# a TR ESV with "missing" verses restored. Thoughts?



## MusicMan (Jan 2, 2014)

I recently got a copy of a Gideons New Testament, and was surprised to find that it was an ESV with verses such as Matthew 17:21, Acts 8:37, etc. restored to the text. Apparently this is a special printing done just for the Gideons. However, I got to thinking....how would people in general feel if this were to become the norm? If Crossway were to put those verses back into the text, footnoted like the NKJV footnotes, would it appeal to NASB and NKJV types who have been turned off for that reason? Curious to hear your thoughts.... 

A copy of the copyright page is here: Gideon ESV copyright 1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## Logan (Jan 2, 2014)

Very interesting, I might be interested in looking into that more.


----------



## Edward (Jan 2, 2014)

Interesting.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 2, 2014)

Thanks, Jay! And welcome to PB.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 2, 2014)

Thats a bit strange though a good start,maybe they should have done the ESV Translation from a T.R. Text base to begin with as this would have alleviated the necessity of having to make such a concession in the first place!

I have heard from a Gideon's rep that when they originally switched from The KJB to the New Berkeley, they found that they didn't have the same soul winning success as what they previously had with the King James,
which does contradict modern notions of readability being necessary for conversions & seems to put the argument on a more Faith & Providential Preservation basis. 

As that would mean that God has blessed that what He Knows to be His Infallible & Verbally Preserved Text base,which just happens to be The Received Text in this case as the Berkeley used the critical text apparatus.


----------



## Josh Williamson (Jan 3, 2014)

Does the Gideon edition include the TR reading of 1 John 5:7?


----------



## Logan (Jan 3, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> I have heard from a Gideon's rep that when they originally switched from The KJB to the New Berkeley, they found that
> they didn't have the same soul winning success as what they previously had with the King James,which does contradict
> modern notions of readability being necessary for conversions & seems to put the argument on a more Faith & Providential
> Preservation basis.
> ...



Robert, I don't know if you're trying to be amusing or not but you continue to cast aspersions on any other translation or text besides that which you yourself support, and with anecdotal evidence? That type of logic works against you as well since one could make the case that since translations other than the KJV have been blessed to convert sinners in recent years, that they must be based on what God "knows to be His Infallible & Verbally Reserved Text base". Support the KJV and TR by all means, but please try to refrain from casting aspersions on everything else.

I found what appears to be a list of the changes from the ESV to the Gideon ESV. It does not appear that 1 John 5:7 is included.


----------



## Edward (Jan 3, 2014)

Josh Williamson said:


> Does the Gideon edition include the TR reading of 1 John 5:7?



Using unverified online resources:

AV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

ESV: 7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

Gideon: 
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


Gideon from Reading Calendar Verses

ESV and KJV from 1 John 5:7 - Bible Gateway and 1 John 5:8 - Bible Gateway


----------



## Logan (Jan 3, 2014)

That's interesting Edward. It looks to me like the "Gideon calendar" is from the KJV though: it matches word for word and I know of no place in the ESV where "Holy Ghost" is used.


----------



## Edward (Jan 3, 2014)

Logan said:


> That's interesting Edward. It looks to me like the "Gideon calendar" is from the KJV though: it matches word for word and I know of no place in the ESV where "Holy Ghost" is used.



Found my error. Here you go (there is a button to select ESV or KJV that I hadn't noticed):

Gideons:

7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.


----------



## Bengibor (Jan 3, 2014)

I saw Gideon NIV edition in England some years ago with restored TR/MT verses and clauses in that edition including 'through his blood' in Col 1.14 and Johannine Comma (1 John 5.7). I hope they do the same in ESV edition although I would prefer to have NKJV retained in their publications


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 4, 2014)

Logan said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > I have heard from a Gideon's rep that when they originally switched from The KJB to the New Berkeley, they found that they didn't have the same soul winning success as what they previously had with the King James,which does contradict modern notions of readability being necessary for conversions & seems to put the argument on a more Faith & Providential Preservation basis.
> ...



Logan , I relayed some Information that I received from a Gideon's Rep here in Sydney and you wish to turn this personal, could you please refrain from that & not make a false accusations out by saying that "I'm to cast aspersions or trying to be amusing"
yes there may well be conversions from from the use of Critical Text translations so what? I don't deny this

I am an unabashed supporter of The Received Text/King James Textual Base, I don't deny I have a bias in this area,you have admitted to having bias' yourself in a recent thread !

I have the right as much as yourself to post my views on this Forum, If you don't like them then ignore them or right a reply to them,thank you. The Berkeley Translation is C.T. (as well as the ESV for that matter)
& therefore not in the Westminster Confession's view of an Infallible & Providential Preserved Textual base, only The Received Text fits the bill their,this is not an aspersion this is FACT.

What I find amusing is that Gideons have just ditched a Translation based on The Received Text in the main N.K.J.V. and embraced one based on the C.T. (ESV) and have then gone and restored Received Text readings back into the Translation
I cannot see the logic in this quite frankly,this is a concession to the R.T.! which textual Apparatus do they view as Authoritative or Superior? or rather what do they view as Words of God, seems all rather confusing to me though a good thing they
have restored the readings of 1 John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16 & Acts 20:28 major Christological verses & other important ones like Colossians 1:14, Acts 8:37 & Luke 2:43 why change the Text base & translation only to go back to its readings ?


----------



## Logan (Jan 4, 2014)

Robert,

I believe you are making this too personal. I won't continue this.




One Little Nail said:


> have then gone and restored Received Text readings back into the Translation I cannot see the logic in this quite frankly



Nor do I. My wife's grandfather is part of the Gideons and I have breakfasted with them before. My impression was that they were a group of gracious, retired, well-to-do business men who are very devoted to their work but not necessarily solidly grounded theologically and quite set in their opinions. Perhaps it is much different elsewhere but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if many of the objectors didn't know about the textual issues and were just objecting to "change".


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 4, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> Thats a bit strange though a good start,maybe they should have done the ESV Translation from a T.R. Text base to begin with as this would have alleviated the necessity of having to make such a concession in the first place!
> 
> I have heard from a Gideon's rep that when they originally switched from The KJB to the New Berkeley, they found that they didn't have the same soul winning success as what they previously had with the King James,
> which does contradict modern notions of readability being necessary for conversions & seems to put the argument on a more Faith & Providential Preservation basis.
> ...



I would add here that the gospel is the Power of God to convert sinners, not the translation. Even if I agreed with you that the KJV is superior to the modern translations, I could never put my trust in the translation.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 4, 2014)

Logan said:


> Robert,
> 
> I believe you are making this too personal. I won't continue this.



I apologise if I have misconceived your previous post, I believed that my post was only an objective one even if it 
contained an anecdotal reference!, no light without heat ! sparks will always fly when two swords meet !



Logan said:


> My wife's grandfather is part of the Gideons and I have breakfasted with them before. My impression was that they were a group of gracious, retired, well-to-do business men who are very devoted to their work but not necessarily solidly grounded theologically and quite set in their opinions. Perhaps it is much different elsewhere but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if many of the objectors didn't know about the textual issues and were just objecting to "change".



The Gideon's have done a marvellous work with their generous Bible Ministry, only eternity will tell how many countless
souls were saved through their work, long may it continue.


----------



## MusicMan (Jan 5, 2014)

From the copies I have seen, the "comma" in I John had not been included. . .

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 5, 2014)

I wonder why they would ditch the NKJV unless it's some kind of licensing issue?


----------

