# Differences in the Five Leading Bible Translations According to ESV Publishers



## SolaGratia (Jan 20, 2009)

Differences in the Five Leading Bible Translations According to ESV Publishers???

ESV Bible Blog Differences in the Five Leading Bible Translations

So the NKJV and the KJV are not based on "Earlier Greek & Hebrew Manuscripts", Hmmm?


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny (Jan 20, 2009)

I both love and resent the ESV. Too bad the WCF was lacking a sufficient word from God, guess the Reformation was a bust.

-----Added 1/20/2009 at 02:42:12 EST-----

Seriously, why undermine the word of God. When one asserts that a translation that was published 400 years ago does not reflect the earliest manuscripts, does this not belittle the scholarship of those that commented upon the inferior manuscripts. A torpedo to the hull of the reformation indeed!


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 20, 2009)

I guess Non-English Bible readers are missing out on the Word of God as found in the ESV/RSV according to ESV publishers.

-Now that's what I called Marketing.


----------



## Grymir (Jan 20, 2009)

$$ Get the one with yes in both columns $$

Also, I noticed the comments were closed.

My trusty KJV needs no marketing beyond "Genuine Leather"


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 20, 2009)

Frankly, what a dumb chart. What does any of that prove?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 20, 2009)

That is really quite offensive, with its underlying insinuations. I'm quite shocked actually that they'd stoop to such tactics.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 20, 2009)

Not to get into too much ESV bashing but it is quite par for the course when it comes to how the ESV has been marketed overall.


----------



## nicnap (Jan 20, 2009)

It all comes down to their presuppositions concerning the textual apparatus...and unfortunately those presuppositions leave the church without an "accurate" basis and in the lurch for 1800 years.


----------



## Hamalas (Jan 20, 2009)

As a big fan of the ESV, I have to say that I am appalled at some of the marketing tactics that have been used! I mean, to try and reduce something as complex as textual criticism, linguistics, theology, exegesis, etc.... into a silly list of "yes" and "no's" is beyond absurd!


----------



## CDM (Jan 20, 2009)

The Publication Year column is the most important one for me. Sold!

/sarcasm


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 20, 2009)

Don't get too worked up, guys. It is obvious (bad) marketing. Notice how the NASB was left off the chart, since it would have the same "answers" in the chart" except year?

Ever read the full page ad from the NASB? Or NIV marketing? Or KJV marketing? All have examples that denigrate other translations and "cast doubt on the Word of God." After all, that was the *stated premise* of the KJV - that the Geneva and Tyndale translations were worthless.

I think it would be worthwhile to send a respectful email/letter to the Crossway, showing that the chart is _unhelpful._


----------



## JohnGill (Jan 20, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> After all, that was the *stated premise* of the KJV - that the Geneva and Tyndale translations were worthless.



Where's this found?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 20, 2009)

JohnGill said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > After all, that was the *stated premise* of the KJV - that the Geneva and Tyndale translations were worthless.
> ...



King James said that he:



> "Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but *I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. * I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other." (emphasis added)



So a resolution was passed:



> "That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, *and only to be used* in all churches of England in time of divine service." (emphasis added)


----------



## matthew11v25 (Jan 20, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Don't get too worked up, guys. It is obvious (bad) marketing. Notice how the NASB was left off the chart, since it would have the same "answers" in the chart" except year?
> 
> Ever read the full page ad from the NASB? Or NIV marketing? Or KJV marketing? All have examples that denigrate other translations and "cast doubt on the Word of God." After all, that was the *stated premise* of the KJV - that the Geneva and Tyndale translations were worthless.
> 
> I think it would be worthwhile to send a respectful email/letter to the Crossway, showing that the chart is _unhelpful._



Great post Fred! I agree.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jan 20, 2009)

Hey, not all ESV marketing is necessary bad. We have a couple from Ghana who worship with us; I was pleased to see the following photo and read the accompanying story and pass it along to them!







Wait a minute, was that Photoshopped?!?


----------



## Grymir (Jan 20, 2009)

King James beef with the Geneva was the notes, not the translation. Just to set the record straight.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 20, 2009)

Grymir said:


> King James beef with the Geneva was the notes, not the translation. Just to set the record straight.



Did you not read the quote that I provided in the direct words of James himself? What part of "well translated" and "worst" talks about notes?

Don't words mean anything anymore?


----------



## Hippo (Jan 20, 2009)

nicnap said:


> It all comes down to their presuppositions concerning the textual apparatus...and unfortunately those presuppositions leave the church without an "accurate" basis and in the lurch for 1800 years.




I do not see anything particularly wrong with the chart in itself, but neither is there much point to it. All it suggests is that the use of older texts (than those available to create the AV) in order to come closer to the original text is a good thing. 

The alternate presuposition that any text that differs from the TR left those churches using such texts without an accurate basis and in the lurch is just as offensive.


----------



## Grymir (Jan 20, 2009)

Fred, I thought that King James beef with the Geneva's notes were widely known. It was the people in Parlement that wanted a translation.


----------



## nicnap (Jan 20, 2009)

Hippo said:


> All it suggests is that the use of older texts (than those available to create the AV) in order to come closer to the original text is a good thing.



That's the point...it is whether or not you presuppose they bring you closer to the original. As I said, it is a presupposition on either side. The one is easily remedied; the other is not.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 20, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > King James beef with the Geneva was the notes, not the translation. Just to set the record straight.
> ...



They do - but I wonder... why would King James's proclamation concerning the reliability of the Geneva Bible's translation mean anything? What expertise did he have as an original language scholar to have said such things?


----------



## Whitefield (Jan 20, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> why would King James's proclamation concerning the reliability of the Geneva Bible's translation mean anything?



He was the King . . . talk about a marketing tool (better than being recommended by Oprah) .. if the King (as the head of the Church of England) endorsed a book it would sell .. if he disapproved of a book, it was off the shelf and not to be seen again. This isn't about whether his estimation was correct (clearly it wasn't) but what was the marketing power of the King.


----------



## Grymir (Jan 20, 2009)

Wow, what a great idea. The King beats Oprah thats for sure. I never considered that. That makes the ESV's marketing seem, well, small.


----------



## TimV (Jan 20, 2009)

> Fred, I thought that King James beef with the Geneva's notes were widely known. It was the people in Parlement that wanted a translation.



No, the proper reply is "Thanks, Fred. I missed what you posted. Now that I've gone back and re-read your quote from King James, I see that when I said



> King James beef with the Geneva was the notes, not the translation. Just to set the record straight.



I was mistaken, since if I had read the quote from King James that you posted, I would have seen that when King James said:



> Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst.



King James did indeed have a beef with the Geneva.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 20, 2009)

The chart was silly but hardly anything to get worked up about.


----------



## jeffm05 (Jan 20, 2009)

TimV said:


> King James did indeed have a beef with the Geneva.



If I recall correctly his main problem with the Geneva Bible (other than the margin notes) was the lack of the English words "bishop" and "bishopric". 

A good book to read on this topic is "In the Beginning" by Alister McGrath.

Also if I recall correctly from reading that book Parliament never requested a new translation.

One thing that is interesting about the translation of the AV/KJV is that Tyndale's Bible and the Geneva Bible were actually consulted for wording. You can read Bancroft's rules for the translation of the AV/KJV here:

http://www.bibleprotector.com/RICHARD_BANCROFT.pdf

These translation rules are also discussed in Alister McGrath's book.


----------



## JM (Jan 20, 2009)

I had _read_ the same thing about the notes that Mr. Johnson posted. 

King James motive for claiming the Geneva was the worst translation was due to the notes, even if he stated otherwise, it was really the notes he wanted removed...that's what I've _read_...don't know if it's true.

I can't remember which title I read it in maybe it was God's Secretaries or perhaps God's Bestseller those are the two that come to mind.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 20, 2009)

So why then should the Church switch over to the ESV? If it is good for an individual then why not the whole church. 

Some say "Because the ESV": 

Has a great binding compare to Tyndale's KJV/NKJV.

Comes in a study bible.

Is endores by John Piper, J.I. Packer, etc.

It sounds correct and easy to understand when you read it.


I don't know, what does the Church say? NAPARC? Pastors?

Maybe the Pope (papist) should help out on this, after he/they stop laughing at us Protestants. 


- I believed in the Holy catholic Church


----------



## Grace Alone (Jan 20, 2009)

I'd also like to ask why reformed people would be attached to the KJV when the Geneva clearly had reformed notes that the KJV was designed to get rid of? I can see being Geneva only but I don't get being KJV only (or preferred).


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 20, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > why would King James's proclamation concerning the reliability of the Geneva Bible's translation mean anything?
> ...



Thanks, Lance. That was _*exactly *_my point. The OP was about a marketing ploy. The link and the chart did not come from the translators, did not have an in-depth comparison of texts or certain verses (or an in-depth study of anything!). That was why I posted specifically a marketing comment from James.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 20, 2009)

Janis,

What did the Church had to say regarding the KJV back then and what does the Church say now about the ESV? 

Back then the overall Church stop using the Geneva and began using the AV. Just asked the Puritans. What translation would the Puritans have read today? As of today The Church has said nothing about concerning the ESV.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 20, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> Janis,
> 
> What did the Church had to say regarding the KJV back then and what does the Church say now about the ESV?
> 
> Back then the overall Church stop using the Geneva and began using the AV. Just asked the Puritans. What translation would the Puritans have read today? As of today The Church has said nothing about concerning the ESV.



Gil,

The church that approved the KJV was the same one that the Puritans thought was in desperate need of reform, and was the same one that put them out of their pulpits. It was also the same leadership that the Westminster Assembly (and its related Parliament) waged war against.

Kind of puts a different spin on the "ecclesiastical text" doesn't it? Would you rush to use a Bible translation if it was approved by the PCUSA, the United Methodists and The Episcopal Church?


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 20, 2009)

Pastor Greco,

I don't think the Anglican Church was then and is the Church.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 20, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> Pastor Greco,
> 
> I don't think the Anglican Church was then and is the Church.



OK, but it _was_ the Anglican Church that approved the KJV. No other Church "spoke" on it, including the American Presbyterian church.

So I guess I don't get your point.


----------



## Hippo (Jan 20, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> Pastor Greco,
> 
> I don't think the Anglican Church was then and is the Church.



In England it was, what else was there?


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 20, 2009)

Hippo said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> > Pastor Greco,
> ...



The Church that remain faithful to God Alone.


----------



## Hippo (Jan 20, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > SolaGratia said:
> ...



By this logic there would be no such thing as a visible Church, or are you saying that Churches move from being part of the Church to not being part of the Church depending on their perfect faithfullness?


----------



## SolaGratia (Jan 20, 2009)

Pastor Greco,

Would you agreed that the Church would be better off today if lets say NAPARC would come together to have a discussions about all these different translation out there and decide, with Gods help, what should be done?

-----Added 1/20/2009 at 05:46:52 EST-----



Hippo said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> > Hippo said:
> ...



No. You asked "what else was there?" I'm answering that there was a faithful Church in England *within* the Anglican Church as it is today in the overall invisible Church.


----------



## TimV (Jan 20, 2009)

> No. You asked "what else was there?" I'm answering that there was a faithful Church in England within the Anglican Church as it is today in the overall invisible Church.



We called them the Pilgrims, and they banned the KJV on the Mayflower, the ship they came to America on.


----------



## Zenas (Jan 20, 2009)

Who's going to launch the ESV-Onlyism website? I want to be an admin on the message board.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jan 20, 2009)

JM said:


> I had _read_ the same thing about the notes that Mr. Johnson posted.
> 
> King James motive for claiming the Geneva was the worst translation was due to the notes, even if he stated otherwise, it was really the notes he wanted removed...that's what I've _read_...don't know if it's true.
> 
> I can't remember which title I read it in maybe it was God's Secretaries or perhaps God's Bestseller those are the two that come to mind.



He DEFINITELY had a problem with the commentary notes. I wonder if he also cringed when he read buggerer. History says he was one, so maybe Sodomite was preferred to KJ as homosexual is preferred today.

There are some translations that do distort the drift of what God is saying to us. However, when it comes down to the reliable ones....In my humble opinion the one that is best for you is exactly that. We can argue until Christ returns about which manuscripts were consulted, who was on the committee, the number of $5 words used, etc.


----------



## JohnGill (Jan 25, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



I've been too busy this past week with work to read your response until now. And now that I have, I have noticed that you have not answered my question. You claimed that the stated premise of the AV was that the Geneva and Tyndale were worthless. In the two quotes you provided from King James neither one calls the Geneva nor the Tyndale worthless. The two quotes you provided do not deal with the Tyndale at all. 

The underlined portion of your second quote does show that part of James' dislike of the Geneva was due to its marginal notes. This is also supported from A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version By Philip Schaff starting on page 313. On page 314 he relates an account of what James said concerning the Geneva Version,



> "BISHOP OF LONDON.-But it is fit that no marginal notes should be added thereunto.
> 
> "HIS MAJESTY.-That caveat is well put in; for in the Geneva translation (given me by an English lady), some notes are partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits. As, for example, in Exod. i. 19, disobedience to kings is allowed in a marginal note, and, 2 Chron. xv. 16, King Asa is taxed in the note for only deposing his mother for idolatry, and not killing her.



Again we see that part of, if not the whole, of his dislike for the Geneva was due to her notes.

This view is also to be found in Daniel Wallace's article entitled, Part II: The Reign of the King James(The Era of Elegance) which I quote,



> Why would James disapprove of the Geneva Bible so strongly? After all, this had been the official Bible in Scotland during his reign there. His animosity was most likely not due to the translation as much as the notes. He explicitly mentioned the comment at Exodus 1.19 as problematic: the Geneva margin suggested that the Hebrew midwives were justified in disobeying the king’s order to kill all Hebrew baby boys.



Furthermore, if your contention that James considered both the Tyndale and Geneva versions worthless, then why in his Instructions to the Translators, did his fourteenth instruction read,



> 14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: *Tyndale's*, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], *Geneva*.



In all you have yet to answer my question. I shall restate it in amplified form.

Where, in any literature from the time, was the stated purpose of the AV that the Geneva and the Tyndale versions were worthless?

If you cannot provide this information, then please retract your statement.


----------

