Jie-Huli
Puritan Board Freshman
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
ESV Weaknesses?
- Thread starter jbergsing
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Jie-Huli
Puritan Board Freshman
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Last edited:
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
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.
Last edited:
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Sophomore
"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.
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.
jbergsing
Puritan Board Sophomore
I don't get it. That had absolutely nothing to do with bible translations.
Yes it's called poisoning the well. You are addressing the issue ad hominem and attacking his person and haven't addressed the issues.
This was also addressed before his death and is a matter of public record. He showed his case and defended it.
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?
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.
Now you attack has come toward me, with the most ignorant assumption that I am a KJVO advocate, which I am not.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Freshman
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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.
Yes it's called poisoning the well. You are addressing the issue ad hominem and attacking his person and haven't addressed the issues.
This was also addressed before his death and is a matter of public record. He showed his case and defended it.
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?
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.
Now you attack has come toward me, with the most ignorant assumption that I am a KJVO advocate, which I am not.
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.
Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
I'm going to cease my discussion regarding KJVO issues in this particular thread.
- Status
