# The So-Called English Standard Version



## JOwen (Aug 3, 2009)

The late Dr. Ted Letis, a true text scholar with Ivy League credentials debunks the myth that the ESV is a faithful translation. I encourage you all to give this a listen.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 3, 2009)

JOwen said:


> The late Dr. Ted Letis, a true text scholar with Ivy League credentials debunks the myth that the ESV is a faithful translation. I encourage you all to give this a listen.



I am eager to compare this with my own findings-

SermonAudio.com - Reformed Baptist Church


----------



## JML (Aug 3, 2009)

Jerrold and/or Bob,

Do either one of you have a manuscript version? I have been having problems with my speakers on my computer.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 3, 2009)

John Lanier said:


> Jerrold and/or Bob,
> 
> Do either one of you have a manuscript version? I have been having problems with my speakers on my computer.



John, if you could PM me I will see what I can do about getting you a print version.


----------



## Grillsy (Aug 3, 2009)

It is interesting I was just talking to one a man who has been our pulpit supply for the last few weeks and he was saying some of the very same things...as I clutched my ESV Study Bible.


----------



## Quickened (Aug 3, 2009)

Can we get a synopsis/cliffs?


----------



## Damon Rambo (Aug 3, 2009)

O.K., I will listen: but before I do, this guy isn't a KJV pusher, is he? Because the ESV is so superior to the KJV, in regards to faithfulness to the Greek, that to even say otherwise is preposterous. And I am SO tired of listening to KJV only cultists, or, mildly less annoying, KJV preferred people, that prefer the KJV simply because it's Shakespearean, Elizabethan language, "sounds better" (though they would never admit to such).

So, is the guy endorsing a better version (HCSB, NET, etc)? Or is he pushing a KJV only/preferred adenda?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Aug 3, 2009)

Pastor Lewis, 

I believe that if the Textus Receptus people would put out a faithful modern translation, we could solve this problem today. The thing is that TR people will say that ANY translation is unfaithful as long as it is not based on the TR. I am a TR guy that prefers the ESV to the NKJV for a number of reasons... 

So where is this translation? The church needs it.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 3, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> O.K., I will listen: but before I do, this guy isn't a KJV pusher, is he? Because the ESV is so superior to the KJV, in regards to faithfulness to the Greek, that to even say otherwise is preposterous. And I am SO tired of listening to KJV only cultists, or, mildly less annoying, KJV preferred people, that prefer the KJV simply because it's Shakespearean, Elizabethan language, "sounds better" (though they would never admit to such).
> 
> So, is the guy endorsing a better version (HCSB, NET, etc)? Or is he pushing a KJV only/preferred adenda?



For my part I am not a KJV only guy. I prefer the Byzantine text and therefore use the New King James. Greek text aside I like the New American Standard Bible too.


----------



## JOwen (Aug 3, 2009)

Damon Rambo said:


> O.K., I will listen: but before I do, this guy isn't a KJV pusher, is he? Because the ESV is so superior to the KJV, in regards to faithfulness to the Greek, that to even say otherwise is preposterous. And I am SO tired of listening to KJV only cultists, or, mildly less annoying, KJV preferred people, that prefer the KJV simply because it's Shakespearean, Elizabethan language, "sounds better" (though they would never admit to such).
> 
> So, is the guy endorsing a better version (HCSB, NET, etc)? Or is he pushing a KJV only/preferred adenda?



Ya, that's not laced with bias at all. Give it a listen, then we can talk. Letis was a Ph.D from the University of Edinburgh with top notch credentials. Disagree or agree, he has very intelligent things to say. You must be a very good Greek scholar to insist that the ESV is SO superior to the KJV. We neophytes who only have 4 semesters of Greek could learn much from you I think.


----------



## louis_jp (Aug 3, 2009)

He seems to be saying two things:

1. The only manuscripts that are legitimate are the ones that went into the Latin Vulgate and its Eastern equivalent, which he dubs the "definitive canonical" versions of the Word; and

2. The RSV, and by extension the ESV, are particularly dubious, because they are based on early manuscripts that do not fit the qualification above.


----------



## wallingj (Aug 3, 2009)

Following that argument to its conclusion, our AV is in error because it does not contain the Apocrypha.


----------



## JM (Aug 3, 2009)

wallingj said:


> Following that argument to its conclusion, our AV is in error because it does not contain the Apocrypha.



Doesn't follow.


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 3, 2009)

JM said:


> wallingj said:
> 
> 
> > Following that argument to its conclusion, our AV is in error because it does not contain the Apocrypha.
> ...



Can you explain how it does not follow? It seems to be the logical end of the argument.


----------



## JM (Aug 3, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > wallingj said:
> ...



It was never part of canon.


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 3, 2009)

JM said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > JM said:
> ...



I am extremely confused by what you are asking here. Are you asking me to explain your argument? That will be difficult, since I apparently don't understand it. 

If one argues that the Vulgate is legitimate then it would seem to follow that the Apocrypha should be in modern translations. This is problematic to me.

Edit: We seem to have cross posted, and I still don't understand your point. But no worries, I'm content to leave it be. I'm fairly certain of my view and there are other people with whom I can discuss this.


----------



## Hungus (Aug 3, 2009)

timmopussycat said:


> ]Would you be able to post a list of said fallacies?



I could, but I would have to listen to him again. Is that what you are asking me to do?


----------



## wallingj (Aug 3, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > wallingj said:
> ...



It appears the argument for the KJV is because the Greek texts used to translate Latin Vulgate should be the only Greek texts used for any translation. Thus according to the ESV is wrong because it does exclusively used the Greek texts that the Latin Vulgate used. The Latin Vulgate also contains the Apophrica, and since its translation contained the correct Greek texts, we must be wrong not when we do not include in our translations the apophrica since the apophrica was from the same correct texts. 

Just not understanding the logic in his argument. x texts were used in y translation then those texts are the correct texts for z translation. X texts also contained q books, since x texts are the correct texts because that is what the Fathers used, and since x texts also contained q books, then q books must also be correct. 
We in the reformed community have rejected q books, even though they were used by some church fathers, thus why does one portion of x texts become superior while some of the same x texts but q books have been rejected.

Finally, I thought one of the main arguments against the CT over the MT was because the CT aligned more closely to the Latin Vulgate.


----------



## louis_jp (Aug 3, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> > Montanablue said:
> ...



I think Dr. Letis' point was that the manuscripts that went into the Vulgate are the correct manuscripts to base our translations on. It doesn't necessarily follow that all of the books included in the Vulgate are the correct books.


----------



## Gloria (Aug 3, 2009)

Listening now....hmmmm....


----------



## Montanablue (Aug 3, 2009)

louis_jp said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > JM said:
> ...



Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification!


----------



## Damon Rambo (Aug 3, 2009)

JOwen said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> > O.K., I will listen: but before I do, this guy isn't a KJV pusher, is he? Because the ESV is so superior to the KJV, in regards to faithfulness to the Greek, that to even say otherwise is preposterous. And I am SO tired of listening to KJV only cultists, or, mildly less annoying, KJV preferred people, that prefer the KJV simply because it's Shakespearean, Elizabethan language, "sounds better" (though they would never admit to such).
> ...



I have only taken 2 years of Greek (apparently, the same as yourself). However, it does not take a rocket scientist to see an unrecognized perfect tense verb, or a passive verb translated as an active. 

The fact is, that the ESV relies heavily on texts which are neglected by other versions, KJV included. The Septuagint, for instance, which was quoted by Jesus and the disciples, but was ignored by some translators. Apparently, they know more than Christ.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2009)

*MODERATOR'S HAT ON:
*
*Can we possibly have one thread on textual/translation issues that does not quickly descend into schoolyard name-calling?*

Jerrold - you could be a bit more circumspect in the OP, and avoid shock bomb throwing.

Damon - you can avoid acting as if you have definitively answered translation issues. As a pastor who uses the ESV, and has 20+ years of Greek experience (including an MA in Classical Greek from a top 5 university), I can say that your blanket statement is not true.

Keep it civil, or this thread dies a quick death.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Aug 3, 2009)

Hungus said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > ]Would you be able to post a list of said fallacies?
> ...



No, what we are asking is that you substantiate your large claims. Is that an absurd request? 

CT


----------



## Herald (Aug 3, 2009)

louis_jp said:


> He seems to be saying two things:
> 
> 1. The only manuscripts that are legitimate are the ones that went into the Latin Vulgate and its Eastern equivalent, which he dubs the "definitive canonical" versions of the Word; and
> 
> 2. The RSV, and by extension the ESV, are particularly dubious, because they are based on early manuscripts that do not fit the qualification above.



Ummm...so it's just the typical TR vs. CT debate? If so,there doesn't seem to be anything new.


----------



## wallingj (Aug 3, 2009)

Herald said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> > He seems to be saying two things:
> ...


 
Yep that was my first thought also.


----------



## KMK (Aug 3, 2009)

Hungus said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Hungus said:
> ...



Robert, the point that many are making is this:

Unsubstantiated assertions from either side provide no light but plenty of heat. Heat causes otherwise fruitful discussions to degenerate into "Are so, Are not" volleys that have no value, and are, quite frankly, an embarrassment to the PB. Please refrain from making assertions without providing some kind of substantiation. There is no need for a detailed list, but how about some examples from off the top of your head?


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 3, 2009)

jogri17 said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > *MODERATOR'S HAT ON:
> ...



Actually in this particular case it was flamethrowing name calling from the CT side that helped this particular conversation devolve (I have seen both sides start the fights on PB). 

Your analysis bears closer scrutiny, however, on substantial grounds. It is not simply a bipolar argument. In my time on PB, I have not seen many true "KJV only" folks in the cultic sense. Those who prefer the KJV seem to do so in part, as you suggest, for reasons of how they see God choosing to preserve his Word. But, they also do so because they seem to think that the Byzantine tradition is a more reliable one on scholarly grounds. Those who adopt the CT also do so for reasons of scholarly conviction AND because that is how they see God choosing to preserve his Word. A growing number of folks reject both the TR with its half dozen Erasmian mss AND the NA/UBS textual tradition with its putative text that actually never existed in written form at any time in the past. They favor the Byzantine tradition of 95% of the mss extant which is neither TR nor CT.

I will grant you that we seem to get almost as exercised over this one as Baptism and theonomy. However, it need not be so. Let's extend one another a bit of charity and admit that one's motives may be sound even if one's argument is ultimately proven to be erroneous.

In my experience it is VERY difficult to throw off the traces of the vast numbers of textual critics of left (Ehrman) and right (Wallace) who agree with the NA/UBS text. However, some of the arguments put forth on the PB have convinced me to look at the other side with a great deal more sympathy.


----------



## Honor (Aug 3, 2009)

I was reading this thread and the only thing I could think of is... either way the argument goes... for me, ignorance is bliss (as I hug the ESV study Bible my husband bought me as my christmas present)....
ok this commercial break is over, carry on.


----------



## Herald (Aug 3, 2009)

*ENOUGH!*

*I am deleting any and all posts that even sniff like an attitude. Drop the bickering back and forth. Deal with the issue in a charitable way or leave the discussion. If you can't do that then you will be prohibited from participating in this thread.*


----------



## KMK (Aug 3, 2009)

Honor said:


> I was reading this thread and the only thing I could think of is... either way the argument goes... for me, ignorance is bliss (as I hug the ESV study Bible my husband bought me as my christmas present)....
> ok this commercial break is over, carry on.



There is a great deal of wisdom in this post even though it is 'off topic'. Neither side should imply that every Christian must become their own authority in this matter. That is too great a burden. There is nothing wrong with relying on the opinions of your God-given watchmen. I think every thread in the T&M Forum should have this as a disclaimer. (Now this commercial break is over as well.)


----------



## SolaGratia (Aug 3, 2009)

Actually the CT (Westcott and Hort) folks started the first attack:

"I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, *having read so little Greek Testament*, and dragged on with the *villainous Textus Receptus.*. Think of that *vile Textus Receptus* leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones" (Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.211).

Also notice how little these "scholars" read Greek.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 3, 2009)

*THREAD CLOSED.*


If you want to listen to the link, please do. But this thread is done. It's really sad that even after warnings, people can't play nice.


----------

