I don’t know what came over me, but for I have sinned -
Sep 09 2009
Bible Translations and the Case for an Essentially Literal Approach
Sam, a commentator on this blog, dropped this link yesterday – though y’all might find it interesting:
What are the differences between Bible translations? How should one choose a translation? How do you know if a translation is accurate? Leland Ryken’s new book, Understanding the English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach hit the Crossway warehouse on the same day that Fox News and USA Today featured articles on Bible translations and revisions.
Taking into account the latest developments in Bible translation, Ryken clarifies the issues that underlie modern Bible translation and makes a strong case for an essentially literal approach.
Leland Ryken agreed to answer a few timely questions for us on the blog this week. Join us here tomorrow for his Q&A.
Find it here: Crossway.blog » Bible Translations and the Case for an Essentially Literal Approach.
Sep 05 2009
The Gender Inclusive Language of the English Standard Version
Considering that John Piper has come down hard – and not just him – on the use of gender inclusive language, I thought we should make sure he was telling the truth about the ESV being free of such vileness. So, we briefly examine several verses compared between the KJV and the ESV.
Continue reading “The Gender Inclusive Language of the English Standard Version”
Sep 05 2009
For Piper is way, way, way, way off
I am a novice at bible translation, but even I know that a ‘literal translation’ is not exactly literal. I wonder if the ESV uses all the ‘O’s’ in the text? Or the ‘the’s’ as in ‘the God, the Christ’ when it is rarely translated in our English bibles.
Jul 06 2009
The Rising ESV-Onlyism and Gender-Inclusive Language
Let’s rehearse:
There is renewed talk about the ESV, which began, I am surmising, in the wake of some favourable posts about this translation a few weeks ago. CD-host took up the topic, and then Aberration blog, and now Polycarp and Onward, Forward, Toward. (From Suzanne)
And then from here:
It may come a surprise to some in the current controversy over gender-inclusive language that both Tyndale and the KJV translators included gender inclusive words in their translations. Instead of the more literal ’sons of Israel,’ from the Hebrew word ‘ben’ meaning ’sons,’ the KJV used the more inclusive ‘children of Israel’ hundreds of times in the Old Testament. Likewise, in the New Testament, both Tyndale and the KJV translators translated the Greek word for ’son’ (hoios) as ‘children’ 42 times. For example Matt 5:9 states, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children (hoios) of God.” Had the KJV only recently introduced these changes to earlier versions that had instead used ’sons of Israel’ and ’sons of God,’ the KJV might well have been attacked for being gender-inclusive.
The problem the argument from Sproul and others of the ESV-Only camp is that it is hypocritical (I’ll forgo the use of ‘purposely dishonest rhetoric’, for the moment).
Examining the point made above, however briefly, we find that in Genesis 32.32, the ESV, for all of it’s move ‘toward biblical accuracy’ proves a bit gender inclusive:
Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew that shrank. (Genesis 32:32 KJVA)
Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip on the sinew of the thigh. (Genesis 32:32 ESV)
The Hebrew is literally ’sons of Israel.’ In Genesis 36.31, while the KJV translates the word בּן as ‘children” while the ESV glosses over the fact by merely saying ‘Israelites.’
While you and I would bore easily going through the over 600 times that the phrase appears in the Scriptures, a cursory examination reveals that while the ESV is more ‘literal’ sometimes, it is not always so. Further, we have a distinct history in English translations – going back to Tyndale, the Bishops’, the Geneva, and even Mace, where gender inclusiveness is allowed, to a point.
Do you really think that the Scriptures only refer to men when it says ’sons,’ ‘men,’ or ‘brothers?’ Rest assured, it is nothing new to translate these words to reflect both genders. The problem that I have with the rising tide of ESV-Onlyism is that if dismisses the long strides which we have made in bible translation. Further, the dishonesty is distracting to unbelievers, and believers alike, because it creates doubt in the underpinning of men who should be men of God.
For a more detailed look at the ESV-Onlyism, click here.
Jul 05 2009
Are Calvinists turning into ESV-Onlies?
I know of a few Calvinists, Reformed they call themselves, who use and teach the English Standard Version like many use the KJV. This blogger tells us of an attack against the NIV, the TNIV and the NLT by Ligonier Ministries:
The whole point of this so-called talk was subtle and dishonest attacks against the NIV, TNIV and the NLT. It was suggested that these translations are just about money and they are a “war on the word of God”. In the end, this whole things leads to a pied-pipering to the English Standard Version. All I have to say is bye, bye Ligonier Ministries, RC Sproul, and Renewing Your Mind. My time is short and there’s better things to listen too that don’t waste my time and fill me with dishonest rhetoric.
Frankly, I like the NLT. It lacks the dry committee feel of the ESV, and of course, there are other problems with it (see here.) I like the style of it, and indeed, sometimes I like the NIV. (Of course, I generally like to study the originals). The ESV is purposely translated to appeal to the Reformed. Fine. But as the author above said, dishonest rhetoric is not needed at this time.
I am not saying give up your ESV’s. Keep them. Read them. Enjoy them. Just leave the onlyist arguments to the kind folks who defend the KJV.
