Levi Mattheus
Puritan Board Freshman
I understand that the English Standard Version seems to be the Bible translation currently in vogue amongst Evangelicals. My children each have the ESV Children's Bible and I intend procuring a copy of the ESV Study Bible as it looks quite useful and interesting. However, I have come across a serious flaw in this translation.
In Psalm 104:4 it translates the text as "Who makes his messengers winds, and his ministers a flame of fire" as opposed to the KJV / AV which reads: "Who makes his angels spirits; his ministers a flame of fire".
This is an important text as it is quoted in Hebrews 1:7 "Of the angels He says 'He makes His angels winds, and his minsters a flame of fire." Clearly this text in Hebrews is comparing the nature of the Son to that of angels. It is therefore a doctrinal text and hence of primary importance. Hebrews 1:14 elaborates on the angels thus "Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?" ESV.
Why doesn't the ESV just translate the Psalm using the words "angels" and "spirits" instead of "messengers" and "winds"?. I feel that this translation is robbing the text of Psalm 104:4 of it's doctrinal value by attempting to be clever. I am aware of the ambiguity of the Hebrew Ruach and the Greek Pneuma and of the fact that angels are messengers. Yet this is no reason to cause confusion and inconsistency in translating the text. In the light of Hebrews 1 it should be translated "angels" and "spirits". Hebrews 1 is clearly not speaking of human messengers. Neither is the nature of angels "wind" but they are spirits as borne out by verse 14!
After all, we do refer to "Angelogy" not "Messengology" !
If one retains the translation of the AV in both these passages one arrrives at the clear doctrinal teaching regarding the nature of angels in relation to the Deity. This demonstrates the superiority and reliability of the AV as a translation. I am not a KJV only advocate, rather a Byzantine MSS advocate. Indeed, there is an urgent need for a reverent, Godly updating of the KJV into modern English without the arbitrary changes alluded to above. I do not think that the NKJV has achieved this satisfactorily, yet it faithfully translates the passages mentioned in supra.
Ido not think I am being trivial about this and I appreciate your comments on this matter.
In Psalm 104:4 it translates the text as "Who makes his messengers winds, and his ministers a flame of fire" as opposed to the KJV / AV which reads: "Who makes his angels spirits; his ministers a flame of fire".
This is an important text as it is quoted in Hebrews 1:7 "Of the angels He says 'He makes His angels winds, and his minsters a flame of fire." Clearly this text in Hebrews is comparing the nature of the Son to that of angels. It is therefore a doctrinal text and hence of primary importance. Hebrews 1:14 elaborates on the angels thus "Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?" ESV.
Why doesn't the ESV just translate the Psalm using the words "angels" and "spirits" instead of "messengers" and "winds"?. I feel that this translation is robbing the text of Psalm 104:4 of it's doctrinal value by attempting to be clever. I am aware of the ambiguity of the Hebrew Ruach and the Greek Pneuma and of the fact that angels are messengers. Yet this is no reason to cause confusion and inconsistency in translating the text. In the light of Hebrews 1 it should be translated "angels" and "spirits". Hebrews 1 is clearly not speaking of human messengers. Neither is the nature of angels "wind" but they are spirits as borne out by verse 14!
After all, we do refer to "Angelogy" not "Messengology" !
If one retains the translation of the AV in both these passages one arrrives at the clear doctrinal teaching regarding the nature of angels in relation to the Deity. This demonstrates the superiority and reliability of the AV as a translation. I am not a KJV only advocate, rather a Byzantine MSS advocate. Indeed, there is an urgent need for a reverent, Godly updating of the KJV into modern English without the arbitrary changes alluded to above. I do not think that the NKJV has achieved this satisfactorily, yet it faithfully translates the passages mentioned in supra.
Ido not think I am being trivial about this and I appreciate your comments on this matter.