# ESV Weaknesses?



## jbergsing (Mar 24, 2007)

This is my first post here so, please, go easy on me...

I was wondering what the weaknesses are in the ESV, if any? 

NOTE: Please, this isn't meant to turn into a KJVO discussion.


----------



## Herald (Mar 24, 2007)

First, welcome to the PB. 

Second, the weakness of the ESV depends on the binding. Bad bindings fall apart sooner than others.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 24, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> This is my first post here so, please, go easy on me...
> 
> I was wondering what the weaknesses are in the ESV, if any?
> 
> NOTE: Please, this isn't meant to turn into a KJVO discussion.



As far as I can tell (and I've been reading the ESV since 2002), there may be the very occasional infelicitous reading, but I don't think there are any major problems or boo-boos (technical term!) with the translation. It isn't nearly as clumsy to read as the NASB and much more faithful to the underlying Greek and Hebrew than the NIV.


----------



## Herald (Mar 24, 2007)

> It isn't nearly as clumsy to read as the NASB...



So THAT is what's wrong with me! I'm clumsy because I read the NASB. And here I thought I just had big feet.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> So THAT is what's wrong with me! I'm clumsy because I read the NASB. And here I thought I just had big feet.



You don't look like you have big feet in your avatar.


----------



## Herald (Mar 24, 2007)

bookslover said:


> You don't look like you have big feet in your avatar.



Why do you think there is just a head shot?


----------



## bookslover (Mar 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Why do you think there is just a head shot?



Nice teeth! Are they yours?


----------



## Herald (Mar 24, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Nice teeth! Are they yours?



 Yes, minus a few wisdom teeth...which, come to think of it, explains some other problems I have.


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> First, welcome to the PB.
> 
> ...the weakness of the ESV depends on the binding. Bad bindings fall apart sooner than others.



Although I was inquiring more about the translation itself, you have struck a chord with me there. I've been using the ESV for about a year and have almost worn mine out! Normal daily use shouldn't lead to it falling apart like it is starting to do.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> ...which, come to think of it, explains some other problems I have.



No comment <cough>...

***

This poor brother is trying to get an answer to his question about the ESV, and you and I have highjacked his thread. It's now "The Bill and Richard Show".


----------



## Herald (Mar 24, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> Although I was inquiring more about the translation itself, you have struck a chord with me there. I've been using the ESV for about a year and have almost worn mine out! Normal daily use shouldn't lead to it falling apart like it is starting to do.



John - I know. Just having some fun at a newbies expense. Seriously, some folks have problems with the ESV because they don't know how to reconcile the way it uses active Greek verbs. It certainly isn't a dynamic equivalent. No English translation is perfect. My scholarship of textual criticism only goes so far, but I have no problems with some of the major translations (ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV and RSV). Just keep the NIV at arms length.


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> John - I know. Just having some fun at a newbies expense. Seriously, some folks have problems with the ESV because they don't know how to reconcile the way it uses active Greek verbs. It certainly isn't a dynamic equivalent. No English translation is perfect. My scholarship of textual criticism only goes so far, but I have no problems with some of the major translations (ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV and RSV). Just keep the NIV at arms length.



Yeah, I though so. No prob. I, like many people, am a recovering NIV user.


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 24, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> First, welcome to the PB.
> 
> Second, the weakness of the ESV depends on the binding. Bad bindings fall apart sooner than others.



And what's more is I'm now lugging around my Reformation Study Bible (ESV) so as to not do any more damage to my original ESV. I don't really like to do that as those study bibles get cumbersome when you're trying to juggle it, your wife's bible and manage four small children simultaneously! You should see me sometimes. It's quite a sight!  I'm thinking of getting a pocket-sized bible as a replacement!


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Mar 24, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> And what's more is I'm now lugging around my Reformation Study Bible (ESV) so as to not do any more damage to my original ESV. I don't really like to do that as those study bibles get cumbersome when you're trying to juggle it, your wife's bible and manage four small children simultaneously! You should see me sometimes. It's quite a sight!  I'm thinking of getting a pocket-sized bible as a replacement!



I managed to get hold of a free ESV leather bound Bible without red lettering. I'm pretty pleased.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 24, 2007)

I have several ESV Bibles. My main one is the Premium Calfskin Leather 
(Smyth Sewn Binding) one that lists for $170 but you can get it for $112 from evangelicalbible.com.

https://evangelicalbible.com/store/product.php?productid=16155&cat=248&page=1 

My only complaint was that it seemed that the gilding on the pages came off to easily. In retrospect, after the first splotches on the gilded appeared, no more has come off. This leads me to suspect that it was not bad workmanship but due to some left over medication on my hands that I was putting on my eyelids at the time. So that said, I am extremely pleased with the quality of this edition. It is every bit worth the $112 evangelicalbible.com is asking for it.

As far as the translation goes, I think it is overall the best English translation out there right now.


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 25, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Just keep the NIV at arms length.



I was meeting with several pastors yesterday when one of them said he doesn't mind if new believers begin with the NIV, because they can always move up to something better later on.

Then it hit me: That's the exact same argument for ebonics.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 25, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> I was meeting with several pastors yesterday when one of them said he doesn't mind if new believers begin with the NIV, because they can always move up to something better later on.
> 
> Then it hit me: That's the exact same argument for ebonics.


----------



## Theoretical (Mar 25, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> I was meeting with several pastors yesterday when one of them said he doesn't mind if new believers begin with the NIV, because they can always move up to something better later on.
> 
> Then it hit me: That's the exact same argument for ebonics.


 - I may have to use that line sometime.


----------



## Theoretical (Mar 25, 2007)

.............


----------



## Ginny Dohms (Mar 25, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> This is my first post here so, please, go easy on me...
> 
> I was wondering what the weaknesses are in the ESV, if any?
> 
> NOTE: Please, this isn't meant to turn into a KJVO discussion.


John,

I, too, am a first time poster on PB, so I will offer my welcome to you at this time.

One key question that needs to be addressed, when it comes to translations, is to ask which original manuscript the translation was taken from. Of course this debate, as with the translations that follow, will not be unaninimously agreed upon, but there are many in the reformed community that believe the Textus Receptus, which the KJV was derived from, is the most accurate. The ESV did not use the TR to translate the New Testament. This site reveals which manuscripts were used, and how the ESV translation came about.

http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts

I hope that helps somewhat.

Ginny


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 25, 2007)

Ginny Dohms said:


> John,
> 
> I, too, am a first time poster on PB, so I will offer my welcome to you at this time.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your reply and hello to you, too! And thanks for that link! I am aware of the different original manuscripts, some of the differences between them and of the KJVO arguments. I watched it destroy a baptist church I belonged to many years ago. I myself do not subscribe to the KJVO beliefs and choose to use the ESV. This is why I wanted to head off any attempts to insert the KJVO arguments in my original post. It is not up for debate in this thread as it is not being discussed. My question was only about the ESV. Again, thanks for your reply!


----------



## larryjf (Mar 25, 2007)

I think it is one of the best overall English version available. I do have some issues with it. 1 Sam 13:1 is a terrible thing to read in public if it catches you off guard.

Other than that i do have issues with the publishers. They announced a 2007 revision and said that they would email anybody who asked the revisions. Then they told me personally that they would email me a list of the revisions.

Well, on 1/18/2007 they informed me that at an executive management meeting they decided not to release such a list.

Crossway's inability to follow through on their word has me very concerned about the future of this version.

… let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation. (Jam 5:12)

… each tree is known by its own fruit…(Luk 6:44)


----------



## Michael (Mar 25, 2007)

Hey Larry,

Have you seen this on the 2007 revisions? It's not exhaustive by any means, but you might be interested:

Truth Unchanged Not Changed That Much: A Preliminary Survey of Updates to the ESV New Testament


----------



## Kevin Lewis (Mar 25, 2007)

*Prefer NASB over ESV*

I have used the NASB for about 20 years. I decided to try the ESV (jump on the bandwagon) to check it out. I am surprised that people say the ESV flows better than the NASB. Maybe it is just me (and Baptist in Crisis) but I much prefer the flow and reading of the NASB. Also, in the last year or so, I have started reading the NKJV a lot also as that is what our pastor preaches from and I like to be able to follow along word for work.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 25, 2007)

Ezekiel16 said:


> Hey Larry,
> 
> Have you seen this on the 2007 revisions? It's not exhaustive by any means, but you might be interested:
> 
> Truth Unchanged Not Changed That Much: A Preliminary Survey of Updates to the ESV New Testament



That is a help...thanks.
It makes me appreciate the NASB a bit more (another one of my favorites).


----------



## MW (Mar 25, 2007)

Ezekiel16 said:


> Truth Unchanged Not Changed That Much: A Preliminary Survey of Updates to the ESV New Testament



Good to see the ESV revision coming into closer proximity with the reformed understanding of 1 Cor. 1:30, but it still has a ways to go before it is up to standard.


----------



## Michael (Mar 25, 2007)

BTW, after a closer look, (if these updates are indeed accurate) why the change on 1John 3:24? There's no textual basis for it.


----------



## 3John2 (Mar 26, 2007)

I don't have an ESV yet but I'm going to get one in the Reformation Study bible. Pretty funny thread this one.


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 26, 2007)

Reformed-Kermit said:


> I have used the NASB for about 20 years. I decided to try the ESV (jump on the bandwagon) to check it out. I am surprised that people say the ESV flows better than the NASB. Maybe it is just me (and Baptist in Crisis) but I much prefer the flow and reading of the NASB. Also, in the last year or so, I have started reading the NKJV a lot also as that is what our pastor preaches from and I like to be able to follow along word for work.


I really like the NASB, as well. However, our pastor preaches from ESV. When I was deciding on which one to purchase, this was the deciding factor. Both are good translations and I don't mind using either. But, as you noted, it's easier to follow along when you are using the same translation as your pastor.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 26, 2007)

larryjf said:


> That is a help...thanks.
> It makes me appreciate the NASB a bit more (another one of my favorites).





Ezekiel16 said:


> Hey Larry,
> 
> Have you seen this on the 2007 revisions? It's not exhaustive by any means, but you might be interested:
> 
> Truth Unchanged Not Changed That Much: A Preliminary Survey of Updates to the ESV New Testament



Not sure I can take seriously a review that suggests I get the TNIV as a good contemporary translation:



> As I said, the NASB makes a better literal choice in a Bible translation. If you want a contemporary, but accurate translation, I always recommend the TNIV.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Mar 26, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> This is my first post here so, please, go easy on me...
> 
> I was wondering what the weaknesses are in the ESV, if any?
> 
> NOTE: Please, this isn't meant to turn into a KJVO discussion.




The Trinitarian Bible Society has published a useful tract highlighting the weaknesses of the ESV here:

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A120-a.pdf

Kind regards,

Jie-Huli


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 26, 2007)

Jie-Huli said:


> The Trinitarian Bible Society has published a useful tract highlighting the weaknesses of the ESV here:
> 
> http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A120-a.pdf
> 
> ...


What a surprise! An organization with a stake in bible sales pointing out *supposed *problems with a competitor's product. And, on top of that, this organization only publishes "uncorrupted versions of the Word of God". And what do they think that list might include? Yep, as I guessed: The KJV. Oh, and the KJV. And the KJV made the "uncorrupted" list! What a shocker! Only one version, in their eyes, is uncorrupted: KJV! 

So let's stop trying to turn this into a KJVO debate. Thank you.

In His Grace, John


----------



## KMK (Mar 26, 2007)

Reformed-Kermit said:


> Maybe it is just me (and Baptist in Crisis) but I much prefer the *flow* and reading of the NASB.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Mar 26, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> What a surprise! An organization with a stake in bible sales pointing out *supposed *problems with a competitor's product. And, on top of that, this organization only publishes "uncorrupted versions of the Word of God". And what do they think that list might include? Yep, as I guessed: The KJV. Oh, and the KJV. And the KJV made the "uncorrupted" list! What a shocker! Only one version, in their eyes, is uncorrupted: KJV!
> 
> So let's stop trying to turn this into a KJVO debate. Thank you.
> 
> In His Grace, John



Mr. Bergsing,

I can assure you I have no intention of "debating" anything here. The article to which I linked gave an assessment of the weaknesses of the ESV . . . which I believe was precisely the query posed in your original post.

It is one thing to say you do not want a "KJVO" discussion, but it is quite another thing to say you will automatically discard any critique of the ESV which comes from an organisation which supports the Textus Receptus/Authorised Version. 

I will only add that you have grossly mischaracterised the Trinitarian Bible Society. It happens to be a non-profit organisation, and a large portion of its proceeds are used for free distributions of the Bible in situations of need. It is an organisation built on principle and reverence for God's Word, not on profit-seeking, so it is most uncharitable to imply that its critique of other Bible versions springs from such materialistic motives.

I will also add that TBS is a most scholarly, theologically reformed society, and any attempt to link it to any questionable "KJVO" groups that may exist is exceedingly misguided.

With kind regards,

Jie-Huli


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 26, 2007)

Jie-Huli said:


> Mr. Bergsing,
> 
> I can assure you I have no intention of "debating" anything here. The article to which I linked gave an assessment of the weaknesses of the ESV . . . which I believe was precisely the query posed in your original post.
> 
> ...


If I have misrepresented the TBS, I will recant. My intent was not to attack or mischaracterize them. As you have stated, they are a NFP organization.

However, when the only translation they see as not being corrupted is any one particular version, I find that a bit misguided. 

I did read that document and, quite frankly, I found their arguments rather weak. Especially when it addressed the gender issue. That's not to say I support any version like the tNIV, but I don't see a problem with the texts that the document addressed. The differences are acceptable. But so be it. It's not that I don't like the KJV (I have a few on my shelf), I just don't like it enough to use it as my primary bible.

In His Grace, John


----------



## MW (Mar 26, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> However, when the only translation they see as not being corrupted is any one particular version, I find that a bit misguided.



If one finds fault with the NIV, an AV preferred advocate can hardly be regarded as misguided for consistently carrying through the same critical approach to all modern versions, which adopt the same methods of translation as the NIV, only to a lesser degree.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 26, 2007)

I used to carry an RSV with me. Inside the cover was a booklet from TBS listing all the differences in the NT between the KJV or AV and other versions. The versions that it compared were ones that I was using. I used different versions for different reasons. The KJV, once you understand the language, allows for less equivocation, whereas other versions were better for different aspects needed to understand the text. 

In church I would have my RSV with that little booklet, and in my pocket I would have a NAS version of the NT.

Anyways, to cut to the chase, that little booklet was handy. I added my own notes here and there, where notable differences came up. You can tell that I'm not a KJV-only guy, because I carried two different versions to church with me, and neither of them were KJV. But I liked that little booklet.

I carry the ESV now. I still like my RSV, though, and still consider it "my Bible". I know it, and can remember whether texts are on the left side or the right side, bottom or top of the page, so that I can find them faster. That's just from years and years of using the same one. Some pages are falling out, so I use it less often now. 

But I like the older versions better than the newer ones. The RSV, for example, was written in a time when there were influences on interpretation that hardly mean anything to us anymore. If you're familiar with the different versions, or consult them, especially the KJV because of its cultural alienation from our own, I don't see how even the NIV can be much of a bother. I don't advocate reading just one version. Read them all. Go ahead and have your favourite, but use them all. None of them are Hebrew or Greek, but all of them are translations from the Hebrew and Greek. So I use them to try to understand the original as best I can, because I don't know Hebrew and Greek. I believe firmly that the Bible is translatable to peoples' languages, and that still all that is necessary will be easily discernible.


----------



## Tallen (Mar 28, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> This is my first post here so, please, go easy on me...
> 
> I was wondering what the weaknesses are in the ESV, if any?
> 
> NOTE: Please, this isn't meant to turn into a KJVO discussion.


 

Check this out.

 Revised Link with complete Teaching


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 28, 2007)

Regarding Letis...

http://www.aomin.org/TLetis.html






Tallen said:


> Check this out.
> 
> Dr. Letis "The So Called English Stanard Version"


----------



## Tallen (Mar 28, 2007)

prespastor said:


> Regarding Letis...
> 
> http://www.aomin.org/TLetis.html


 

Letis dealt with this long ago before his death.

I would say that your post is for no other reason than to poison the well. As you didn't deal with anything he had to say.

Thank you for you response.


----------



## Archlute (Mar 28, 2007)

> Market for the ESV
> 
> An important question must be asked. It is, “To whom will the ESV appeal?”. First, the “Bibleholic” will like it. This is someone who just has to have every new translation which comes onto the market. Second, it will appeal to those who are never satisfied with any translation and hope that the newest one will finally be the best. Third, people who perhaps secretly used and enjoyed the RSV but were concerned about the liberal elements in it may like the ESV.




Unsubstantial arguments and caricatures such as these are a big reason why I stopped taking much of an interest in the TBS. Silliness.


As to your question, the only real weakness that I perceive in the ESV is its grating tendency to downplay or be apologetic regarding gender. I've mentioned this before, but the nuisance of seeing a superscript numeral following every reference to "brother/brothers", and knowing that the silly footnote will repeat what it has already said on practically every other page of the epistles, really detracts from the "reading experience" for me. 

Along with that, the gender-intimidated footnotes to 1 Corinthians 7:36 are just silly, and can in no way be read this way from the Greek. You cannot say that it could be read as "or her" in footnote seven, when in fact the pronoun is a masculine singular in relationship to a preceding feminine singular noun. Of course, they try and take the feminine significance out of _parthenon_, which they translate as "betrothed", rather than "virgin". This then allows both a gender neutral reading, as well as an ambiguity regarding the sexual purity of the "betrothed", a translation signifying a contractual, rather than a sexual, state.

On a positive note, I do still believe that the ESV is the most grammatically and stylistically outstanding English translation of the OT that may be found today. Hope that helps.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 28, 2007)

"Poison the well?"

Letis was also one who repeated the myth that royalties from every ESV Bible sale went to the NCCC. You would think a 'scholar' would get his data straight before making claims like that.

Furthermore...according to some posts on the Internet by those who clamied to know him...after his death it came out that he lived a rather double life...playing blues in the 'seedier side of Atlanta' (http://www.andrewsandlin.net/?p=56 [see the final response]). What's more, the people in his musical life had no idea he was even a Christian (http://www.sharperiron.org/archive/index.php/t-1077.html).

My point? Why is it that KJVO people villify anything to do with the Critical Text because of some of the men behind the positon (Westcott and Hort for instance) but will support a man like Letis? 

This is yet another case of where too many KJV folks will adopt whatever arguement backs up their position whether it is consistent with their other points or not. 

The very best KJVO position is a mish mash of contradictions.




Tallen said:


> Letis dealt with this long ago before his death.
> 
> I would say that your post is for no other reason than to poison the well. As you didn't deal with anything he had to say.
> 
> Thank you for you response.


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 28, 2007)

Tallen said:


> Check this out.
> 
> Dr. Letis "The So Called English Stanard Version"


I don't get it. That had absolutely nothing to do with bible translations.


----------



## Tallen (Mar 28, 2007)

prespastor said:


> "Poison the well?"


 
Yes it's called poisoning the well. You are addressing the issue ad hominem and attacking his person and haven't addressed the issues.



> Letis was also one who repeated the myth that royalties from every ESV Bible sale went to the NCCC. You would think a 'scholar' would get his data straight before making claims like that.


 
This was also addressed before his death and is a matter of public record. He showed his case and defended it.



> Furthermore...according to some posts on the Internet by those who clamied to know him...after his death it came out that he lived a rather double life...playing blues in the 'seedier side of Atlanta' (http://www.andrewsandlin.net/?p=56 [see the final response]). What's more, the people in his musical life had no idea he was even a Christian (http://www.sharperiron.org/archive/index.php/t-1077.html).


 
I am guessing at this point you are willing to show a great deal of ignorance and arrogance. Letis was a personal friend of mine and his witness for Christ was widely known. All one has to do is use a little bit of common sense, which you seem to not want to do, and look at his ample record of books, articles, radio programs and ministry to see his public witness for his Lord.

I suppose you are going to tell me that every one that knows you, knows all about your Christianity and you witness to every individual you meet?  



> My point? Why is it that KJVO people villify anything to do with the Critical Text because of some of the men behind the positon (Westcott and Hort for instance) but will support a man like Letis?


 
Letis was not a KJVO and has written about his position. I would suggest you find out a little about the person that you are going to try and condemn publicly, and deal with the substance of his arguments rather than continue to display such an unchristian and uninformed attack upon a person. I would remind you of the 9th commandment, whereby we are told of the great sin of bearing false witness.



> This is yet another case of where too many KJV folks will adopt whatever arguement backs up their position whether it is consistent with their other points or not.


 
Now you attack has come toward me, with the most ignorant assumption that I am a KJVO advocate, which I am not. 



> The very best KJVO position is a mish mash of contradictions.


 
If you are going to argue against that position, then I would suggest you argue with someone that would disagree and is a KJVO advocate.

I will await your public repentance since your witness was public, else I find this most immature position that you are taking no more than what it is shown to be, an attack upon a person in order to poison a certain position, and in this case a position the person you are attacking didn't even hold.


----------



## Tallen (Mar 28, 2007)

Tallen said:


> Check this out.
> 
> Dr. Letis "The So Called English Stanard Version"


 
For some reason the whole of the teaching didn't play, I don't know why.

Try this link, and I appreciate the heads up.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Theodore^Letis,^Ph.D.

Note I change the original post.


----------



## Tallen (Mar 28, 2007)

I changed the link, that one didn't work for some reason.


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 28, 2007)

*I Tried...*

I tried to keep this from heading in an ugly direction. I should have known most questions regarding translations seem to get railroaded into this stuff. It was interesting in the beginning, though.


----------



## Tallen (Mar 28, 2007)

I apologize for any role I may have had in derailing the conversation, but with the new link you will hear about a 1/2 hour teaching. I hope you will consider it, even if you aren't persuaded, I think he makes good and valid points throughout.

Blessings.


----------



## Tallen (Mar 28, 2007)

*Further more:*

Written by Dr. Letis in response to being asked if he was a KJVO.

"Well, I would have thought that by posting an entire essay, with well over a hundred references, where I denounce the Dean Burgon Society and many of the individuals associated with it; as well as explicitly denouncing ALL the writings of this KJV only cult; and warning folks to avoid them; and finally having written a scathing critique of the book that to date has garnered the most readers to this misguided cult--i.e., Riplinger--that this would have been evidence enough of my position; would have made my position crystal clear. From your question, therefore, I take it that you did not bother to actually _read _the essay written by me denouncing this cult, published several years _before_ White ever took up the subject in a less than prepared way. I guess unless White's (that's James White) name appears on a document for some, it does not merit reading. Nevertheless, read and understand that the KJV only cult is hereby most vigorously denounced--and always has been--by me, in all of its manifold expressions. It represents obscurantism and anti-intellectualism in its darkest and most incurrable state. These characteristics I have fought both within this misguided, fundamentalist world; as well as where it I have found it in academic cheats, just another expression of obscurantism and anti-intellectualism. Hope this is helpful to you. Do read my essay on this, when you find the time...




" 

Theodore P. Letis

Find the essay here:

HERE 

Click on the page to the left to read the entire essay.


----------



## Tallen (Mar 28, 2007)

And consider:

 CONSIDER ME BEFORE YOU POST


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2007)

Thankyou, Ted, for the information you have provided. Arguments in favour of the superior accuracy of the AV ought not to be labelled KJVO. The two have been distinguished time and again on this board. It seems to have become a convenient label which denounces the AV preferred proponent and unjustifiably excuses their opponents from engaging in the merits of the arguments presented.


----------



## Tallen (Mar 28, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Thankyou, Ted, for the information you have provided. Arguments in favour of the superior accuracy of the AV ought not to be labelled KJVO. The two have been distinguished time and again on this board. It seems to have become a convenient label which denounces the AV preferred proponent and unjustifiably excuses their opponents from engaging in the merits of the arguments presented.


 
 

Thank you for your encouragement and level-headed approach Rev. Winzer.

May the Lord bless you and keep you.


----------



## Kevin Lewis (Mar 28, 2007)

*What's up with dat?*



KMK said:


>



Don't like the NASB?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 30, 2007)

My comments about Letis were derived from public posts by others claiming to know him. I provided quotes from two different Web sites (sources). The Lord know the truth of this; my point was not to vilify Letis.

If those quotes are true, I presonally would not use it as a basis to throw out his schalorship on that basis. His work should stand on its own merit. KJVO advocates encourage people to throw out the work of textual scholars becuase of liberals among them. 

I use the term KJVO in a broader sense than simply those in the Peter Ruckman camp. For clarificaion...I use the term KJVO for any position that includes the belief that in the case of every textual varient in the Greek manuscripts, the KJV went with the correct reading.

I have challenged the gentlemen here on Puritanboard on several occasions to provide a single example of an incorrect varient used in the KJV. I even went so far to ask for an example of one areas where the translation was incorrect. I have not received an example of either.

While I do draw a distinction between what some of you gentlemen are saying here and those like Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman, ultimately the view held of the KJV by some here is for all practical purposes in the end, KJVO. Thus my use of the label.




Tallen said:


> Yes it's called poisoning the well. You are addressing the issue ad hominem and attacking his person and haven't addressed the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 30, 2007)

My apologies to the OP. He originally stated that he did not want this to turn into a KJVO discussion and I have engaged that here.  

I'm going to cease my discussion regarding KJVO issues in this particular thread.


----------

