# Who went from KJV to ESV and stayed there/went back to KJV?



## Polanus1561 (Jan 1, 2018)

What made you stay with the ESV / go back to KJV?


----------



## Krak3n (Jan 1, 2018)

I stuck to the KJV as the "only" Word of God for awhile, and had to be broken of that cultic attitude. (Not all KJV people are that way, I was.)

After that I used the ESV, found I enjoyed not carrying my extra KJV dictionary for those admittedly rare occasions. And stuck with the ESV. I'll also say that I really enjoy the ESV Reader's Bible, I do read more without the text all broken up.

Edit: I blame James White ultimately. He was key to moving me from my former mindset.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 1, 2018)

My route wasn't as direct but I went from the ESV to NASB to KJV and have stayed.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 1, 2018)

I'm on my third AV/KJV, but I also have an ESV for Kindle. I got the ESV because it was the best-formatted bible for Kindle I could find at the time. It didn't hurt that is was no-charge, either.

But I can't say I switched. I still read my KJV. I'm used to the old language and like it. When I am asked to preach, I preach out of an NKJV out of deference to the congregation.

I found the ESV to be fairly well done, but it had quirks that gnawed at me a little--and those had nothing to do with the choice of texts to translate. Instead, they were the occasional turns of phrase that seemed out of character, or the occasional left out adjective that my OCD-like mind thinks is important.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 1, 2018)

Tried going from NASB to ESV because it's so widely used, but Isaiah was so clunky I couldn't stand it. I'll use it for travel only.


----------



## Jeff Low (Jan 1, 2018)

The church I am in uses the KJV, but we use the ESV for my family worship, with the exception of the psalms, which we still stick to the KJV, more for the beauty of the old translation than the accuracy.

In my personal reading and study, I use the 2017 Lutherbibel (German), for I feel the German language retains more of the syntactical nuances of the original languages more than modern English can.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 1, 2018)

Jeff Low said:


> The church I am in uses the KJV, but we use the ESV for my family worship, with the exception of the psalms, which we still stick to the KJV, more for the beauty of the old translation than the accuracy.
> 
> In my personal reading and study, I use the 2017 Lutherbibel (German), for I feel the German language retains more of the syntactical nuances of the original languages more than modern English can.



Jeff,

Please update you signature per the requirements listed in my sig below.


----------



## KMK (Jan 1, 2018)

When everyone finally settles on a replacement for the KJV, let me know and I will join you.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 1, 2018)

I have tried not a few translations, but always prefer the AV, because, the AV

(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in a dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of _italicized_ words.

No debates here, please.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 2, 2018)

Jeff Low said:


> The church I am in uses the KJV, but we use the ESV for my family worship, with the exception of the psalms, which we still stick to the KJV, more for the beauty of the old translation than the accuracy.
> 
> In my personal reading and study, I use the 2017 Lutherbibel (German), for I feel the German language retains more of the syntactical nuances of the original languages more than modern English can.



Hi Brother Jeff, hope our paths cross in future, in our little Reformed community in Singapore.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have tried not a few translations, but always prefer the AV, because, the AV
> 
> (1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
> (2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
> ...



I think it would be quite easy to state why you stayed with KJV/ESV if you are convinced if your version fulfills point (1).

But yes no textual debates please - of course that can be a reason for your choice.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 2, 2018)

John Yap said:


> But yes no textual debates please - of course that can be a reason for your choice.



I am going to extend you the greatest amount of charity in my assumptions about this response, assuming that the sarcasm implied therein was not intended. Go in peace.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 2, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am going to extend you the greatest amount of charity in my assumptions about this response, assuming that the sarcasm implied therein was not intended. Go in peace.



Sorry, no sarcasm was intended nor can I see how a hint of any can be found.

All I was doing was affirming:

1. if you or anyone's choice of translation was based on the belief that said translation "drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts" then that would probably be a big reason for your choice.
2. this isn't the subforum/thread for textual debates etc. But again of course, one could state that he came to a choice because in his mind , the KJV/ESV won the textual debate.

Peace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 2, 2018)

I began using the ESV as a new Christian, and have repeatedly dabbled with the KJV and NASB for various reasons (beauty of language, some preferred translations of particular words, etc.); but, I always return to the ESV. 

I prefer the CT over the TR; my church uses the ESV; the KJV would be a stumbling block for my family; the ESV has the best physical Bible format/layout selection by far; and I just plain like the translation, which I almost consider to be KJV meets NASB, in a sense. It is modern, yet classic. 

I also believe that the ESV, with its ever growing popularity, is becoming the closest thing that the western Church has to a standard translation; at least, in my circles, it is most commonly used, which then makes it very nice to "speak the same language" as my brothers and sisters.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## josiahrussell (Jan 2, 2018)

Never really been a KJV guy until recently.
I went NIV to NKJV to ESV to NASB with some KJV sprinkled in 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cymro (Jan 2, 2018)

Welcome aboard Jeff from another Jeff, nice to meet up again. I have never moved from the AV for the reasons Patrick has given. I believe John that a friend of yours sat at our table last Sabbath, Joseph Leong.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jeff Low (Jan 2, 2018)

Cymro said:


> Welcome aboard Jeff from another Jeff, nice to meet up again. I have never moved from the AV for the reasons Patrick has given. I believe John that a friend of yours sat at our table last Sabbath, Joseph Leong.



Hi Pastor Jeff! Pam and I still have very fond memories of your time with us in the recent past. Hope you and Auntie Shirley have been well!


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 2, 2018)

John Yap said:


> What made you stay with the ESV / go back to KJV?


I mainly use both the Esv/Nas versions, as believe that both of them would be more accurate as to what the originals taught to us. Still view the KJV as being a good translation, just not able to read it with understanding as well as the other 2 versions.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 2, 2018)

I don't believe I have read as much as two chapters together in any other English version than KJV. I have loved it so long, nothing else sounds quite the same.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 3, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have tried not a few translations, but always prefer the AV, because, the AV
> 
> (1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
> (2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
> ...


No debates, just disagree on point 1.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 3, 2018)

I never really left the KJV, nor went to the ESV. When I began reading the KJV in 1986 I picked up an NIV as a supplement, to help me to better understand passages I found difficult.

Over the years, though I stayed with the KJV/NIV combination primarily, I began to add other translations to the mix. I became fond of the NKJV and would sometimes go to the NASB since it is supposed to be the most literal mainstream translation.

I was somewhat prejudiced against the ESV because of opinions I read on forums. The massive promotion by Crossway, the fact that it is not a new translation, but a revision of the RSV, which is a revision of the RV, which is a revision of the AV.

I finally got a copy and began to incorporate it into my supplemental reading. I was surprised at how similar it is to the KJV in many verses. So I haven't _gone_ there yet, but I am dipping my foot in the water more and more, and liking it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 3, 2018)

KMK said:


> When everyone finally settles on a replacement for the KJV, let me know and I will join you.



That's my problem too. The KJV was _the_ Authorized Bible as held by almost everyone. It has never been deauthorized and replaced by anything approaching unanimity. We are just not in reforming or synodical times at present. Someday we will be again. I'm no Bible bigot as I consider many other translations in my studies. But my AV is where my eyes go first and usually last. It has become part of who I am.

Personally (and I mean personally) I think that dropping verses and phrases as the Greek text of the ESV (and most other modern translations) is a lot more likely than it is to add verses and phrases.

One more disclaimer - whatever is the opposite of expert is what I am in this field.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 3, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> One more disclaimer - whatever is the opposite of expert is what I am in this field.



Funny, just this morning I was contemplating a word I hadn't seen used in a long time: "Tyro." I was just itching to find a reason to use it.

That might be what you're looking for.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 3, 2018)

VictorBravo said:


> That might be what you're looking for



Good word. I had to look it up.
I am not a _beginner_ but I am a _novice_ in this area.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 3, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> No debates, just disagree on point 1.



Yup.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 3, 2018)

ZackF said:


> My route wasn't as direct but I went from the ESV to NASB to KJV and have stayed.



What made you go NASB to KJV?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 3, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have tried not a few translations, but always prefer the AV, because, the AV
> 
> (1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
> (2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
> ...



On the last one--it italicizes words that aren't actually in the Hebrew or Greek but are needed to add to make sense in English (in the same way the NASB does)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 3, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have tried not a few translations, but always prefer the AV, because, the AV
> 
> (1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
> (2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
> ...



You could add one more: I see the most appealing thing about the KJV the fact that they have a way to distinguish the second person singular plural, which I find myself often needing to look up; this is a huge plus.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## KMK (Jan 3, 2018)

It is also better for memorization than bouncing between different Modern Versions.

And, it is better for reading the Puritans!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 3, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Good word. I had to look it up.
> I am not a _beginner_ but I am a _novice_ in this area.


Sounds like you are at least not an abecedarian. 

abe·ce·dar·i·an
noun
\ˌā-bē-(ˌ)sē-ˈder-ē-ən\
_plural_ *-s*
1*:* one that is learning the rudiments of something (such as the alphabet)
2_archaic_ *:* one that teaches the alphabet and the rudiments of learning
3_capitalized_ *:* one of a 16th century Anabaptist sect that despised human learning on the ground that the illiterate needed no more than the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture


----------



## ZackF (Jan 3, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> What made you go NASB to KJV?



I have no expertise or an opinion worth the powder to blow the dust off anyone's bible. Since you asked, my largest reasons were for the majesty and heritage of the KJV and not the manuscript tradition. Also, when I do get around to memorizing verses, I find KJV easier. Incidentally I find the NASB more readable than many translations. I don't find it wooden or Yodaish as others do.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> I never really left the KJV, nor went to the ESV. When I began reading the KJV in 1986 I picked up an NIV as a supplement, to help me to better understand passages I found difficult.
> 
> Over the years, though I stayed with the KJV/NIV combination primarily, I began to add other translations to the mix. I became fond of the NKJV and would sometimes go to the NASB since it is supposed to be the most literal mainstream translation.
> 
> ...


I was surprise when first started reading the esv as to how much it felt like reading the KJV, its almost like the NKJV in how it reads and sounds.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> That's my problem too. The KJV was _the_ Authorized Bible as held by almost everyone. It has never been deauthorized and replaced by anything approaching unanimity. We are just not in reforming or synodical times at present. Someday we will be again. I'm no Bible bigot as I consider many other translations in my studies. But my AV is where my eyes go first and usually last. It has become part of who I am.
> 
> Personally (and I mean personally) I think that dropping verses and phrases as the Greek text of the ESV (and most other modern translations) is a lot more likely than it is to add verses and phrases.
> 
> One more disclaimer - whatever is the opposite of expert is what I am in this field.


The Authorized aspect of the KJV was based upon the King James support, but not to the Church at large, but mainly to the Church of England.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

ZackF said:


> I have no expertise or an opinion worth the powder to blow the dust off anyone's bible. Since you asked, my largest reasons were for the majesty and heritage of the KJV and not the manuscript tradition. Also, when I do get around to memorizing verses, I find KJV easier. Incidentally I find the NASB more readable than many translations. I don't find it wooden or Yodaish as others do.


I like how the Nas reads and do see it as the most literal translation still available for use today.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I was surprise when first started reading the esv as to how much it felt like reading the KJV, its almost like the NKJV in how it reads and sounds.



I really like how the ESV reads in some places, but in other places not so much. You really shouldn’t start nine straight sentences with the word “and.”


----------



## Beezer (Jan 6, 2018)

I went from the KJV to the ESV for a season back in 2005. A young associate pastor friend of mine back then was enthralled with the ESV and promoted it more than Crossway! Needless to say he was successful in getting me to purchase one. I used it for a year or so and moved back to the KJV. I didn't have any real issues with the translation per se, but I started to get turned off a bit by all the people I kept meeting who had a "ESV-O" attitude and of course the rampant marketing of the translation by Crossway kind of wore me down. I ended up returning to my old friend (KJV) and have been reading it every since, though today I also mix in the NIV. My wife on the other hand, of whom English is a second language, prefers the ESV over the KJV. The best translation I suppose is the one you read!


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 6, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I really like how the ESV reads in some places, but in other places not so much. You really shouldn’t start nine straight sentences with the word “and.”


And why shouldn't sentences start with "and"? That's one of my favorite bits of the KJV!


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 6, 2018)

And I say: I agree.

I never really checked, but I bet the vav consecutive is among the most common ways to start a sentence in the Hebrew OT.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 6, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> And why shouldn't sentences start with "and"? That's one of my favorite bits of the KJV!



There is nothing wrong with starting a sentence with “and”, however the ESV tends to string together enormously long sections where each sentence begins with “and.” It’s just poor English style and it lacks imagination. Kai can be translated numerous different ways with the same effect.


----------



## toledomudhen (Jan 6, 2018)

John Yap said:


> What made you stay with the ESV / go back to KJV?


I'm still vacillating between the two. I lean toward ESV because my pastor preaches from it and also because it is easier to read and I like my ESV study Bible better than my KJV Study Bible.

Sent from my MI MAX 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 8, 2018)

I went from NASB to KJV after reading on the issues involved with methodology. I can’t in good conscience agree with the CT position because I believe it denies a fundmental doctrine: providential preservation.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I went from NASB to KJV after reading on the issues involved with methodology. I can’t in good conscience agree with the CT position because I believe it denies a fundmental doctrine: providential preservation.


it does not deny that doctrine, but believe that it understands it in a different fashion, as there is not a need to have either a perfect Greek text, or a perfect English version in order to have the word of the Lord for us today.


toledomudhen said:


> I'm still vacillating between the two. I lean toward ESV because my pastor preaches from it and also because it is easier to read and I like my ESV study Bible better than my KJV Study Bible.
> 
> Sent from my MI MAX 2 using Tapatalk


I agree with you on the Esv study bible, as to me its the very best one current available to use.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 8, 2018)

In a more general sense, I went from TR to CT. I used the KJV and NKJV but became convinced the CT represents more accurately what the Apostles actually wrote. So I lean CT. I’m not particularly a fan of the ESV. However, it’s the pew Bible in my church and the Reformation Study Bible only comes in the ESV for CT based Bibles. So I use the ESV quite a bit.

I don’t struggle with the doctrine of providential preservation for two reasons. First, a doctrine has to be establish via Scripture. What systematic theologies have a section on providential preservation? Geisler does. But it’s small, uses no Scripture to support it and he doesn’t adhere to a TR position. Secondly, God preserved TR (many versions of it) MT and CT. If he preserved all of them, then it seems tough to argue one over the other with that as a grounding argument.

For what it's worth, I have a KJV on my desk at work today. Friday it was a CSB. Thursday it was a TNIV. I am not fixed on one version or one family of text for the NT or one method (formal or functional) for translating.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> In a more general sense, I went from TR to CT. I used the KJV and NKJV but became convinced the CT represents more accurately what the Apostles actually wrote. So I lean CT. I’m not particularly a fan of the ESV. However, it’s the pew Bible in my church and the Reformation Study Bible only comes in the ESV for CT based Bibles. So I use the ESV quite a bit.
> 
> I don’t struggle with the doctrine of providential preservation for two reasons. First, a doctrine has to be establish via Scripture. What systematic theologies have a section on providential preservation? Geisler does. But it’s small, uses no Scripture to support it and he doesn’t adhere to a TR position. Secondly, God preserved TR (many versions of it) MT and CT. If he preserved all of them, then it seems tough to argue one over the other with that as a grounding argument.
> 
> For what it's worth, I have a KJV on my desk at work today. Friday it was a CSB. Thursday it was a TNIV. I am not fixed on one version or one family of text for the NT or one method (formal or functional) for translating.


I prefer the formal translations such as the KJV/NKJV /Nas for serious bible studies, as my main preference is to how it is translated. not so much whether it is based upon CT/MT/TR.
Again, I do not see there being a need to have a perfect Greek text nor translation in order to have the word of God to uis now, as to me only the Originals were fully perfect in all aspects.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> it does not deny that doctrine



Actually it does. One only needs to read Warfield to understand this.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 8, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> I don’t struggle with the doctrine of providential preservation for two reasons. First, a doctrine has to be establish via Scripture. What systematic theologies have a section on providential preservation? Geisler does. But it’s small, uses no Scripture to support it and he doesn’t adhere to a TR position. Secondly, God preserved TR (many versions of it) MT and CT. If he preserved all of them, then it seems tough to argue one over the other with that as a grounding argument.



Calvin and Turretin have whole sections in there institutes that deal with this issue.

As Turretin puts it, it’s not about errors in some copies, nor the material, but the underlining philosophy and methodology that are the issues.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Calvin and Turretin have whole sections in there institutes that deal with this issue.
> 
> As Turretin puts it, it’s not about errors in some copies, nor the material, but the underlining philosophy and methodology that are the issues.


Those holding to a critical Greek text as I do, would hold that God had indeed preserved for us His completed txt, in all of the various manuscripts and other documents that attest to the original documents themselves.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Actually it does. One only needs to read Warfield to understand this.


The 1979 Statement on Bible Inerrancy, I believe RC Sproul himself had a big part in that, states to us that only the Originals were inspired and fully perfect.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The 1979 Statement on Bible Inerrancy, I believe RC Sproul himself had a big part in that, states to us that only the Originals were inspired and fully perfect.



Which means that today you do not hold to an inspired text. Consistently, one with this view cannot say it is truly the word of God.

Edit: To be more accurate no one disputes scribal errors. There are some. What Warfield argues is that the text we have today isn’t the same text they had in the first century.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Which means that today you do not hold to an inspired text. Consistently, one with this view cannot say it is truly the word of God.
> 
> Edit: To be more accurate no one disputes scribal errors. There are some. What Warfield argues is that the text we have today isn’t the same text they had in the first century.


The originals were inspired by he Holy Spirit Himself to be without any errors/mistakes, but none of the translators/textual critics have that capability.
That statement was agreed upon by men such as Dr Sproul, and many others, and each of them held to the Originals alone being fully without errors/mistakes.
they also did not see that being required in order to have an infallible Bible to us for today.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The originals were inspired by he Holy Spirit Himself to be without any errors/mistakes, but none of the translators/textual critics have that capability.
> That statement was agreed upon by men such as Dr Sproul, and many others, and each of them held to the Originals alone being fully without errors/mistakes.
> they also did not see that being required in order to have an infallible Bible to us for today.


That the _originals_ alone are _inerrant_ is a statement I find troublesome. The Apostles and Our Lord referred to _copies_ (and translations) of Scripture when quoting the Old Testament, relying upon them as being inspired and infallible.

I wish the word _inerrant_ was not used at all versus _infallible_. All notions of _inerrancy_ presume access to the originals, yet all that we have are _copies_. If the _copies_ are in error, why not the _originals_? Observe where this notion of inerrancy leads. Sigh.

So how do we know the _autographa_ are without error? Scripture so states the same. We need not set about trying to _empirically_ prove what Scripture _attests_. We need to presuppose God's providential care and preservation of Scripture.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> We need not set about trying to _empirically_ prove what Scripture _attests_.



Great quote!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> That the _originals_ alone are _inerrant_ is a statement I find troublesome. The Apostles and Our Lord referred to _copies_ (and translations) of Scripture when quoting the Old Testament, relying upon them as being inspired and infallible.
> 
> I wish the word _inerrant_ was not used at all versus _infallible_. All notions of _inerrancy_ presume access to the originals, yet all that we have are _copies_. If the _copies_ are in error, why not the _originals_? Observe where this notion of inerrancy leads. Sigh.
> 
> So how do we know the _autographa_ are without error? Scripture so states the same. We need not set about trying to _empirically_ prove what Scripture _attests_. We need to presuppose God's providential care and preservation of Scripture.


God has done that, but we do not need to have either a perfect/error free Greek text or any English translation to affirm that truth, as the 1979 Statement states so well.


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 8, 2018)

I think what's being referred to is this: http://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/old/Resource_545/Book 2, Sec 23.pdf

In particular, Article X - "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

The words "strictly speaking", and the 2nd statement in the paragraph, need to be included when interpreting this Article.

Also, Article X continues..."We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."


Blessings!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 8, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God has done that, but we do not need to have either a perfect/error for Greek text or any English translation to affirm that truth, as the 1979 Statement states so well.


What does this mean:
"we do not need to have either a perfect/error for Greek text"

Are you properly reviewing your posts before submitting them, or at least checking them after you have selected the _Post Reply_ button? I want you to linger a wee bit each time you post something. *Linger* over what you have posted before jumping to another post or thread.


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 8, 2018)

I started with Gnb, then NIV. Had a look at some others and settled on the KJV.
I do use now the 21st Century KJV.
I found many of the others to have been carelessly translated or written. Like Genesis 3 vs 16, the ESV version is ridiculous as are a number of others.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 8, 2018)

Free Christian said:


> I started with Gnb, then NIV. Had a look at some others and settled on the KJV.
> I do use now the 21st Century KJV.
> I found many of the others to have been carelessly translated or written. Like Genesis 3 vs 16, the ESV version is ridiculous as are a number of others.



I am not a fan of the 2016 ESV for that reason. I always use the 2011. 

Could you point me to the "number of others" that are ridiculous in the 2016, so that I may compare with the 2011? Thank you.


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 8, 2018)

The ESV version of that vs is ridiculous, as are a number of other versions/translations.
There are other translations that render it that same way. It's a careless handling of Gods Word and a totally needless change let alone a blatant error.
You can compare various versions at Bible hub. Its a great tool for that.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 8, 2018)

Oh, when you said above, "as are a number of others," you were referring to other translations, not other verses within the 2016 ESV itself. My mistake. Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 8, 2018)

I am not a language scholar. Perhaps some here are scholars and consulted by translation committees. I don’t think a couple semesters turns one into a language scholar. I personally find it troubling when various Christians speak of a translation at point X or Y being ridiculous or some other superlative without something from a translator level document backing it up.

Committee based translations and subsequent changes are not done lightly. Qualified linguistic scholars with a high view of the Scripture are the types of people doing such translations.

Is it possible you might be overstating your case about Genesis 3:16?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 9, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> I am not a language scholar. Perhaps some here are scholars and consulted by translation committees. I don’t think a couple semesters turns one into a language scholar. I personally find it troubling when various Christians speak of a translation at point X or Y being ridiculous or some other superlative without something from a translator level document backing it up.
> 
> Committee based translations and subsequent changes are not done lightly. Qualified linguistic scholars with a high view of the Scripture are the types of people doing such translations.
> 
> Is it possible you might be overstating your case about Genesis 3:16?



That is a valid concern.

I know nothing of Greek. My concern with Genesis 3:16 in the ESV 2016 is only on a layman's level.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Jan 9, 2018)

Beezer said:


> . . .and promoted it more than Crossway!



I'm not sure that's possible.


----------



## KMK (Jan 9, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> Qualified linguistic scholars with a high view of the Scripture are the types of people doing such translations.



I agree that it might be an overstatement to call the ESV 'ridiculous' in spots.

But as to these 'qualified linguistic scholars, by whom are they qualified? And who says they have a high view of Scripture? The publisher? The seminaries?

How much does the church know about the translators' qualifications and esteem for God's Word?


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 9, 2018)

I'll stand by my statement of ridiculous. When God says something in clear terms that a primary school child could understand and someone comes along and makes it say something completely the opposite, that's ridiculous. Perhaps we could get pedantic on the use of a particular word as ridiculous, someone may use another type of word! But changes to words that are attributed to God directly speaking something to mean the exact opposite are quite frankly "ridiculous" and an example of lack of diligence and care to what they are actually handling. Perhaps I should have used "pathetic" instead.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 9, 2018)

KMK said:


> But as to these 'qualified linguistic scholars, by whom are they qualified? And who says they have a high view of Scripture? The publisher? The seminaries?
> 
> How much does the church know about the translators' qualifications and esteem for God's Word?



Here's my question:

What difference does it make as to who prepares the Greek text or who translates the Bible? It's still the Word of God. Right? You might as well ask, "What difference does it make as to who delivers the Lord's Day sermon to your congregation?"

Jeremiah 2:8
_The priests said not, Where is the Lord? *and they that handle the law knew me not*: the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit._​
I have always thought that everything to do with the Bible texts and translations should be handled by theologians (hopefully Reformed) who possess the skills needed for compiling the texts and translating the same. Modus operandi - So when there are two equally plausible manuscript texts or words the same principle as used for the interpretation of Scripture should be used in translation.

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." (Westminster Confession Ch 1. par 6)​
Here's an older PB thread (Dec. 2013) that discusses Westcott and Hort's Greek text that most modern translations use as their source.

How much does it matter how and who translated our Bibles? (Note by me: Wescott and Hort did NOT translate the Bible. They prepared the Greek text)

Gipp's Understandable History of the Bible Paperback – January 1, 1987
by Sameul C. Gipp

I am sure by now that most of you are familiar with this book's critique on Wescott and Hort, but I think it is crucial.

from: Chapter 8: Westcott and Hort (_read the whole chapter_)

Below are just a few examples of their beliefs: (See the link above for the rest of the chapter)

*A Shocking Revelation*
That these men should lend their influence to a family of MSS which have a history of attacking and diluting the major doctrines of the Bible, should not come as a surprise. Oddly enough, neither man believed that the Bible should be treated any differently than the writings of the lost historians and philosophers!

Hort wrote, "For ourselves, we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety and antiquity."

He also states, "In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings which have been much copied, corruptions by interpolation are many times more numerous than corruptions by omission." (Emphasis mine.)

We must consider these things for a moment. How can God use men who do not believe that His Book is any different than Shakespeare, Plato, or Dickens? It is a fundamental belief that the Bible is different from all other writings. Why did these men not believe so?

*Blatant Disbelief*
Their skepticism does, in fact, go even deeper. They have both become famous for being able to deny scriptural truth and still be upheld by fundamental Christianity as biblical authorities! Both Westcott and Hort failed to accept the basic Bible doctrines which we hold so dear and vital to our fundamental faith.

Hort denies the reality of Eden: "I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden'(I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues."90

Furthermore, he took sides with the apostate authors of "Essays and Reviews."

Hort writes to Rev. Rowland Williams, October 21, 1858, "Further I agree with them [Authors of "Essays and Reviews"] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology ... Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."

We must also confront Hort's disbelief that the Bible was infallible: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T. practically a sine qua non for co-operation, I fear I could not join you." He also stated:

"As I was writing the last words a note came from Westcott. He too mentions having had fears, which he now pronounces 'groundless,' on the strength of our last conversation, in which he discovered that I did 'recognize' 'Providence' in biblical writings. Most strongly I recognize it, but I am not prepared to say that it necessarily involves absolute infallibility. So I still await judgment."​
And further commented to a colleague:

"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing."​

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 9, 2018)

KMK said:


> I agree that it might be an overstatement to call the ESV 'ridiculous' in spots.
> 
> But as to these 'qualified linguistic scholars, by whom are they qualified? And who says they have a high view of Scripture? The publisher? The seminaries?
> 
> How much does the church know about the translators' qualifications and esteem for God's Word?



Ken, I think that’s a fair question.

Unless I’m misinformed and/or have a serious misunderstanding, this information isn’t hard to get a hold of.

Here is a link to the ESV translation oversight committee...

https://www.esv.org/translation/oversight-committee/

These are the people responsible for what is in the ESV.

I assume many of in this forum have more books than we’ve ever read but have read many that we do have.

Wayne Grudem is on the list. I assume many of us own and have read his Systematic Theology. So we know his view of Scripture.

J.I. Packer, Leland Ryken, R. Kent Hughes, Vern Poythress. Others that some may or may not know.

So it’s not the publisher or the seminaries that say they have X or Y view of Scripture, it’s their own published works that are available for any of us to read.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 9, 2018)

Free Christian said:


> I'll stand by my statement of ridiculous. When God says something in clear terms that a primary school child could understand and someone comes along and makes it say something completely the opposite, that's ridiculous. Perhaps we could get pedantic on the use of a particular word as ridiculous, someone may use another type of word! But changes to words that are attributed to God directly speaking something to mean the exact opposite are quite frankly "ridiculous" and an example of lack of diligence and care to what they are actually handling. Perhaps I should have used "pathetic" instead.



Hi Brett, perhaps you know Hebrew at a level that qualifies to read the Hebrew and call it ridiculous. In regard to Hebrew, I do not. I can only compare English and use Hebrew tools to try to snow someone into believing I know what I’m really talking about.

But me comparing English version to English version and picking an older one over a newer, possibly more informed rendering would be me adhering to tradition.

Maybe it is ridiculous, but maybe it’s more informed than precious generations have been on Hebrew. I don’t know.

For myself, I’ll reserve judgment till I can read more on the subject. Or if I complete 6-7 semesters of Hebrew and remember this thread I’ll be glad to come back and comment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 9, 2018)

Funny, the ESV interpretation of Gen 3:16 (which I just looked up online) is pretty much what I took it to mean in KJV. And anyone who is married can attest to the truth of the first part of ESV Gen 3:16!


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 9, 2018)

wow we have strayed from the first page..

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 9, 2018)

moral necessity said:


> I think what's being referred to is this: http://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/old/Resource_545/Book 2, Sec 23.pdf
> 
> In particular, Article X - "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."
> 
> ...


This would seem to indicate that the standard Reformed viewpoint on the scriptures is what the 1979 Statement does affirm.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 9, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> I am not a language scholar. Perhaps some here are scholars and consulted by translation committees. I don’t think a couple semesters turns one into a language scholar. I personally find it troubling when various Christians speak of a translation at point X or Y being ridiculous or some other superlative without something from a translator level document backing it up.
> 
> Committee based translations and subsequent changes are not done lightly. Qualified linguistic scholars with a high view of the Scripture are the types of people doing such translations.
> 
> Is it possible you might be overstating your case about Genesis 3:16?


All of the modern versions translators who worked on the Niv/Esv/Nas affirmed the 1979 Statement, and would all see the scriptures as being the inspired word of God to us. The main differences between the translation would not really be based upon which sources used, such as the Tr/Ct, but more on whether they were in a philosophy of formal or DE for how they chose to translation into English..


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 9, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> Ken, I think that’s a fair question.
> 
> Unless I’m misinformed and/or have a serious misunderstanding, this information isn’t hard to get a hold of.
> 
> ...


Pretty much all who have worked on translations such as Nas/esv/Niv have affirmed that the scriptures are the inspired word of God to us, and are infallible in what they teach to us.


----------



## KMK (Jan 9, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> So it’s not the publisher or the seminaries that say they have X or Y view of Scripture, it’s their own published works that are available for any of us to read.



Who is 'us'? Is it the responsibility of each and every Christian to wade through the published works of these people and decide for themselves whether they are qualified translators and have a high view of Scripture?


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 9, 2018)

KMK said:


> Who is 'us'? Is it the responsibility of each and every Christian to wade through the published works of these people and decide for themselves whether they are qualified translators and have a high view of Scripture?



It’s obviously not the responsibility of every Christian to do so. Not all Christians can. Most probably cannot.

Most Christians probably don’t think about such things. Most just have an NIV or ESV or KJV because that’s what the pastor says to buy. Most don’t realize every handful of years major translations make some revisions. I don’t suspect God expects most Christian to have deep knowledge of these things.

However, neither are most Christians on forums like this saying the ESV 2016 edition has a ridiculous rendering of Genesis 3:16.


----------



## KMK (Jan 9, 2018)

Right. I am just trying to see whose responsibility it is to 'qualify' these translators. According to Websters, qualify means "to declare competent or adequate." Who examines these translators and declares their competency? The publishers, the seminaries, or the consumers?


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 9, 2018)

Why are Christians from 17th century England considered to be the Church's authority on any textual or translation issues?

This plea to authority makes an impenetrable citadel of all things KJV, and halts any further discussion on the real topic. 

To be consistent, why are their other pronouncements not considered binding on the English speaking Church today?

Obviously there is not going to be any Church-wide agreement/decisions on these issues in today's fragmented Western Church, so are we obligated to use the KJV for the next 1500 years if that remains unchanged?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jan 9, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> Why are Christians from 17th century England considered to be the Church's authority on any textual or translation issues?
> 
> This plea to authority makes an impenetrable citadel of all things KJV, and halts any further discussion on the real topic.
> 
> ...



Was this an attempt to answer my question or someone elses?


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 9, 2018)

KMK said:


> Was this an attempt to answer my question or someone elses?



It was the expression of my frustration at the common belief on this board that the KJV is the Gold Standard of Bibles in every facet of their creation and existence across all time and space.

I have nothing fruitful to add to this discussion at this point, so I will bow out.


----------



## KMK (Jan 9, 2018)

I understand your frustration, however, it isn't fair to stridently accuse most of the people on PB of being intransigent, inconsistent bullies, and then just bow out.

You should either substantiate your accusations or delete them. 


*Forum Rules and Etiquette*

3. Pause Before You Post

This is something that everyone can benefit from. Before you send the latest jab, punch, tweak, etc into cyberspace, take a minute (or two, or five) to make sure that you are doing so in a spirit of Christian maturity (cf. #4 below). Study first, pray, post after.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 10, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> It was the expression of my frustration at the common belief on this board that the KJV is the Gold Standard of Bibles in every facet of their creation and existence across all time and space.
> 
> I have nothing fruitful to add to this discussion at this point, so I will bow out.



You will have to unpack the broad assertion "common belief" and "Gold Standard". Among active members, such a statement is not in accord with the facts. 

For example:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...te-main-bible-translation.84855/#post-1060027

Seems almost an even split between KJV/NKJV and the other various translations.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 10, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You will have to unpack the broad assertion "common belief" and "Gold Standard". Among active members, such a statement is not in accord with the facts.
> 
> For example:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...te-main-bible-translation.84855/#post-1060027
> ...


Yes, as there are good bible translations available to us for use today, in addition to the KJV version itself.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 10, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> It was the expression of my frustration at the common belief on this board that the KJV is the Gold Standard of Bibles in every facet of their creation and existence across all time and space.
> 
> I have nothing fruitful to add to this discussion at this point, so I will bow out.


I would say that while those such as the KJVO crowd would agree with your assessment here regarding the KJV, but that there seem to be none of them here who post.


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 12, 2018)

I suppose when you think about it there is no real issue. Just as long as what we use for our walk towards eternity has the word Bible printed on the cover, what's it matter what the people who translated it believed!? As long as the one we choose suits our own personal taste it should be ok. Like, it's not as if we're in some kind of warfare or anything, or as if there is anything trying to hinder us or corrupt God's Word! I mean, seriously, anyone would think our life depended on it.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 12, 2018)

Free Christian said:


> I suppose when you think about it there is no real issue. Just as long as what we use for our walk towards eternity has the word Bible printed on the cover, what's it matter what the people who translated it believed!? As long as the one we choose suits our own personal taste it should be ok. Like, it's not as if we're in some kind of warfare or anything, or as if there is anything trying to hinder us or corrupt God's Word! I mean, seriously, anyone would think our life depended on it.



Brett, who has expressed any such ideas?


----------



## KMK (Jan 13, 2018)

This thread has run its course. Thanks to all who contributed.


----------

