formed the different translations. I had some notion that readability and language updates for clarity were part of the reasoning, but that conservative evangelicals would deliberately create translations that were intentionally poor for their own theological ends was a mystery to me.
In Acts 2:47 salvation is a one-time finished salvation, but in the ESV it is a process. It’s not “saved,” but a continual process of “being saved.” In the ESV’s and Hort’s twisted salvation, at what point does someone actually become “saved” and no longer “being saved”? Notice Acts 2:47 in the KJV, "Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Then notice Acts 2:47 in the ESV "praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." Notice the same perversion in 1 Corinthians 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." KJV "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." ESV See also 1 Corinthians 15:2, 2 Corinthians 2:15, Colossians 2:10 And the ESV removes the name of “Jesus” 18 times! And it removes “Jesus Christ” 51 times, and the designation “Christ” 39 times, the “Lord” 66 times, and “God” 38 times. The ESV completely removes the following 17 verses: Matthew 12:47 - Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. Matthew 17:21 - Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. Matthew 18:11 - For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. Matthew 23:14 - Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Mark 7:16 - If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. Mark 9:44 - Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 9:46 - Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Mark 11:26 - But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. Mark 15:28 - 28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. Luke 17:36 - Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Luke 22:44 - And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Luke 23:17 - (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.) John 5:4 - For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. Acts 8:37 - And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Acts 15:34 - Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. Acts 24:7 (note half of Acts 24:6 and 24:8 is also removed) - 7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Acts 28:29 - And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. Romans 16:24 - The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
That's incorrect and you're commenting on a video from a guy who speaks biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek, so if he's saying it's inaccurate then he's worth listening to.
Do U have a video on the anonymity of the gosiples. A lot of Christians I spoke to say it is not annoymos Caz early church father. Agree these gosiples are. Written by them
hey dan i have a question. do you think moses was originally understood to have had his skin horned, or is the more mainstream interpretation of moses' disfigurement in exodus 34 generally correct when it asserts that moses' skin was shining?
Yeah, I have made a long form video on this very topic: 3 Problems with the ESV ruclips.net/video/FsBxa0HoHz4/видео.html. Definitely an issue worth talking about.
Tbh the reader De-gendering words like "brothers" when they're said in a specific context makes more sense that writing an 'inclusive' version. Is the dog wagging the tail or what? You'll never be able to include everyone if you start that game, tell me what version of the LGBTQ flag are they onto now? Eventually you go too far and no one will feel represented. I'm finding my faith in my late 20s, I have bought an esv study bible on reviews of people saying its a literal translation that's readable, and the crossways bible having very comprehensive study notes that are written by committee and not just one person's opinion. Once I have read and understood the new testament, I will buy a KJV version and read that. On the contrary, gender politics (and all the other decadence in the modern world) and the affiliation of atheism has pushed me to Jesus and his teachings.
The MSG isn't an academically credible translation! It's one thing for credentialed scholars to translate with some bias - it's another thing when a translation like MSG is made up by people who have no PhDs
In the 90’s I was always told how we don’t need gender inclusive language because everyone knows that “man” means “mankind” and includes everyone Now I’m always told how we shouldn’t have inclusive language because everyone knows that “man” only means men and not women It seems something got lost in translation, as it were
I am a new Christian, I was recommended the ESV as an easy translation to the bible. I am currently reading it but will upgrade to a better version once I'm a bit further in to the journey. What do you guys recommend as a good version of the bible.
I am an atheist raised in a Christian family, but Dan and scholars recommend RSV or more particularly NRSV or more particularly, "The New Annotated Oxford Bible".
Fail-Safe Bible is the NASB..., the RSV and its siblings are too Roman Catholic leaning. Meaning of the verses have Works based salvation inserted instead of Saved by grace. Obedience instead of belief Etc. I'm a King James version guy but I dare not mention that here for fear of attack name-calling and even worse LOL NASB all the way !!
Most scholars recommend the NRSV or it's update, the NRSVue. This is also the version I see used most often in progressive and mainline churches. But if you're a new Christian in an Evangelical church, they'll likely discourage you from using the NRSV because it's seen as too liberal. I always recommend looking up how the transition came to be, who sponsored it, and who was involved in translation, and what translation approaches were used, because that will tell you how it might be biased. Like Dan says, the ESV was sponsored by Evangelical groups who didn't like other translations using gender neutral terms rather than male-centric terms (ie "people" instead of "man"). NASB was also produced by conservative evangelical denominations. KJV was commissioned and sponsored by the King of England in response to the Calvinist and anti-monarchial Geneva Bible, and done entirely by Church of England clergy.
I don’t understand the popularity of the NIV. I know there are KJV only people that strongly condemn the NIV but I am not one of them. I have to admit that I know almost nothing about the NIV so I am not qualified to discuss it. I grew up with the KJV but now my main Bible is a Spanish edition (Reina-Valera 1960). I have also heard that it is not the best Spanish version but I don’t know what now would be the best Spanish version. I do have an NKJV as well as an NRSV to which I can refer if I don’t understand the Spanish. I may have an ESV but if I do I haven’t looked at it yet.
I'm not surprised that such a thing could have happened, but could you please back up allegations with facts. Provide specific examples where the ESV is inaccurate because of identity politics. I find some parts of the NIV terrible, adding words that simply aren't there, or changing the meaning of words that are there. Like 1 Pet 1.13 added the words "at his coming" that are absent from the original, and "former desires" in 1 Pet 1.14 was changed to "evil desires". What were they, wanted criminals?
A good translation is one that see's the original Greek/Hebrew word "Brother" and then translates that into English as "Brother" .. pretty much plain ol common sense there. If the original thought of the orginal author is Misogynistic , then it should be translated in a Misogynistic tone, just like the original author intended .. anything else would be a lie
Aside from the political ideologies, is the ESV considered accurate overall? I’ve heard that it is an accurate translation if you set aside the complementarianism.
After a 40 year break from the NASB I started reading the Bible again, though I do not believe it this time. I gotta say, I started back with the HCSB, which is a pleasure to read. I am using a NRSV now and I like that too. I have read a little in the ESV and I thought it reads well enough, I didn't notice the complementarian stuff so much until it was pointed out to me. I will have to take you guy's word on this, I have a paper copy New English Bible that I like and one of the NRSV, I have a HCSB on my Kindle and of course, there is always Biblegateway. I am just gonna skip the ESV. I got all the Bibles I need, except maybe a Spanish version, but not yet, I have to study some more.
That's a question that's been debated for centuries. Bottom line is, do you want a Roman Catholic Bible, or do you want a Bible the Catholic church outlawed? Do you want a Bible the early church that went to Asia Minor up into Europe used.., or do you want a Bible that the scholars and learned and universities adhered to in Egypt? The most common answer regarding accuracy would probably be the NASB. If you're a newbie Christian, I would get that and read it until it fell apart. Everyday, 10 chapters a day, Professor Grant Horner 10 chapter A Day Bible reading plan. Your Christian walk will never be the same. Myself I'm a King James guy and the authorized version is my absolute favorite for integrity accuracy and effectiveness. It worked well in this country for about 200 years until the new versions from West cotton hort came on the scene. There might be some comments after mine calling me nuts are crazy or other things. But if you get the NASB and read that as much as you can, you're going to be just fine. God bless you, great question. All glory to my amazing Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who suffered and died for me so I can live forever.
Just to clarify, the ESV is published by Crossway, not Zondervan. It was indeed a result of the conservative backlash against the NIVI, and later the TNIV. (Also, I still miss the TNIV, the short-lived, somewhat more gender-inclusive revision of the NIV. I think it was a good version that didn't get a fair chance, due to the conservative hue and cry.)
Also, while I make no claim to having anywhere near the authority on the subject that Dan has, I would question whether the ESV is a bad translation, or whether it is a matter of its translation committee having motivations that are suspect. After all, estimates that I've seen over the years indicate that only about 6% of the ESV's text is different from the RSV. So whereas I believe that the NRSV is a better update to the RSV than the ESV is, I wouldn't see the ESV as being absolutely worthless. One more thing to clarify that Dan didn't mention in the video is that, in most places where the ESV translators decided to retain masculine language (as in the translation of adelphoi, for example), there is a footnote that reads along the lines of, "Or, brothers and sisters." So, while I find it a bit disingenuous to leave the masculine reading in the main text while relegating the more inclusive reading to the footnotes, at least the translators are sharing their rationale.
I think Dr. Mark Strauss's critique on the ESV, "Why the English Standard Version Should Not Become the Standard English Version," is well worth reading, for a bit more in-depth look at some of the drawbacks of the version. zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf
In the end it is whatever each person needs to read and wants to read for their faith . Look at the LDS and even the Book of Mormon and it’s English used . It needs it for the faith of the LDS Tomatoe tomato
The irony being that the vast majority of English-speaking Mormons wouldn't dare use the ESV. They're pretty set on the KJV published by the LDS church, which includes cross references to the Book of Mormon and footnotes of Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible (in quotations because process-wise it is clearly a revision, not a translation). Some Mormons will occasionally look at NIV or NRSV to try to make sense of the KJV's Shakespearean English, but very very few are using anything other than KJV as their main translation.
NLT = New Living Translation is a paraphrase, not a word-for-word translation. Not a bad, thing, necessarily, but it approaches the text thought-for-thought instead of more literally. NAB-RE = This is the revised version of the New American Bible, a modern translation for Catholics and the version used in the Lectionary in the U.S. Personally I think it's really great, with copious notes that go into scholarly detail, though it does toe the Catholic line. NRSV = This one's the one with the most scholarly consensus across the board and which Dan and other scholars like Bart Ehrman use. Also contains lots of notes, and it's the version that the New Oxford Annotated Bible and the SBL Study Bible (formerly the Harper Collins Study Bible) use. Dan even has a sidebar mini-feature in Exodus in the SBL Study Bible. The NRSV is more scholarly than most, much to the disappointment of conservative evangelicals. The most recent revision of the NRSV come out just last year, and is called the NRSV-UE (Updated Edition). The SBL Study Bible is the only study Bible that currently uses the NRSV-UE; the New Oxford Annotated will probably have a new edition out in the next couple of years. Hope that helps!
I like reading the NLT when I want to get the general idea of a piece of scripture and then the NRSVua to do a little more checking into the idea that is being presented. The NET 2nd edition is kind of neat in that it has copious translation notes and their reasons for choosing a particular word over another.
@@tchristianphoto What does the NRSV-UE entail? I only have a copy of the NRSV that was published in 2003 Also, to defend the NLT-CE, I think it has the most balanced translation of the Old Testament due to using a combination of the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls as a basis, and since those maniscripts were written in a high context culture, paraphrasing is definitely helpful for people who don't have a firm grasp on Biblical Hebrew.
Those also have biases, as do all translations. There are different styles of translation, different source texts and combinations of source texts, and different ways of saying the same thing with a slightly different meaning - you need to be aware of who, what, when, where, why, and how a translation was made in order to understand it's biases and know if they are slanted toward or away from your personal theology. KJV was commissioned by the King of England in response to concerns about the Geneva Bible having a calvinistic anti-monarchy bent, and was translated entirely by Church of England clergy. It was also done over 400 years ago, and we have found more ancient manuscripts and come up with better translation techniques since then. If you're looking for a poetic Bible KJV is the way to go; but if you're looking for accuracy and integrity to the original text, or an unbiased translation by a team of diverse scholars, it ain't it. NASB was translated by conservative and fundamentalist evangelical denominations with the intent of updating the ASV and providing a conservative alternative to the RSV which was considered too liberal. Unlike the KJV, NASB seeks to hold to the original structure of the source text rather than make it pretty in English, but it was still produced with an agenda by a group of people with a specific theological stance.
You should do a Bible translation ranking video.
Yes!
Third vote here!!
Fourth vote, agreed.
Good, no, great Idea!
Tier list!
This video just convinced me to go pick up the ESV 😂😂😂
So, it´s a bad Bibble because it´s closer to the original?🤣😂🤣😂
But it's not closer to the original, that's the point.
@@20quid I understand he tried to phrase it that way, but ironically he achieved the opposite lol
After this video, it makes me want to trust the ESV even more
Why? Because it chooses confirming your biases over accurately representing the authors intent?
Indeed. Rebuke this fadboy video poster.
I am kind of thinking that it is liberal side of things that more concentrate on gender stuff. Conservatives would just like gender things to stay the way they have always been prior to ESV. There is nothing inherently wrong with either saying “Brothers” “or Brothers and sisters”. Saying brothers does not make it a bad translation, especially if the goal is to attempt to stay literal because in the Greek text does not say brothers and sisters or siblings. I think siblings or brothers and sisters is more appropriate for a less literal text such as a CSB or NIV. There is nothing wrong with that either. The previous generation of female believers could easily read “Brothers” and understand that in the context that it was also referring to them. It is like me going to a room of 10 people that make up 6 men and 4 women, and asking do you “guys” want me to order some pizza. “Guys” is thought of as masculine yet all the girls are not thinking, I guess only the guys get to eat pizza. No they completely understand that they are still included. I just think it is silly to say a translation that attempts to be literal is said that it is bad because it is acting literal.
_The previous generation of female believers could easily read “Brothers” and understand that in the context that it was also referring to them._
Why would they do that. The disciples were all men. Men were told to leave their families in order to follow Jesus. Women are told to submit to their husbands.
And how would it matter how women interpret "brother" if the ones in power read it literally?
The early success of Christianity, so to speak, was largely because of its inclusiveness. Women made Christianity a success. But that changed. Rome, as I'm sure you know, was a highly patriarchal society. Women had virtually no rights. Women subsequently lost all power within the church.
Translation matters.
Okay.... That still doesn't answer the question whether or not (or how) the ESV is a bad translation Dr. McClellan.
English Standard Version? More like.... Extremely Sexist Version
Thanks for the helpful mnemonic! Definitely gonna pass this around.
yeah well when the Newly Inspired Version came out, it replaced the Recently Superseded Version.
The excuses one has to make in order to change the Bible lol
The ESV must be pretty good if this is considered a significant objection to it.
In our Greek class, our professor said “any Bible translation is fine! … except be careful with the ESV.” Plenty of examples where they claim to do a “word for word,” “literal” translation (which already betrays they don’t know how language works) but then clearly translate interpretively.
The only version I'm aware of that could be remotely called Literal is the "Young's Literal Translation." Which is a word for word translation of the oldest Bible that still exists, direct from Byzantine Greek. And it's extremely hard to read and some pages are as much footnote explaining details of linguistic and translation choices as they are scripture.
You criticizing the ESV wearing a RHCP shirt? Bro.
On the Hebrew side of things, I've heard students of Hebrew say that the ESV tends to be wooden and too literal at times. On the other hand, on the Greek side of things, which is all I can opine on, I think over all the ESV does a good job of striking a balance between formal and dynamic translations. No English translation of the Bible is perfect, obviously, but without some specific examples given, I can't agree with the opinion that the ESV is "not a good translation." That being said, any serious Bible student should work with multiple translations and, if possible, learn the Biblical languages themselves.
The ESV was the first Bible translation I found after I moved away from my predominantly KJV church. It'll always have a special place in my heart, but it definitely isn't the greatest translation of all time. Thanks for getting this information out there Dan!
The only reason it’s not a bad translation is because they just copied & pasted the RSV.
Very funny to hear “Gender Ideology” used to describe something other than transgender people and in fact a traditionalist thing specifically targeted against trans people.
How many shirts do you have?
In spite of all that the ESV has the best translation of Deuteronomy 32:8 when it says “sons of God” while most other translations say “sons of Israel” when Israel didn’t even exist yet-so that’s misleading.
“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” -Deuteronomy 32:8
Israel absolutely existed when Deuteronomy was written. It may or may not be a better translation to say sons of God, but claiming Israel didnt exist yet isn't a reason.
@@babydemon90 I didn’t say Israel didn’t exist when Deuteronomy was written, I was referring to the time period when God divided up the nations which was at the fall of the Tower of Babel before Abraham existed. Jacob wasn’t born yet to have his name changed to Israel.
@@NickSandt Israel existed when that was written too. All of the Bible was written during the Iron Age when Israel existed. (Ok, technically some was written after the iron age during the "classical era", but that doesn't change the point).
And the Babel story especially is just an etiology, not a historical event. I mean - they're literally using bricks in the story...and by the time Mesopotamian humans used bricks, other humans were already spread out into Europe, Australia, etc..
Israel was a person (Jacob). The tribes that descended from him were the sons of Israel. What's the difficulty?
Imagine how messed up you have to be to want a more misogynistic version of the Bible.
Your mind is finite, God's mind is infinite. Why use vain human terminology to question the Word of God?
Proverbs 1:22-23
22 How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
23 Give heed to my reproof;
behold, I will pour out my thoughts to you;
I will make my words known to you.
@@andrewhenderson6544
Because God uses "vain human terminology" across several contradictory and anachronistic books to bind humans to his will.
@@andrewhenderson6544 Sorry, I'm too in touch with the divine to comprehend your simple primate jabbering.
Well, I think it depends. If Paul genuinely meant adelphoi to mean strictly a male criterion, then rendering it brothers and sisters would not be a sufficient rendering of what is meant.
@@andrewhenderson6544 to suggest a tri-Omni being (as you probably believe God to be) would need or want humans to speak for them, write things down for them, or represent them in any way is ridiculous.
Such a being would have no need of such representations, including those you make in their defence here. Yet the simple fact is we only *_EVER_* have humans, like yourself, claiming to know the mind of this being.
Sincerely, YOU are the best evidence your proposed God does not exist.
Very unbiased video filled with vast amounts of language evidence, examples, and compelling arguments that will surely make ESV readers rethink their bible translation..... I was overwhelmed with the evidence in the presentation as to why the ESV is poorly translated, especially how he spent half the video talking about Zondervan instead of Crossway. Also, any serious student is checking multiple translations anyway, particularly in the modern era. Any decent debate about complementarian or egalitarian theology is going to cite multiple translations or original language notes. It is not that big of a deal.
Finally someone who saw through this guys big bunch of nothing.
And you can get it in two colors: digital camo, or tacticool black. 😉
I need to larp
Greyman
Oh man, I wish I had been the one to come up with this! Well played.👍
Lol I’ve learned about this within the past couple weeks due to my newfound interest in bibles…they literally just appropriated the RSV (a product of decades worth of laborious scholarship by real scholars) & reworded some things to suit their agenda. Now of course it’s fast becoming the favorite translation of evangelicals.
Also ironic is that hard-line types are now more or less accepting of the RSV, presumably as a result. They all raged against it when it came out. Nowadays the NRSV & especially NRSVue are the boogeyman. Seems it should only be another 10 or so years before the NRSV is acceptable & maybe another 20-30 after that for the NRSVue…
@@Narikku huh? My point isn’t that they literally didn’t make any other changes whatsoever. The point is that the vast majority is exactly the same as the RSV & the primary motivation for appropriating the RSV and altering some passages was politics and laziness, not that the DSS weren’t privileged enough in the RSV.
@@Narikku You didn’t understand anything I said.
The NRSV came out 12 years before the ESV. The NRSV was the product of bona fide scholars from a wide spectrum of perspectives, continuing in the legacy of the RSV, who spent years taking pains so that it would be in accordance with the latest scholarship. The ESV is the product of a group of elite evangelicals whining about gender-inclusiveness in the NIV and buying the rights to the RSV, which did not use gender-inclusive language, so they could present such a translation to their audiences while papering over other parts that made them uncomfortable.
The ESV is literally just a copy-paste of the RSV. The vast majority of it is word for word the same. Obviously it’s going to have passages in common with the NRSV, which used the RSV as its base. The difference is that one is a revision and one is an appropriation.
@@Narikku You didn’t understand anything I said.
The NRSV came out 12 years before the ESV. The NRSV was the product of bona fide scholars from a wide spectrum of perspectives, continuing in the legacy of the RSV, who spent years taking pains so that it would be in accordance with the latest scholarship. The ESV is the product of a group of elite evangelicals whining about gender-inclusiveness in the NIV and buying the rights to the RSV, which did not use gender-inclusive language, so they could present such a translation to their audiences while papering over other parts that made them uncomfortable.
The ESV is literally just a copy-paste of the RSV. The vast majority of it is word for word the same. Obviously it’s going to have passages in common with the NRSV, which used the RSV as its base. The difference is that one is a revision and one is an appropriation.
As I said, my point isn’t that the ESV literally did not make any individual textual changes whatsoever that were not themselves a product of evangelical bias. I am talking about the project as a whole. I don’t think I can be any clearer.
@@Narikku You don’t get what I’ve said. Everything you’re saying is some kind of weird strawman. You’re fundamentally misunderstanding every single point I’m making. I don’t really think this is worth continuing.
@@Jd-808you're misunderstanding him. I'll even propose that ESV's preference for the DSS is more reflective of that academic consensus of liberal & critical scholars. Dr McLellan is just whining about "misogyny" because he's a liberal-not because ESV is a less accurate rendering of texts written in a patriachal/misogynistic ancient world
Sorry, it's not clear why the ESV is not a good translation of the Bible, which is the title of the clip. You make the claim that it's a "complementarian, mysogenist translation" of the Bible, but offer no explanation why
I think he makes it quite clear. They are translating words with gender neutral meanings in the original language using words with gendered meanings in English just because the words in the original language are grammatically gendered. That's not an accurate translation.
@@thomasdalton1508Sure, but this lone example seems a very thin basis to assert that the ESV is a "complementarian, mysogenist" translation, or even not a good translation at all. I'd have thought more forceful examples would be provided.
@@whizler It isn't a lone example. It is the entire purpose of the translation. They created it precisely and explicitly in order to make these literal (and incorrect) translations of gendered words.
The claim that it is misogynistic requires an inference about their true intentions, but it is difficult to see why else they would want this translation if not to use it to support their misogyny.
@@thomasdalton1508"Conservative evangelical Christians need a complementarian, mysogenist Bible and therefore they produced one in the ESV" is I'm afraid not a very persuasive argument. At least to me. I'd expect specific examples (multiple) of how texts were fundamentally mis-translated in order to support such an argument. Such skepticism is part-and-parcel why I reject religious claims.
@@whizler Have you taken a look at Perry's papers that Dan cites?
This was REALLY interesting. I'd LOVE to hear more about this!!!!!
Damn, that’s crazy. My bro-in-law carries the ESV with him like it’s his child. Haha!
New red flag, unlocked. 😂
@@ChanaMcNana 😂
Probably because it is a good Bible. Keeps the poetry and is on the literal side. And it says “brothers” instead of brother’s and sisters, because that is what the Hebrews and Greek says.
God said the earth shall pass away but his word would never pass away. He said he would preserve his word for all the generations. This is why I have a hard time bordering believe that we have had a preserved word God all this time till the codex Vaticanus was “found” was God a liar?
I own manny different translations of the Bible. But I find myself having to fall back on my kjv because I found too many errors/ mistranslations/ missing verses and even changes is basic Christian fundamental beliefs.
The 1 thing I can say with 100% certainty. Most of us don’t speak ancient Hebrew or Greek so we are relying upon accurate translations or for “learned” people to direct us in the write direction. And everyone has their own agenda from the translators to those who except and recommend these translations. So be in the Spirit of God and ask him to reveal the script and help you discern if it’s a false teaching.
I love you all my brothers and God bless.
Ah, the ESV, the preferred translation of the PCA, home to such "luminaries" as Tim Keller and Marsha Blackburn.
Could you explain what you have against them? I'm not a defender of theirs or anything. I just don't know anything about Marsha Blackburn and I only know Tim Keller made some conservatives mad a few years ago by saying that Republican was not synonymous with Christian, but basically nothing else.
ESV = Nah, I'm good.
Eah Sm Vood
Was the biblical period & it's writers not patriachal? Then by what logic is a misogynistic translation not the the most accurate one?????
ESV= Evangelical Standard Version
Figures. I saw the people who promoted this translation and looked at their identity politics.
They got little good things to say the least...
I'm interested in you delving more into this topic, please! It sounds like both of the Bible versions were inaccurate then as they were both trying to change language for gender sake. What did the OG stuff say is mostly what i would care about
I majored in New Testament textual criticism at UGA and have been reading the NA 28 Greek New Testsment for 30+ years and I think the ESV is quite good. You must bear in mind that the culture and time period in which it was written would be considered quite patriarchal and only a fool would exercise revisionism to suit their hermeneutics. The Bible says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. I say learn the languages yourself and don’t let RUclips scholars guide your thinking.
Thank you!
Any thoughts as to which translation is as close to the original source, both in word and meaning?
I would like to know more. I want to preface my question by saying I am not a Christian and have no stake in the matter. That being said, with the Bible being written in a male-dominated time, would those verses actually be gender-neutral to the original audience? While I am all for inclusivity, I also understand the desire to accurately translate the meaning of the original text (warts and all, like the slavery verses).
@revilo178 Dan does say at the end of the video that it is a misogynistic translation. To rephrase my question: Is not the Bible already somewhat misogynistic in some places and translating them to be more gender-neutral is perhaps going against the original intent of the text? While it would sadly support their view and reduce the inclusivity, it might also be more accurate to the original intent of the text? As I mentioned before, I am not a Christian and fully support inclusivity. However, I can also see where there can be tension here.
@revilo178 Thanks for the insight Revilo. :) I'd still like Dan to expand upon this topic, though perhaps he has elsewhere.
It's like translating "amigos" in Spanish as "male friends" in English. While the word is grammatically masculine, the meaning is gender neutral since in Spanish gender neutral plurals take the masculine. That's just how the language works. If you say "amigos" to Spanish speakers they aren't going to assume that you are just talking about men simply because the word is grammatically masculine.
English used to do much the same thing until it began to change around the mid-20th century. Read anything from before then and you'll often see "he" used as a gender neutral pronoun. It would not have been interpreted as referring only to men if that isn't what the context suggests.
I only studied Biblical Hebrew not Greek in seminary, but in that language (through to 200 BCE) all pronouns are male for individuals, groups, or mixed groups UNLESS the individual or group were EXCLUSIVELY women. So in modern English it would be misleading to translate plural pronouns as male-only unless the text otherwise made it clear only men were being addressed.
Side note: also why it’s significant that the Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2 has a FEMALE pronoun attached to the action of “hovering”, yet “literal” translations like the ESV don’t include a pronoun…
It’s also explicitly biased toward Calvinist theology.
IP uses the ESV when he quotes from the Bible. I love hearing the histories on all the different translations. It's so cool.
I appreciate knowing this because everybody from the Catholics to the Pentecostals is using the ESV now. Do you know if Ted Haggard was involved in the Colorado Springs meeting? Though closeted, he was a big "conservative" movement leader in Colorado at the time.
ESV are just fine 🤦🏻♂️
The most ironic thing is that in the majority of cases, the ESV is just as gender inclusive as NIV 2011. It's mainly the passages where "anthropous" are in a position of authority that it's left translated as "men."
Yeah when I tell people God said "it's not good for the human being to be alone", they try to correct me and say, no it's "the man".
I never realized until recently just how much theology and politics I formed the different translations. I had some notion that readability and language updates for clarity were part of the reasoning, but that conservative evangelicals would deliberately create translations that were intentionally poor for their own theological ends was a mystery to me.
Because this isn’t true.
In Acts 2:47 salvation is a one-time finished salvation, but in the ESV it is a process. It’s not “saved,” but a continual process of “being saved.” In the ESV’s and Hort’s twisted salvation, at what point does someone actually become “saved” and no longer “being saved”?
Notice Acts 2:47 in the KJV, "Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."
Then notice Acts 2:47 in the ESV "praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved."
Notice the same perversion in 1 Corinthians 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." KJV
"For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." ESV
See also 1 Corinthians 15:2, 2 Corinthians 2:15, Colossians 2:10
And the ESV removes the name of “Jesus” 18 times! And it removes “Jesus Christ” 51 times, and the designation “Christ” 39 times, the “Lord” 66 times, and “God” 38 times.
The ESV completely removes the following 17 verses:
Matthew 12:47 - Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 17:21 - Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matthew 18:11 - For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Matthew 23:14 - Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mark 7:16 - If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mark 9:44 - Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:46 - Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 11:26 - But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Mark 15:28 - 28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Luke 17:36 - Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 22:44 - And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Luke 23:17 - (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
John 5:4 - For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Acts 8:37 - And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 15:34 - Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Acts 24:7 (note half of Acts 24:6 and 24:8 is also removed) - 7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
Acts 28:29 - And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Romans 16:24 - The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
So what bible translation would you recomend for thise of us who are linguistically challenged, (aka from the USA)
Dan and other scholars tend to recommend the excellent NRSV (now in is latest revision, the NRSV-UE).
That explains why Answers In Genesis love the ESV!
Can you give any examples of how their misogyny and complementarian rhetoric worked their way into the ESV?
0:59 “crash the Earth into the sun” Most excellent. That sounds not far removed from the usual measured rhetoric of our good evangelical brothers 😅
Gays cause localized flooding is probably still my favorite 😂
What are your thoughts on the New Jerusalem and the NRSV?
I'd like to hear more about the whitewashing of the ESV
ESV is top 3 English translations of all time. Word for word closest thing to the original next to NASB 95’ and KJV.
That's incorrect and you're commenting on a video from a guy who speaks biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek, so if he's saying it's inaccurate then he's worth listening to.
I never knew this. Thanks for sharing. ❤
Do U have a video on the anonymity of the gosiples. A lot of Christians I spoke to say it is not annoymos Caz early church father. Agree these gosiples are. Written by them
Why ,the red hot chilly peppers? Are you getting paid for advertising? Sure ESV is translated by Calvinists.
What about the AMPLIFIED? Where does that fall when it comes to decent translations? Thanks for so much great information.
Ha I grew up in Colorado Springs. Lots of mega churches there.
Isn’t Focus on the Family based there?
Yep. They are a huge political force in that community, at least when I was there.
Aloha Dan, What is your thought on the “Eastern translation of the Bible from Aramic of the Peshita, known as the “Lamsa Bible?” Thx
hey dan i have a question. do you think moses was originally understood to have had his skin horned, or is the more mainstream interpretation of moses' disfigurement in exodus 34 generally correct when it asserts that moses' skin was shining?
Actually it's one of the best..
Yeah, I have made a long form video on this very topic: 3 Problems with the ESV
ruclips.net/video/FsBxa0HoHz4/видео.html.
Definitely an issue worth talking about.
Is Blood, Sugar, Sex Magik your favorite Chili Peppers album?
Tbh the reader De-gendering words like "brothers" when they're said in a specific context makes more sense that writing an 'inclusive' version. Is the dog wagging the tail or what? You'll never be able to include everyone if you start that game, tell me what version of the LGBTQ flag are they onto now? Eventually you go too far and no one will feel represented.
I'm finding my faith in my late 20s, I have bought an esv study bible on reviews of people saying its a literal translation that's readable, and the crossways bible having very comprehensive study notes that are written by committee and not just one person's opinion.
Once I have read and understood the new testament, I will buy a KJV version and read that. On the contrary, gender politics (and all the other decadence in the modern world) and the affiliation of atheism has pushed me to Jesus and his teachings.
Just wow! How insecure do you have to be to do something so unscrupulous?
You can't even mistranslate ancient documents anymore, because of woke
Dan, could you add some links to those papers in the description?
Hey Dan is the MSG translation of Nahum 2:1 an accurate one? I'm just a bit concerned for the children of the atom.
The MSG isn't an academically credible translation! It's one thing for credentialed scholars to translate with some bias - it's another thing when a translation like MSG is made up by people who have no PhDs
In the 90’s I was always told how we don’t need gender inclusive language because everyone knows that “man” means “mankind” and includes everyone
Now I’m always told how we shouldn’t have inclusive language because everyone knows that “man” only means men and not women
It seems something got lost in translation, as it were
I am a new Christian, I was recommended the ESV as an easy translation to the bible. I am currently reading it but will upgrade to a better version once I'm a bit further in to the journey. What do you guys recommend as a good version of the bible.
I am an atheist raised in a Christian family, but Dan and scholars recommend RSV or more particularly NRSV or more particularly, "The New Annotated Oxford Bible".
Fail-Safe Bible is the NASB..., the RSV and its siblings are too Roman Catholic leaning. Meaning of the verses have Works based salvation inserted instead of Saved by grace. Obedience instead of belief Etc.
I'm a King James version guy but I dare not mention that here for fear of attack name-calling and even worse LOL NASB all the way !!
Thanks both.
Most scholars recommend the NRSV or it's update, the NRSVue. This is also the version I see used most often in progressive and mainline churches. But if you're a new Christian in an Evangelical church, they'll likely discourage you from using the NRSV because it's seen as too liberal.
I always recommend looking up how the transition came to be, who sponsored it, and who was involved in translation, and what translation approaches were used, because that will tell you how it might be biased. Like Dan says, the ESV was sponsored by Evangelical groups who didn't like other translations using gender neutral terms rather than male-centric terms (ie "people" instead of "man"). NASB was also produced by conservative evangelical denominations. KJV was commissioned and sponsored by the King of England in response to the Calvinist and anti-monarchial Geneva Bible, and done entirely by Church of England clergy.
Bible translation tier list!
In 1 minute 49 seconds he proves that ESV not good translation can you imagine??
Data not dogma. Where’s the speech at said gathering about crashing into the sun? Jk😂
Thoughts on NABRE ?
Okay thoughts on NLT????
I don’t understand the popularity of the NIV. I know there are KJV only people that strongly condemn the NIV but I am not one of them. I have to admit that I know almost nothing about the NIV so I am not qualified to discuss it. I grew up with the KJV but now my main Bible is a Spanish edition (Reina-Valera 1960). I have also heard that it is not the best Spanish version but I don’t know what now would be the best Spanish version. I do have an NKJV as well as an NRSV to which I can refer if I don’t understand the Spanish. I may have an ESV but if I do I haven’t looked at it yet.
I'm not surprised that such a thing could have happened, but could you please back up allegations with facts. Provide specific examples where the ESV is inaccurate because of identity politics.
I find some parts of the NIV terrible, adding words that simply aren't there, or changing the meaning of words that are there. Like 1 Pet 1.13 added the words "at his coming" that are absent from the original, and "former desires" in 1 Pet 1.14 was changed to "evil desires". What were they, wanted criminals?
I'll stick with my New Jerusalem Bible.
What do you think about the NIV?
What about NIV, NKJV, NASB?
Ah come one. You left me hanging on the details. Any videos or articles (aside from those presented in the video) ?
This is probably why but I'm not certain, that those who are of the reformed faith love the ESV . Just a hunch
A good translation is one that see's the original Greek/Hebrew word "Brother" and then translates that into English as "Brother" .. pretty much plain ol common sense there. If the original thought of the orginal author is Misogynistic , then it should be translated in a Misogynistic tone, just like the original author intended .. anything else would be a lie
ESV stands for:
EGREGIOUSLY
SLEAZY
VARIANT
The only "English Standard" Bible is the Authorized King James Version.
So… uh… do you wanna provide some examples of that claim? 😂
Not really much details here
What is a good bible translation?
Nkjv?
What was the moe inclusive Bible they were objecting to? Has it been published anywhere?
It is the NIVi!
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version_Inclusive_Language_Edition
@@deepsea313 Thanks!
Aside from the political ideologies, is the ESV considered accurate overall? I’ve heard that it is an accurate translation if you set aside the complementarianism.
After a 40 year break from the NASB I started reading the Bible again, though I do not believe it this time. I gotta say, I started back with the HCSB, which is a pleasure to read. I am using a NRSV now and I like that too. I have read a little in the ESV and I thought it reads well enough, I didn't notice the complementarian stuff so much until it was pointed out to me.
I will have to take you guy's word on this, I have a paper copy New English Bible that I like and one of the NRSV, I have a HCSB on my Kindle and of course, there is always Biblegateway. I am just gonna skip the ESV. I got all the Bibles I need, except maybe a Spanish version, but not yet, I have to study some more.
Of all translations, which is the most accurate?
That's a question that's been debated for centuries. Bottom line is, do you want a Roman Catholic Bible, or do you want a Bible the Catholic church outlawed?
Do you want a Bible the early church that went to Asia Minor up into Europe used.., or do you want a Bible that the scholars and learned and universities adhered to in Egypt?
The most common answer regarding accuracy would probably be the NASB. If you're a newbie Christian, I would get that and read it until it fell apart. Everyday, 10 chapters a day, Professor Grant Horner 10 chapter A Day Bible reading plan. Your Christian walk will never be the same.
Myself I'm a King James guy and the authorized version is my absolute favorite for integrity accuracy and effectiveness.
It worked well in this country for about 200 years until the new versions from West cotton hort came on the scene.
There might be some comments after mine calling me nuts are crazy or other things. But if you get the NASB and read that as much as you can, you're going to be just fine.
God bless you, great question. All glory to my amazing Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who suffered and died for me so I can live forever.
Dan usually recommends the NRSV, specifically the New Oxford Annotated Bible I believe it’s called
Much ado about nothing. You sound like the one with an agenda.
No actual substantiated claims or examples provided, felt like a waste of time sorry.
Just to clarify, the ESV is published by Crossway, not Zondervan. It was indeed a result of the conservative backlash against the NIVI, and later the TNIV. (Also, I still miss the TNIV, the short-lived, somewhat more gender-inclusive revision of the NIV. I think it was a good version that didn't get a fair chance, due to the conservative hue and cry.)
Also, while I make no claim to having anywhere near the authority on the subject that Dan has, I would question whether the ESV is a bad translation, or whether it is a matter of its translation committee having motivations that are suspect. After all, estimates that I've seen over the years indicate that only about 6% of the ESV's text is different from the RSV. So whereas I believe that the NRSV is a better update to the RSV than the ESV is, I wouldn't see the ESV as being absolutely worthless. One more thing to clarify that Dan didn't mention in the video is that, in most places where the ESV translators decided to retain masculine language (as in the translation of adelphoi, for example), there is a footnote that reads along the lines of, "Or, brothers and sisters." So, while I find it a bit disingenuous to leave the masculine reading in the main text while relegating the more inclusive reading to the footnotes, at least the translators are sharing their rationale.
I think Dr. Mark Strauss's critique on the ESV, "Why the English Standard Version Should Not Become the Standard English Version," is well worth reading, for a bit more in-depth look at some of the drawbacks of the version. zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf
In the end it is whatever each person needs to read and wants to read for their faith .
Look at the LDS and even the Book of Mormon and it’s English used .
It needs it for the faith of the LDS
Tomatoe tomato
What a joke of a video. No substance whatsoever.
So interesting to hear you say this. I feel the ESV has a rather Mormon flavor to it.
The irony being that the vast majority of English-speaking Mormons wouldn't dare use the ESV. They're pretty set on the KJV published by the LDS church, which includes cross references to the Book of Mormon and footnotes of Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Bible (in quotations because process-wise it is clearly a revision, not a translation).
Some Mormons will occasionally look at NIV or NRSV to try to make sense of the KJV's Shakespearean English, but very very few are using anything other than KJV as their main translation.
ty
Schmidt Port
27203 Bashirian Passage
There us no good translation of the bible. The first Greek translation was probably wrong in a few areas.
019 Chanelle Well
What about the NAB-RE, NLT, and NRSV?
NLT = New Living Translation is a paraphrase, not a word-for-word translation. Not a bad, thing, necessarily, but it approaches the text thought-for-thought instead of more literally.
NAB-RE = This is the revised version of the New American Bible, a modern translation for Catholics and the version used in the Lectionary in the U.S. Personally I think it's really great, with copious notes that go into scholarly detail, though it does toe the Catholic line.
NRSV = This one's the one with the most scholarly consensus across the board and which Dan and other scholars like Bart Ehrman use. Also contains lots of notes, and it's the version that the New Oxford Annotated Bible and the SBL Study Bible (formerly the Harper Collins Study Bible) use. Dan even has a sidebar mini-feature in Exodus in the SBL Study Bible. The NRSV is more scholarly than most, much to the disappointment of conservative evangelicals. The most recent revision of the NRSV come out just last year, and is called the NRSV-UE (Updated Edition). The SBL Study Bible is the only study Bible that currently uses the NRSV-UE; the New Oxford Annotated will probably have a new edition out in the next couple of years.
Hope that helps!
I like reading the NLT when I want to get the general idea of a piece of scripture and then the NRSVua to do a little more checking into the idea that is being presented. The NET 2nd edition is kind of neat in that it has copious translation notes and their reasons for choosing a particular word over another.
@@tchristianphoto What does the NRSV-UE entail? I only have a copy of the NRSV that was published in 2003
Also, to defend the NLT-CE, I think it has the most balanced translation of the Old Testament due to using a combination of the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Dead Sea Scrolls as a basis, and since those maniscripts were written in a high context culture, paraphrasing is definitely helpful for people who don't have a firm grasp on Biblical Hebrew.
Bro said a lot of words
Then why not just go KJV or NASB?
Those also have biases, as do all translations. There are different styles of translation, different source texts and combinations of source texts, and different ways of saying the same thing with a slightly different meaning - you need to be aware of who, what, when, where, why, and how a translation was made in order to understand it's biases and know if they are slanted toward or away from your personal theology.
KJV was commissioned by the King of England in response to concerns about the Geneva Bible having a calvinistic anti-monarchy bent, and was translated entirely by Church of England clergy. It was also done over 400 years ago, and we have found more ancient manuscripts and come up with better translation techniques since then. If you're looking for a poetic Bible KJV is the way to go; but if you're looking for accuracy and integrity to the original text, or an unbiased translation by a team of diverse scholars, it ain't it.
NASB was translated by conservative and fundamentalist evangelical denominations with the intent of updating the ASV and providing a conservative alternative to the RSV which was considered too liberal. Unlike the KJV, NASB seeks to hold to the original structure of the source text rather than make it pretty in English, but it was still produced with an agenda by a group of people with a specific theological stance.
Fermin Path
That's pretty clear!