I honestly cannot remember exactly when I switched from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) to the English Standard Version (ESV), but I want to say it was sometime around 2016, but it could have been as early as 2010.

People always described it as just as accurate as the NASB, but easier to read. As I began to read it, this generally seemed to ring true, so I switched.

Generally speaking, I’ve been happy with the ESV… however, I’ve encountered a number of issues that deserve attention. In certain places words are omitted, or passages are translated in ways that do not seem to correlate accurately with the original text.

My goal with this page is to identify those problem passages with an identification of the problem, and my explanation of why I believe it is a problem. DISCLAIMER: I am not a Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek scholar. I rely on biblehub.com for almost all of my looks into the original text. Even if I did have a better grasp of these languages, I would still be fallible. If you read any of the below passages, and disagree with my takeaway, that’s ok. That being said, if you happen to know something I don’t, please let me know – if you make a good argument I may make changes accordingly. MORE DISCLAIMER: It’s infinitely easier to be a critic of something than it is to make something. I appreciate the work that went into the ESV, and recognize that if I were to undertake such a task as translating the entire Bible, I would a) not be able to do it and b) even if I were extremely prepared, I’m sure I would still make many mistakes.

The below list is a “living” document, meaning I may add to it over time as I encounter new errors, or remember old ones I had forgotten, or remove items as may be appropriate from time to time.

Paul’s List of Problems or Errors in the English Standard Version (ESV) Bible:

Passage 1: Deuteronomy 22:25 – Omits the word “force”

ESV Text: Deuteronomy 22:25 – “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.”

Alternative Text (NKJV): “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.”

Problem: In the Hebrew, this passage includes the phrase, “וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־ בָּ֥הּ” (wə·he·ḥĕ·zîq- bāh), which can be translated to mean “and forces her.” (See Bible Hub). This verse is describing rape. The use of force may be implied by the words “seizes her” that the ESV uses, but there’s a problem there. In verse 28 a different situation is described and the term used is “וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ” (ū·ṯə·p̄ā·śāh), which actually means “and seizes her.” The ESV translates this the same way as verse 25, which might erroneously lead the reader to believe that these verses are describing the same situation, when they are not. In verse 25 the rapist is punished with death. In verse 28 and 29, the man who lies with the woman marries her.

This verse correlates back to Exodus 22:16-17, which says, “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”

The Exodus passage is describing consensual sex between a man and an unwed/unengaged woman, not a rape.

The Bible does not contradict itself. At first glance, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 might appear to suggest a different approach than prescribed by Exodus 22:16-17, but when taken in with the context that the penalty for rape is already described in verse 25, and the word “force” is used in 25, but not in 28, we should rely on the precedent already set in Exodus.

This is important because people often wrongly argue that the Bible commands women to marry their rapists. However, a more careful reading of the passage reveals this is not true.

Summary: The omission of the word “force” in Deuteronomy 22:25 removes important context that would be helpful for an accurate interpretation of the passage, and may result in the wrong interpretation that God commands women to marry their rapists.

Proposed Fix: Change the ESV text of Deuteronomy 22:25 from its current version to read as follows: “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man lies with her by force, then only the man who lay with her shall die.”

---

Passage 2: John 1:18 – Omission of the word “begotten” and poor word choice

ESV Text: John 1:18 – “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

Alternative Text (Berean Literal Bible): “No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.”

Problem: The above ESV version omits the word “μονογενὴς” (monogenēs), which means “[the] only begotten.” Many translations choose to write “the only Son” or “the only begotten Son.” ESV is the only translation that goes this very strange route of saying, “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

This is just downright confusing. In one sentence God the Father is being described, then another member of the Godhead (the Son) is being described as “the only God.” This writing makes the subject unclear, and also loses the important descriptor that the original author intended to communicate to the reader. A verse about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is then modified in such a way that it doesn’t use terms to clearly identify Jesus as the subject, even though the appropriate term is available in the original text! Why?!?

Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there. The ESV describes the position of Jesus as “at the Father’s side.” The Greek, however, says, “εἰς τὸν κόλπον” (eis ton kolpon), which means “in the bosom.” While most translations simply stick with “in the bosom,” NASB goes the creative route of saying, “in the arms of the Father.”

“At the side” and “in the bosom” communicate two different things. “At the side” is less personal. It denotes a sort of special, trusted relationship between the Father and the Son, but fails to communicate the intimate nature of their relationship.

I can only speculate, but perhaps the ESV wished to move away from the word “bosom” because it seems awkward. It’s not a term used much in modern English. After all, languages are fluid, and when considering a modern audience, maybe bosom isn’t the best available word. If that’s the calculus of the ESV folks, I get it, but “at the side” is not it.

Summary: The omission of the word “begotten” in John 1:18 makes the verse confusing and less specific than originally intended, and the phrase “at the side” fails to communicate the intimacy denoted by the original text.

Proposed Fix: Change the ESV text of John 1:18 to say, “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” If we must drop the word “bosom,” then you could do it the NASB way: “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the arms of the Father, he has made him known.”

---

Passage 3: 1 Corinthians 6:9 – Omission of the word “effeminate”

ESV Text: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,“

Alternative Text (Berean Literal Bible): “Or do you not know that the unrighteous ones will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,”

Problem: In the original Greek, the verse ends with “οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται” (oute moichoi outi malakoi oute arsenokoitai), which means “nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,” but if you read the above ESV text, you can see that it just skipped right over the second-to-last item on the list (effeminate) and jumped straight from adulterers to homosexuals.

Truth be told, this one is a little more complex. There is debate around the specific meaning of the word μαλακοὶ (malakoi). While “effeminate” or “soft” may be some of the most straightforward ways to translate the word, there are those who have made the case that it is actually a word that would denote those who receive homosexual acts, while the last word in the list, ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai), describes those who impose homosexual acts.

Some translations have adopted the above delineation and rather than using the word “effeminate,” have translated the passage to include both. Take the Berean Standard Bible, for instance, which says, “nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts.”

It could be that the writers of the ESV have adopted the same perspective, but rather than describing both parties, they felt it appropriate to use the more concise method of lumping all the different kind of homosexuals together, and make the list a tad shorter. I cannot say.

However, I can say, that for one reason or another, the Apostle Paul chose to include the word μαλακοὶ (malakoi), and with the lack of specific context that would denote otherwise, effeminate seems like the most appropriate way to translate the verse.

With the feminization of Western Society, we have also seen the feminization of the Western Church. At a time when masculinity is in short supply, it might be helpful for Christians that Paul specifically spoke against effeminate men. For those who may be surprised or even doubtful of such a claim, consider 1 Corinthians 16:13, a verse from the very same book, which says: “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” While the ESV translation of this verse is very good, some translations sadly choose to edit out the “act like men” part. But I digress.

Men should not be effeminate, and Bible translators should not be ashamed of this truth.

Summary: The omission of the word “effeminate” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 waters down the passage, and removes important meaning that is especially poignant for our time. Men should not be effeminate.

Proposed fix: Change the current ESV text of 1 Corinthians 6:9 to say, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate men, nor men who practice homosexuality,”

---

Passage 4: 1 Timothy 4:7 – Omission of “old wives tales”

ESV Text: 1 Timothy 4:7 – “Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness;”

Alternative Text (NASB): “But stay away from worthless stories that are typical of old women. Rather, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness;”

Problem: The phrase in the ESV that is translated as “irreverent, silly myths” reads as following in the original Greek: βεβήλους καὶ γραώδεις μύθους (bebēlous kai graōdeis mythous). The word in question here is γραώδεις (graōdeis), which Strong’s Concordance describes as “characteristic of old women, anile.” The ESV translated this word as “silly.”

The NASB went the route of “typical of old women,” but the NIV and NLT went with “old wives’ tales,” while the KJB and NKJB both used “old wives’ fables.”

Why would the ESV choose to translate this word as “silly” rather than “typical of old women” or “old wives’ tales?” Perhaps the latter two options are too gendered, or maybe they just seem mean?

Whatever the case, γραώδεις (graōdeis) is the word that the Apostle Paul chose to use when he wrote his first letter to Timothy. While “silly” might be part of the meaning of the word, it doesn’t quite capture the original meaning, and given that we posses a colloquialism (old wives’ tales) that is a near-perfect match to the original meaning, why not just use it?

Summary: In 1 Timothy 4:7 the word γραώδεις (graōdeis) can best be translated to mean “typical of old women” or “old wives’ tale,” but the ESV just used the word “silly.” While the meaning is similar, the verse loses some of the punch that was purposefully included in the original text.

Proposed fix: Change the ESV text of 1 Timothy 4:7 to say, “Have nothing to do with irreverent, old wives’ tales. Rather train yourself for godliness;”

---

This is all I’ve got for now. I will continue to add other issues as I remember/encounter them.

Thanks for reading!