How to respond to a two very different referee reports? So, I just received my manuscript back from a journal and the editor said that I should "make the moderate revisions necessary as outlined in the referee reports and then send back the final manuscript". 

One of the referees gave grammar, structural and content advice, while the other one said he does not believe this manuscript expands the current body of knowledge. 

These are vastly different reports and the editors wording makes it seem like the paper is "nearly finished". How should I handle the referee reports? Obviously, I will make the straight forward corrections that ref 1 asks for, but:

How should I respond to a referee who believes the content of a paper contains no expansion of the current scientific knowledge in a field?
Follow carefully the indications of the editors, and to the best of your ability try to follow the ones by the referees. Usually both agree and so there is no conflict. When there is, then the editor's opinion wins, as they are the ones with the power to decide whether your manuscript will be accepted or not. That being said, it is wise to not ignore the comments from the referees even if they seem to have been ignored by the editors. If the referee claims your work does not add anything new to the field, what would you answer? I would try to see it as a valid criticism and answer it the best I could. Think that this kind of question can come also in e.g. a conference! In that context what would you answer?