English Standard Version

[JM]

No one said the ESV was corrupt based on it's support of the NCC...I believe it's corrupt because it mingles many conflicting manuscripts. But that's just me.

 

[Knight]

No one said the ESV was corrupt based on it's support of the NCC...I believe it's corrupt because it mingles many conflicting manuscripts. But that's just me.

That is a completely different discussion that goes well beyond any single translation.

Regardless, it appeared to me that the ESV was being tried and convicted based upon who the money may have been going to. Forgive me if this was in error.

 

[Elderone]

Regardless, it appeared to me that the ESV was being tried and convicted based upon who the money may have been going to. Forgive me if this was in error.

The translation was being discussed only in regard to royalties that may be paid to organization(s) that weren't worthy of Christians support.

 

[JM]

Some months later, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor Wayne Grudem and Crossway President Lane Dennis entered into negotiations with the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version as the basis for a new translation. An agreement was reached in September 1998 allowing translators freedom to modify the original text of the RSV as necessary to rid it of de-Christianing translation choices.

Anymore info on this verison? The pastor I study with uses it and it's very close to the KJV.

 

[Jon_]

My only beef with the ESV thus far is that it improperly translates Rev. 16:9.

They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory. (ESV)

And the people were scorched with great heat, and the people blasphemed the name of God, the One having authority over these plagues, and they did not repent [so as] to give to Him glory. (ALT)
​

The literal translation of the text clearly shows that God is glorified by the unrepentance of the blasphemers (naturally, as all things are ordained by God unto his glory). Yet, the ESV, along with other far less literal translations (NIV, NLT, CEV) imposes an improper theological bias on the text and renders it to read that the blasphemers deprived God of glory. Their intentions might not have been to glorify him, but nonetheless, they did, as they fulfilled his sovereign decree.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Anymore info on this verison? The pastor I study with uses it and it's very close to the KJV.

If the Textus Receptus was used as the original manuscript, that could explain much of the similarity.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon