KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority

[CalvinandHodges]

If Burgeon, Scrivener, Hills, or Letis state that the Old Syriac, Old Latin, or Latin Vulgate conform to the Byzantine Text Type please provide quotes from their works where they state that.

As for your Old Italic source...you quoted a series of Byzantine readings before (post #52) stating they were found in the Old Italic. What is your source for these quotes?

Hay:

Matthew 17:21 - from the Old Italic:

Or questa generazione di demoni non esce fuori, se non per orazione, e per digiuno.

KJV reads:

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Textus Receptus reads (Stephens 1550):

touto de to genos ouk ekposeuetai ei un en proseuche kai nesteia.

Critical Text omits the verse.

ESV omits the verse.

The Critical Text does not follow the Old Italic on the verses cited above in post #52. However, the Old Italic does follow the Textus Receptus (Byzantine) mss on these texts, and many others as well - including the Johannine Comma, 1 John 5:7,8. The Old Italic follows the Byzantine readings more closely than the Critical Text.

Blessings,

-CH

PS: As for Scrivener and the others I cited above I will provide them later. Time does not permit me to go into lengthy posts.

-CH

 

[Robert Truelove]

I hate to sound like a broken record, but you are not answering my question.

What is your source for all these Old Italic quotes? Either what manuscripts OR what edition if you are using a printed edition.

Hay:

Matthew 17:21 - from the Old Italic:

Or questa generazione di demoni non esce fuori, se non per orazione, e per digiuno.

KJV reads:

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Textus Receptus reads (Stephens 1550):

touto de to genos ouk ekposeuetai ei un en proseuche kai nesteia.

Critical Text omits the verse.

ESV omits the verse.

The Critical Text does not follow the Old Italic on the verses cited above in post #52. However, the Old Italic does follow the Textus Receptus (Byzantine) mss on these texts, and many others as well - including the Johannine Comma, 1 John 5:7,8. The Old Italic follows the Byzantine readings more closely than the Critical Text.

Blessings,

-CH

PS: As for Scrivener and the others I cited above I will provide them later. Time does not permit me to go into lengthy posts.

-CH

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Greetings from Lokichoggio, Kenya (a couple of miles below the Sudan border)! I don't have much time to post between classes, but I have made some interesting observations here.

Some of the older African Bibles, the Swahili, and the Dinka-language NT (and I have heard, the older Nuer-language NT) conform to the AV in their readings, while a newer version of the Nuer Bible is almost a duplicate for the modern versions (ESV, NIV, NASB, etc), including bracketed passages, footnotes regarding the "Older and better manuscripts" etc. A number of my students (which includes pastors, elders, evangelists (equal to itinerant preachers, some supported by churches, some self-supporting) passionately want to know why the newer Bibles have so many omissions, and are these omissions with warrant?

You CT adherents, how would you answer them? Keeping in mind you are dealing with the faith of these men, and the trust they have in our God's word, amid lives that are often in harm's way. Are the ESV (& etc) omissions in Acts 15:34 (there is no 34) and 8:37 (no 37) justifiable? The brackets and notes that Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 are all not authentic? How would you answer these men? What about Asaph and Amos replacing Asa and Amon in the ESV's Matthew 1:7, 10? As though Matthew himself wrote in error!

They were issued ESVs at the commencment of the 5 month training, and were perplexed, and, seeing my openness to answer their various questions, brought these things up (I am only here for 2+ weeks). (I had, over a year ago, suggested the classes be issued NKJVs, but apparently was overridden.) So we had a class in Textual Criticism; and I had brought a number of AV NTs w/Psalms & Proverbs with me to distribute, for those with the modern versions in their languages (many of them can read English fairly well).

It grieves me to know that all over the world the faith of the Savior's men & women in trying circumstances are being given Scriptures that have the imprint of modernist skepticism upon them.

This is where these issues are far from academic, but impact lives. The lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Steve

 

[Robert Truelove]

This is an excellent question. I believe that pastors need to have enough study in this area to answer basic questions from congregants. In a day when textual notes are abundant in our translations, pastors must have some study in this area.

However, I recently did a series on textual criticism at my church and after covering the material, rather than being lead to doubt or to liberalism, the people had all the more confidence in their Bibles.

Greetings from Lokichoggio, Kenya (a couple of miles below the Sudan border)! I don't have much time to post between classes, but I have made some interesting observations here.

Some of the older African Bibles, the Swahili, and the Dinka-language NT (and I have heard, the older Nuer-language NT) conform to the AV in their readings, while a newer version of the Nuer Bible is almost a duplicate for the modern versions (ESV, NIV, NASB, etc), including bracketed passages, footnotes regarding the "Older and better manuscripts" etc. A number of my students (which includes pastors, elders, evangelists (equal to itinerant preachers, some supported by churches, some self-supporting) passionately want to know why the newer Bibles have so many omissions, and are these omissions with warrant?

You CT adherents, how would you answer them? Keeping in mind you are dealing with the faith of these men, and the trust they have in our God's word, amid lives that are often in harm's way. Are the ESV (& etc) omissions in Acts 15:34 (there is no 34) and 8:37 (no 37) justifiable? The brackets and notes that Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 are all not authentic? How would you answer these men? What about Asaph and Amos replacing Asa and Amon in the ESV's Matthew 1:7, 10? As though Matthew himself wrote in error!

They were issued ESVs at the commencment of the 5 month training, and were perplexed, and, seeing my openness to answer their various questions, brought these things up (I am only here for 2+ weeks). (I had, over a year ago, suggested the classes be issued NKJVs, but apparently was overridden.) So we had a class in Textual Criticism; and I had brought a number of AV NTs w/Psalms & Proverbs with me to distribute, for those with the modern versions in their languages (many of them can read English fairly well).

It grieves me to know that all over the world the faith of the Savior's men & women in trying circumstances are being given Scriptures that have the imprint of modernist skepticism upon them.

This is where these issues are far from academic, but impact lives. The lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Steve

 

[CDM]

This is an excellent question. I believe that pastors need to have enough study in this area to answer basic questions from congregants. In a day when textual notes are abundant in our translations, pastors must have some study in this area.

However, I recently did a series on textual criticism at my church and after covering the material, rather than being lead to doubt or to liberalism, the people had all the more confidence in their Bibles.

Which Bible?

 

[Robert Truelove]

The series was on the subject of Textual Criticism itself (in favor of the Critical Text); not on any particular translation.

Which Bible?

 

[CDM]

This is an excellent question. I believe that pastors need to have enough study in this area to answer basic questions from congregants. In a day when textual notes are abundant in our translations, pastors must have some study in this area.

However, I recently did a series on textual criticism at my church and after covering the material, rather than being lead to doubt or to liberalism, the people had all the more confidence in their Bibles.

Which Bible?

The series was on the subject of Textual Criticism itself (in favor of the Critical Text); not on any particular translation.

Ok. So the people "had all the more confidence in" the Critical Text?

 

[Robert Truelove]

More precisely...in modern translations of the Critical Text like the NASB and ESV. I am not as favorable to the NIV and those like it.

Ok. So the people "had all the more confidence in" the Critical Text?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

The copy of the Old Italic Bible that I have is a photolithograph from the Cambridge Library. It is the Waldensian New Testament. I acquired it at great expense.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Robert Truelove]

I'm having to do a little study on this point. My study is a bit slow because I have a lot going on right now. I'll try and respond soon though.

Greetings:

The copy of the Old Italic Bible that I have is a photolithograph from the Cambridge Library. It is the Waldensian New Testament. I acquired it at great expense.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Robert W.,

It sounds like a treasure easily worth the expense of its acquisition. I gather it is in Latin. Does it have a date? Are you able to discern, does it conform to the AV, especially as regards the "Alexandrian" variants?

Thanks,

Steve

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hey:

The answer is yes to all of your questions - including the Comma. I find it difficult to read because of the Old Italic Type. I have compared it to Diodati's translation and have found them compatable (at least in the verses listed above).

I think that some scholars argue that texts like the Old Italic and the Old Syraic are Alexandrian partly because the Alexandrian mss agree with the Byzantine mss about 80% of the time. I once did a comparison for a paper between Metzger's 3rd edition and the 1550 Stephens:

Comparing the Stephens 1550 with Metzer's third edition at the ending of Revelation would open some eyes. From Rev. 22:6 to the end in verse 21 there are 358 words (counting both text-types). Of these 358 words they differ only 40 times. Many of these differences have no real effect on the text: "kai", "tous", "gar", "toi", "tou" count for about 18 differences. Where the Critical Text append words it is done about 13 times. Where the Critical Text subtracts words it is done about 8 times. In verse 13 the Critical Text transposes two phrases - this is a difference only in the order of the words. Thus, Stephens 1550 and the Critical Text agree 88% of the time. If you take out the small words the agreement is about 94%. Considering the possibility that the Critical Text is wrong in some of its decisions, for example, the last word in the book of Revelation is omitted by the Critical Text, yet, the apparatus notes that it is included in the "oldest manuscript" the Sinaiticus! They give this omission a "C" rating indicating that their omission is not very reliable. The differences between the two are minute to say the least. One large difference between the two is found in verse 18:

Critical Text reads: Marturo ego panti...
Stephens 1550 reads: Summarturoumai gar panti...

Outside of cutting out important words, like "amen" (as the CT does) mentioned above, this really is the only significant difference. The edition of Stephens has in its apparatus: Marturo ego. Consequently, the Textus Receptus is far more accurate than Dr. Metzger would have us think.

In my humble opinion it seems that it is not where texts agree that determines if a mss is Byzantine or not, but where they disagree. In the case of the Old Italic it seems that it disagrees with the CT on those very particulars wherein the CT disagrees with the Byzantine mss.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[Nowdy]

Byzantine Brilliance vs. Alexandrian Acquiescence

If I only could convince my good friend Steve to post in this room, I’d throw a party for all that have posted here. For the past five years, this has been his project. We’re talking dozens of hours a week. Funny but we both met each other at work and over the years have grown to the best of friends. The one thing we laugh at is the fact that Riplinger got both of our feathers ruffled and started our quest to study families of texts. I can claim I read her 500+(?) page book from cover to cover (getting a real kick out of her words (from my memory) “versions other than KJ use the letter ‘s’ more…can’t you just hear the hiss of the Snake/Satan” stuff…I ‘m still falling on the floor laughing) and D.A.Carson’s book against the King James ONLY faulty logic. Both Steve and myself are strongly leaning toward the Byzantine family as opposed to the Alexandrian family. My reasoning is nothing close to the sophistication and research that Steve presents. Any one have a hint how I can psychologically manipulate my best friend to come out of his research closet and share why in the heck he attempted to examine every Bergen variant form (millions?) from an original and rare Bergen research and defense project of this Byzantine tradition?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Nowdy! Welcome to PB.

Yes, tell your friend Steve that ideas tried by peer review and critique are more sure than those untried and kept safely in the closet.

Steve

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Greetings:
The offense of the NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB is that they use mss that have been considered corrupt since the 7th century. Because of this these translations are more like commentaries on the Bible rather than a reproduction of the Bible itself.

Could you provide evidence "that they use mss that have been considered corrupt since the 7th century"? And, by whom have they been considered corrupt? Are they credible?

What is really offensive concerning the ESV is that it is simply a revision of the RSV - making it a translation of a translation.

Sir, I don't know if you are aware, but the KJV is a translation of a translation as well. Same with the Geneva bible, the Bishops bible, as well as the Great bible.

http://www.bible-researcher.com (i think it might be .org ... ill have to re-check)

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Hey:
4) Finally, the Spirit of God has preserved the Byzantine mss through the Dark and Middle Ages, and the Greek text as it is known through all of history is the Byzantine text. Such a testimony cannot be made of the Alexandrian Varients/Critical Text.

I see your bias...

As I was reading i saw no proof but only opinion. Could you please supply me with your "scholars"?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Andrew,

We have discussed this quite at length here. In the post I give the link to below are three scholars, with a significant essay by each, who discuss these very things.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=262198&postcount=1

Steve

 

[MW]

Sir, I don't know if you are aware, but the KJV is a translation of a translation as well. Same with the Geneva bible, the Bishops bible, as well as the Great bible.

Please research this further, perhaps utilising a history of how the AV translators went about their work. Yes, they consulted other translations -- what translator doesn't? In fact the AV men utilised a whole range of translations ancient and modern, in various languages. This does not prejudice the fact that what they translated was the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, as the histories will plainly show if one took the time to read them rather than scurrilous and prejudiced remarks.

 

[bookslover]

I wonder if it would be possible to make an English translation of the Bible completely from scratch - consulting no previous English translations, using the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and just doing the whole thing over again.

 

[MW]

I wonder if it would be possible to make an English translation of the Bible completely from scratch - consulting no previous English translations, using the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and just doing the whole thing over again.

Impossible given presuupositions; and if it were possible it would be undesirable because we believe in the catholic church (or at least that is what we should believe).

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Hello Andrew,

We have discussed this quite at length here. In the post I give the link to below are three scholars, with a significant essay by each, who discuss these very things.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=262198&postcount=1

Steve

Thank you. I will have to take some time out to read them.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Please research this further, perhaps utilising a history of how the AV translators went about their work. Yes, they consulted other translations -- what translator doesn't? In fact the AV men utilised a whole range of translations ancient and modern, in various languages. This does not prejudice the fact that what they translated was the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, as the histories will plainly show if one took the time to read them rather than scurrilous and prejudiced remarks.

Matthew,

I'm sorry if you are offended at what i have said. It would be benifitial for me to do what you have asked. I will take some time out as well to see the process that the AV translators took.

I have still given out the facts, so how is it then, that the NASB and ESV translators, supposedly doing a translation of a translation(when in fact they used the old manuscripts... referring more to them then the english translation), makes them "the devil", yet, the KJ translators also took the older english texts and referred to them as well; does that not make them "the devil"? Calvin's argument was to make the NASB and ESV less credible by using the old "it's a translation of a translation" routine. When you actually have the facts, I understand it's hard to swallow(being sincere). I was just pointing out the obvious Matthew, I wasn't being predjudice.

 

[shelly]

I only got half way through this thread, but here's something I noticed. One of the arguements is that the text copied from was supposedly destroyed once a new one was made. and that the reason the Alexandrian texts exist is because they were ignored and not copied.

So why do we have any of these manuscripts? Shouldn't they all have been destroyed?

Someone made the arguement that that was a Jewish practice to destroy the original once a copy was made. I don't see that a Jewish practice would/could be imposed on Gentile Christians(it was stopped before reguarding circumcision).

Maybe I'm way off base. I know I'm in over my head on this discussion. Just a thought, not claiming its a good one.

shelly

 

[larryjf]

I only got half way through this thread, but here's something I noticed. One of the arguements is that the text copied from was supposedly destroyed once a new one was made. and that the reason the Alexandrian texts exist is because they were ignored and not copied.

So why do we have any of these manuscripts? Shouldn't they all have been destroyed?

Someone made the arguement that that was a Jewish practice to destroy the original once a copy was made. I don't see that a Jewish practice would/could be imposed on Gentile Christians(it was stopped before reguarding circumcision).

Maybe I'm way off base. I know I'm in over my head on this discussion. Just a thought, not claiming its a good one.

shelly

I would suggest that even the Jewish practice of destroying manuscripts after copied declined after time, that's why we do have Hebrew manuscripts from later dates (for instance the leningrad codes is from about 1008 AD).
So perhaps after time as the Church grew more and more away from its Jewish roots they started looking at the manuscripts differently and started holding on to them.

As far as circumcision, it's really not a comparable topic. OT circumcision and NT baptism are sacraments, how to handle old manuscripts is not.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Shelly,

Part of the reason we have certain manuscripts (MSS) -- I am thinking in particular of those from Egypt upon which the "Alexandrian" texttype is based -- is that a) they were written on velum, very expensive antelope skin finely prepared and far more durable than the parchment used for most MSS; b) the climate in Egypt was dry, and thus conducive to the preservation of MSS, unlike the damper climates of Europe and Asia Minor; the climate was such in Egypt that even some of the far more fragile papyri MSS survived; and c) it is a factor that much use wore out some MSS.

I recently purchased a new Bible; when I finish the long and tedious process of copying all my 40 years worth of notes/cross-references/etc from my two other Bibles into it, I will likely set the almost-worn-out one aside and use it very little. The pages are brittle and breaking.

In the 9th century all of a sudden appear a vast number of manuscripts in a new form, the smaller cursive Greek script as opposed to the uppercase uncials of the previous centuries -- and NO ancient uncials of the same texttype as the majority of these miniscules (mss), which happen to be of the Byzantine (or Majority, or Traditional) texttype. It has been noted by text critics that the likelihood is very high the scribes copying the old MSS into mss form destroyed the exemplars they used, much in the way I am going to set aside my old Bible when I am finished copying the annotations.

The things I am saying are a hypothetical reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the NT text from the various manuscripts. For certain periods we are lacking in much information regarding the history of the manuscripts, and according to our presuppositions (our foundational view of what is real and how we know what is real) we interpret the data we have to make the best sense of it. The link I give here opens on a post which discusses something about how these presuppostions determine our views of which texts are best:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=199947&postcount=31

This matter of the texts is an area where one must delve deeply into the writings of those who propound the arguments for the various views. This "Translations and Manuscripts" board has a lot of information from differing viewpoints on the subject. Peruse it if it is an area of interest to you. We ALL start out "over our heads" when we approach any new field, so don't let that dismay you! I am in "over my head" on some topics here at PB, and so I just set myself to learn.

May the Lord guide you and give you light.

Steve

 

[bookslover]

I recently purchased a new Bible; when I finish the long and tedious process of copying all my 40 years worth of notes/cross-references/etc from my two other Bibles into it, I will likely set the almost-worn-out one aside and use it very little. The pages are brittle and breaking.

Forty years' worth of notes and cross-references? Can you still read the text in that old Bible?

How would you categorize the kinds of notes you've got, Steve?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

I only got half way through this thread, but here's something I noticed. One of the arguements is that the text copied from was supposedly destroyed once a new one was made. and that the reason the Alexandrian texts exist is because they were ignored and not copied.

So why do we have any of these manuscripts? Shouldn't they all have been destroyed?

Someone made the arguement that that was a Jewish practice to destroy the original once a copy was made. I don't see that a Jewish practice would/could be imposed on Gentile Christians(it was stopped before reguarding circumcision).

Maybe I'm way off base. I know I'm in over my head on this discussion. Just a thought, not claiming its a good one.

shelly

Hi shelly:

I think that you are partly on track here. Since I made the argument I guess it is my responsibility to clarify it a bit.

The first few centuries of the Church saw a huge number of Jews become converts to Christianity. Peter, in Acts chapter 2, was preaching in the Temple where only Jews were allowed, and 3,000 of them were converted. The Apostles "went to the Jews first" like Paul did when he would first preach in a synagogue as he entered a city. The persecution that many Jews would stir up in the 2rd and 4th Centuries was because the Christians were successful in converting the Jews to Christendom.

This was such a problem that Jewish ceremonial practices that were fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ started to be taught as law. You pointed out one of these in the practice of circumcision which was changed to baptism, c.f. Col. 2:11-12.

However, not all Jewish practices were considered wrong - the singing of Psalms, for example, was the exclusive practice of the Church for the next few centuries - even Gentiles. The Jewish art of transcribing the Scriptures was also not a part of the ceremonial law. There was nothing ungodly or unbiblical about it. In fact, we see examples of how accurate they were when we compare the Dead Sea Scrolls (circa 2nd Century BC) with our modern copies of the Old Testament.

The oldest copy we have of the entire Old Testament is about 1000 AD. Since the OT talks about matters that happened circa 4000 BC such a manuscript would be considered extremely late (according to the Critical Text theory). Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain only parts of the OT, would be considered late by this philosophy.

Yet, we have all the confidence in the world that the OT text that we read in our Bibles is the same text (translated) used by David, Isaiah, Daniel, and Jesus. Such is a testimony of the Providence of God in the transmitting of the Scriptures. There is little doubt that God continued to use the Jewish practice of transmitting the Scriptures through the first three centuries of the Church.

What evidence do we have of this?

What James White points out as "phantom manuscripts" actually proves that the Jewish practice was in place. We find no Greek manuscripts which uphold specifically Byzantine readings of the New Testament during the first few centuries. White argues that such readings never existed during this period in the first place. The problem with his argument is that we do have specifically Byzantine readings in various (non-Greek) translations of the Bible that date back to the early 2nd Century AD: the Old Italic (2nd century), The Old Syraic (3rd century), and Jerome's Vulgate (early 4th century), for example.

How do we reconcile this? Simple. The Greek copies of the New Testament were considered copies of the original Gospels and Letters of the Apostles. Consequently, they were subject to the Jewish rules of transmission: The "older" copies were destroyed while the younger ones were retained. This is why we do not have any "older" Greek texts that affirm the Byzantine manuscripts. The translations into Syraic and Latin were not considered "official" copies. Thus, they were not subject to the same rules of transmission that were used on the original Greek texts.

That we do find "older" Greek manuscripts that uphold the Critical Text indicates that these Greek manuscripts were never copied. In fact, we do not have any "younger" texts that uphold the Critical Text, and that is a very strong indicator that these "older" texts were considered by the Church to be corrupted - apart from the abundance of internal evidence that shows that they have been tampered/translated by Gnostics. These texts are referred to as the "Alexandrian Variants" and include such older texts as the "Sinaiticus" (reffered to as "Aleph") and the "Vaticanus" (also referred to as "B"). It is these texts that are the basis of the modern translations: RSV, ESV, and NIV.

After the 4th Century or so the Bible started to be copied more abundantly. The vast majority, if not all, of these copies followed the Byzantine manuscripts. The Church having received the Byzantine copies through history understood these copies to be the closest to the originals - and that is why they copied them.

So, to make this simple: The Byzantine manuscripts (which are the basis for the King James Version) have always been upheld by the Church as the true copies of the original writings of the Apostles. The Alexandrian Variants (which are the basis for the RSV, ESV, and NIV) have always been rejected by the Church throughout all of history.

Hope this clears things up a bit!

Blessings on your research on this matter,

-CH

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Excellent points, Robert W!

Richard, I would say 95% or more are simply extensive cross-references or chains of references on various topics (Election, Perseverance, OT prophecies of Gentiles coming to Christ, Waiting on God, NT attestations to itself, etc), and some references to other versions' renderings, pertinent commentaries on certain Scriptures, and misc. remarks.

I set aside half an hour each day when I can, and some days work on it an hour or more. I anticipate finishing, Lord willing, in another month or two or three (I'm almost finished Eccl. now).

Steve

 

[shelly]

I'll tell you why I like the ESV, reguardless of where it came from.

I grew up in a KJVO kind of church and also spent the first 8 years of marriage in either KJVO or very strongly preferred that every one in the pew comply. I'm still trying to get warped teachings out of my mind and I can't read or listen to KJV without hearing old tapes play. One of those tapes concerns all the other translations that existed at the time. I can't bring myself to read from a version of the Bible that had such things said about it, the programming is so strong I still feel extremely guilty if I read any of those versions or hear someone else read from them. The ESV didn't exist at the time so there's no tape playing in my mind about it.

I would like to learn what is truth and extricate the error. It's a slow process. Even if I come to be convinced that the sourcecode for the ESV is somehow corrupted, I don't think I'll be shelving my ESV. I don't have anything else I could use.

Thank you for the clear explanations, not easy, but clear. I have a lot to work with now and its really interesting. One more item to deprogram

shelly

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hey Steve:

Thanks! From a man who knows more about these things than myself that is quite a compliment!

Shelly:

That is truly a tragic thing to hear. If there is any thing that I can do for you, then simply ask - I will be praying for you.

You could use a worse Bible than the ESV - like the CEV, NIV, or the Living Bible! As I have calculated it the ESV is about 80% accurate.

As an alternative to the KJV you might want to check out the 1599 Geneva Bible:

http://www.tollelegepress.com/gb/geneva.php

In my humble opinion it is superior to the KJV, and the notes were written by Calvin, Beza, and other Reformed men. It is truly an excellent Bible to have.

Remember: The Life, Walk, and ultimate Triumph of the Christian is by Faith in Jesus the Son of the Living God.

Grace and Peace,

-CH