ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
I've used the NET Bible for some time and consider it excellent. I don't think I would bother with the ESV because they tend toward masculine language instead of heeding the literal meanings of some Greek words.

Ultimately one should make use of the original languages somehow.

Scripture4all.org is a good online place to view the Scriptures in original languages in interlinear form.
I go hot and cold over NET - sometimes its wording is just so uggh.

I'm looking at Isaiah 11 this morning:
11:9b For there will be universal submission to the Lord's sovereignty just as the waters completely cover the sea.

What a mess of the poetry.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Exegetist,
I've used the NET Bible for some time and consider it excellent. I don't think I would bother with the ESV because they tend toward masculine language instead of heeding the literal meanings of some Greek words.

Ultimately one should make use of the original languages somehow.

Scripture4all.org is a good online place to view the Scriptures in original languages in interlinear form.
I read the Greek New Testament and exegete it. But there is still controversy over the correct translations of the Greek words anthropos and adelphos.

You want translators to "make use of the original languages somehow" and I agree. But the use of an egalitarian translation that gets rid of the masculine translation of anthropos and adelphos still does not address the correct translation of the original.

How do we know that anthropos means men and women or a person, and adelophos means brother and sister?

Since you are an "exegetist" by name, please demonstrate to me the etymology of anthropos and adelphos that shows egalitarian translations.

Thanks, Spencer
 
Upvote 0

Exegetist

Newbie
Nov 24, 2007
167
18
✟7,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But the use of an egalitarian translation that gets rid of the masculine translation of anthropos and adelphos still does not address the correct translation of the original.

Little busy with research right now, almost missed this.

There is no such thing as an 'egalitarian' translation. One should not translate words and intents of Scripture with a bent toward masculinizing them. Unfortunately, this is exactly what ESV has done and even says so somewhere in their introduction.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Exegetist,
I'm not a Greek scholar. But I can point you to one that is easily available on the net. I know of a few , but this one has word studies that are easily understood and thorough.
One easily available on the net may or may not provide lexicon definitions. By the way, you didn't provide a link to this resource "that is easily available on the net".

It is difficult for you to dispute the meaning of anthropos and adelphos if you don't know and access the Greek lexical resources.

Sincerely, Spencer
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Exegetist,
Little busy with research right now, almost missed this.

There is no such thing as an 'egalitarian' translation. One should not translate words and intents of Scripture with a bent toward masculinizing them. Unfortunately, this is exactly what ESV has done and even says so somewhere in their introduction.
Egalitarian means equality of male and female. If a version has a tendency to use the masculine noun and pronoun for, say, anthropos and adelphos, aren't you saying that the ESV is not treatment men and women equally with its translation? If that is the case, you seem to have a problem with a sexist (masculine emphasis) vs. an egalitarian (male and female) translation.

Perhaps a better term, instead of egalitarian would be non-sexist.

Sincerely, Spencer
 
Upvote 0

Exegetist

Newbie
Nov 24, 2007
167
18
✟7,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If a version has a tendency to use the masculine noun and pronoun for, say, anthropos and adelphos, aren't you saying that the ESV is not treatment men and women equally with its translation?

I'm saying that using primarily masculine nouns and pronouns is improper when the passages do not warrant it, or when the context indicates a person rather than a male person. It's not about treating men and women equally, but about properly handling the original languages in translation.

I repeat that there is no such thing as an egalitarian translation, and there shouldn't be. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as a masculinist translation, which holds a bent for including masculine terms even when the original language and the context do not call for it.
 
Upvote 0

Exegetist

Newbie
Nov 24, 2007
167
18
✟7,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
here is where to search for information about adelphos and anthropos.

powerscourt.blogspot.com Just put the words adelphos and anthropos in the search box in the upper left of the page and it will find the info for you. Also, her latest post give the link to something written up about gender language and the ESV.

I'm new here so I cannot post real links. This particular linguist is well researched and offers info freely in easy to understand terms. She also will dialogue respectfully. I know of a few others but they are much more difficult to reach and to dialogue with.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Exegetist,
I'm saying that using primarily masculine nouns and pronouns is improper when the passages do not warrant it, or when the context indicates a person rather than a male person. It's not about treating men and women equally, but about properly handling the original languages in translation.

I repeat that there is no such thing as an egalitarian translation, and there shouldn't be. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as a masculinist translation, which holds a bent for including masculine terms even when the original language and the context do not call for it.
You were the one who told me that you do not understand NT Greek, but you are wanting to take a stance on the meaning of adelphos (adelphoi, plural nominative case) and anthropos (plural adelphoi).

How can you make such decisions when you don't understand the Greek language?

Regards, Spencer
 
Upvote 0

Exegetist

Newbie
Nov 24, 2007
167
18
✟7,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You were the one who told me that you do not understand NT Greek

Didn't say that. I get around fairly well in the Greek. But I'm not a Greek scholar or linguist. I know it enough to disagree with what has been proposed on these words. But if you want a well researched linguists study of these, I gave you the webpage of one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

papaJP

Prophet
Nov 15, 2010
493
23
Kerrville, Texas
✟15,783.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I use for devotional reading the NRSV. However I have over 80 translations in my computer and study using different version when I am doing critical analysis or word studies. I do not believe that any translation is better for all. God will give you the interpretation and knowledge you seek if you will be still and listen.
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
It belongs in the trash (likewise the forthcoming Editions) just like all other versions that are being forced on people and/or hyped such as the NIV84/TNIV/NIV11, NWT, The Voice, LEB/LES, newest NLT Edition.

Use these versions instead: 1971 RSV, NETS - New English Translation of the Septuagint - available in Accordance (not to be confused with NET which is a completely different version), 2009 Comprehensive New Testament (available in Accordance as Comprehensive Bible/Crossref), REB (Revised English Bible), 2004 Good News Translation 3rd Edition UK-English 66-book Bible (can be purchased from bookdepository.co.uk), NRSV for parts of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. See: http://www.christianforums.com/t7802759-post65551665/#poststop ... for a sale and also search for NRSV Apocrypha in the Logos store for a sale on the Reverse Interlinear NRSV Apocrypha (excluding 4 Ezra which was written in Greek but preserved in Latin) - the sales last until the end of May 2014.
NABRE, RSV-2CE and NJB can be used gingerly. Note that the RSV-2CE New Testament is a language-update only of the 1946 RSV New Testament, so it's not the most recent Edition from 1971. There is an 8-translation parallel Apocrypha as printed matter which includes for example NJB, NRSV and Knox, the parallel Edition is edited by John R. Kohlenberger III, has introductions and is the size of a regular Bible in hardback.
I have a print copy of the CEB Apocrypha, and I have just the CEB New Testament in OliveTree which I bought on a sale (I have extremely little in OliveTree and not expanding my library there and not pleased that Zondervan bought the company). I haven't read much in it yet and am not going to buy the Old Testament even though I would like to see where it footnotes the Septuagint/LXX as differing from the Hebrew but I don't like the English translation of the Hebrew:
What are your opinions on the Evangelical Standard Version of the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
It belongs in the trash (likewise the forthcoming Editions) just like all other versions that are being forced on people and/or hyped such as the NIV84/TNIV/NIV11, NWT, The Voice, LEB/LES, newest NLT Edition.

Use these versions instead: 1971 RSV, NETS - New English Translation of the Septuagint - available in Accordance (not to be confused with NET which is a completely different version), 2009 Comprehensive New Testament (available in Accordance as Comprehensive Bible/Crossref), REB (Revised English Bible), 2004 Good News Translation 3rd Edition UK-English 66-book Bible (can be purchased from bookdepository.co.uk), NRSV for parts of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. See: http://www.christianforums.com/t7802759-post65551665/#poststop ... for a sale and also search for NRSV Apocrypha in the Logos store for a sale on the Reverse Interlinear NRSV Apocrypha (excluding 4 Ezra which was written in Greek but preserved in Latin) - the sales last until the end of May 2014.
NABRE, RSV-2CE and NJB can be used gingerly. Note that the RSV-2CE New Testament is a language-update only of the 1946 RSV New Testament, so it's not the most recent Edition from 1971. There is an 8-translation parallel Apocrypha as printed matter which includes for example NJB, NRSV and Knox, the parallel Edition is edited by John R. Kohlenberger III, has introductions and is the size of a regular Bible in hardback.
I have a print copy of the CEB Apocrypha, and I have just the CEB New Testament in OliveTree which I bought on a sale (I have extremely little in OliveTree and not expanding my library there and not pleased that Zondervan bought the company). I haven't read much in it yet and am not going to buy the Old Testament even though I would like to see where it footnotes the Septuagint/LXX as differing from the Hebrew but I don't like the English translation of the Hebrew:
So what's your problem with the English Standard Version (ESV), which is an update of the RSV?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
The Evangelical Standard Version (ESV) has NO new scholarship whatsoever. I'm perfectly able to align ANY New Testament version by myself with the latest 2012 NA28 Greek New Testament so I really don't need the ESV to do any such decisions on my behalf, I also believe Comfort's New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (available in Accordance) offers better decisions on which variants to choose. Since 2004 I'm also aware of in which New Testament verses the older Greek New Testament Editions from the '60s-'90s differ between each other thanks to a book that I have.
The only thing the ESV introduces is both non-deliberate and deliberate bias. Almost all of the translators/scholars working on it were Reformed. It has Fundamentalist Evangelical bias. The only reason why the Catholic Church in some countries is tweaking the ESV is because they were not able to get the rights to tweak the NRSV (which would have been a tremendously much better choice for a version to tweak and from which to remove gender-neutral language):
So what's your problem with the English Standard Version (ESV), which is an update of the RSV?
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
The Evangelical Standard Version (ESV) has NO new scholarship whatsoever. I'm perfectly able to align ANY New Testament version by myself with the latest 2012 NA28 Greek New Testament so I really don't need the ESV to do any such decisions on my behalf, I also believe Comfort's New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (available in Accordance) offers better decisions on which variants to choose. Since 2004 I'm also aware of in which New Testament verses the older Greek New Testament Editions from the '60s-'90s differ between each other thanks to a book that I have.
The only thing the ESV introduces is both non-deliberate and deliberate bias. Almost all of the translators/scholars working on it were Reformed. It has Fundamentalist Evangelical bias. The only reason why the Catholic Church in some countries is tweaking the ESV is because they were not able to get the rights to tweak the NRSV (which would have been a tremendously much better choice for a version to tweak and from which to remove gender-neutral language):
It is the English Standard Version and not the Evangelical Standard Version.

I note that you provide not one example of the ESV's 'Fundamentalist Evangelical bias' in your post. Not one! That hardly presents a fair case for your accusations against a new Bible translation.
 
Upvote 0

Unix

Hebr incl Sirach&epigraph, Hermeneut,Ptolemy,Samar
Supporter
Nov 29, 2003
2,567
84
42
ECC,Torah:ModeCommenta,OTL,AY BC&RL,Seow a ICC Job
Visit site
✟139,217.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I don't mean to "tag" on to your thread this way, but considering you guys are discussing bibles...what do you think of the NKJV Study Bible? This is the one that I am currently using.
I have a copy of the NKJV but not the study Bible.

My major difficulty with the NKJV is that it still retains use of the Textus Receptus as the basis for NT translation. I find the TR provides an inadequate base for NT translation (I read and have taught NT Greek). I prefer the Critical Text of the USB Greek NT, that is used by other modern translations such as the ESV, NIV, NRSV, etc.

Oz
 
Upvote 0