Bible Version Runoff: KJV vs. ESV

[Bill The Baptist]

Someone mentioned that we should have a runoff between the KJV and the ESV since these two versions got the most votes by far in the recent Bible version poll. So, just for fun, here is the runoff to determine the PB champion.

 

[M_Scott]

+1 for ESV

 

[Logan]

Once again it is difficult to vote because I like both very much.

 

[M_Scott]

Once again it is difficult to vote because I like both very much.

Very true, it's like asking which child you love more.

 

[One Little Nail]

KJB mate, no hanging chads here

 

[Claudiu]

This is difficult for me as well. I used to be a big KJV fan, but slowly moved over to the ESV. I find myself reading from the ESV more often these days, and the KJV less and less. Perhaps it has something to do with the now widespread use of the ESV. Either way, I still like the KJV and continue to use it for study sometimes.

 

[Username3000]

This is a timely thread as I have been in the process of figuring this out for myself lately. I have used the ESV for the first year and a half of my Christian life, but decided to give my KJV a try recently. I like and trust both translations, so my decision has come down to other variables:

Translation used in my church pulpit: ESV
Translation used by majority of brothers and sisters at my church, including all those who teach: ESV
Translation preferred by my wife-to-be (this September): ESV

One of the reasons I am not fully satisfied with using the ESV is that I cannot find a format which, from a purely practical standpoint, is a joy to read. I prefer single column, paragraph format - which I do have - but I also prefer a larger and different font than is offered.

In the end, my decision has come down to the aforementioned variables; I can put up with a 9.5 Lexicon font if it means being able to follow along with my teachers, and, more importantly to me, come alongside my future wife so as to make it easier for her. If I were to use the KJV I know that it would be a stumbling block for her.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Very true, it's like asking which child you love more.

Yes indeed.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

A fair critique of the ESV can be found at the TBS website. I know this will not convince anyone, it is for reference, for those who prefer the ESV, so they can make use of a few more tools.

http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/139-1.pdf

 

[Romans922]

Definitely going with the one that comes from the Majority Text.

 

[DMcFadden]

A fair critique of the ESV can be found at the TBS website. I know this will not convince anyone, it is for reference, for those who prefer the ESV, so they can make use of a few more tools.

http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/139-1.pdf

Thanks. It was an informative article.

 

[bookslover]

Didn't we do this already? (puzzled look)

You really shouldn't be confusing us old people. Right, Bill Brown? LOL

 

[reformedminister]

A fair critique of the ESV can be found at the TBS website. I know this will not convince anyone, it is for reference, for those who prefer the ESV, so they can make use of a few more tools.

http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/139-1.pdf

Most Christians do not get this and when informed dismiss it because if they consider the implications it causes them to have to make a consciousness decision to decide which manuscripts they think are closest to the original. They choose to ignore the facts, leaving such decisions to those involved in translation and scholars. There is a vast difference between the manuscripts! While I still read and sometimes quote the ESV in my sermons, for the purpose of clarity, when it comes to the textual variants I side with the traditional text.

 

[Logan]

when informed dismiss it because if they consider the implications it causes them to have to make a consciousness decision to decide which manuscripts they think are closest to the original. They choose to ignore the facts, leaving such decisions to those involved in translation and scholars.

Out of respect for the OP's original request not to "debate", I have tried to refrain from responding to comments, but this in this case I find this generalization to be a bit offensive.

I have read the TBS article before and have not found it helpful before or now. Its purpose is not merely to "inform" about the ESV, its bias is to show that the KJV is superior, and relies on hand-picked data points to do so. It is not by any means an impartial or "fair" critique.

 

[One Little Nail]

It's been several months since we've had a good debate on the forum on these topics, & despite the original request not to
debate the topic, which was not stated on this thread but the previous, a thread topic like this is just asking for it...

The King James Bible has a Superior text base to the Esv, the Esv's textual base got a new lease of life when it was picked out of a waste basket in a secluded monastery somewhere in the sinai desert, when half of its Old Testament section had
already been consigned to the flames, I somehow don't believe thats what God had in mind when He promised to preserve it.

This isn't impartial nor is it unfair, it's just an established fact about Tischendorf & his Codex Sinaiticus.

 

[Tyrese]

I used to use the ESV until I began to despise the fact that it was missing so many important versus. So I switched to the NKJV. I also dislike how it's being promoted like it's some kind of fad to use the ESV. So of course I voted for the KJV in this poll. Btw I'll be writing a paper soon on the importance of the KJV (may not be the exact title) . It's a college homework assignment so maybe I'll share it here when I'm finished.

 

[reaganmarsh]

Tyrese, I think it will be a blessing to the PB community if you'll post your paper when you've completed it! As I said above, I am thankful for both the KJV and the ESV. However, the underlying textual matters are very important and I am studying them, so I for one will welcome reading your thought process.

I don't write this post to pressure you on the matter; I'm intending to encourage you, so I hope you receive it as such. I wish you all the best in your studies.

Grace to you.

 

[Rom]

Cannot get myself to choose between the two. I will usually always come down in favor of the Received Text, however, personally our family (myself in particular) just cannot get anything but a headache reading the KJV. Makes for a miserable experience when attempting to read God's Word.

We've tried multiple times, apologies to KJV fans, who are often my dearest brothers in Christ.

As for the ESV article by TBS, I think this quote about sums up a little bit of the over the top rhetoric found in the article. It is to say the least, more than slightly inflammatory - and when I see a supposed scholarly article, is enough to make me doubt anything else they have to say:

"People who are concerned with the truth of the Bible will not be fooled by this new
version once they see that it is merely a slightly revised edition of the RSV. Since Crossway
does not have the financial backing of the publishers of the NIV, there does not seem to be
much of a future for the ESV."

Not to mention their prophecy turned out to be wrong

All that said, there is still value in the article, which would be helpful to those who don't understand that it is a revision of the RSV (RRSV would probably have been a mouthful ), and the underlying manuscript differences between the KJV and almost all modern translations.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

It's been several months since we've had a good debate on the forum on these topics, & despite the original request not to
debate the topic, which was not stated on this thread but the previous, a thread topic like this is just asking for it...

It's not that I mind debate, it's just that we have already had this debate on the PB ad nauseum. If someone is genuinely seeking knowledge on textual issues, then it is fine to share wisdom and even links to other resources. But if our motivation is simply to pick a fight, I think we would be better served to refrain

 

[MW]

I have read the TBS article before and have not found it helpful before or now. Its purpose is not merely to "inform" about the ESV, its bias is to show that the KJV is superior, and relies on hand-picked data points to do so. It is not by any means an impartial or "fair" critique.

I am wondering, Logan, if you are just picking up on the fact that the article is written from a perspective which has already decided the textual issues. It seems obvious that a critique from such a decided perspective is going to sound like bias to one who takes a different view of those issues.

 

[Logan]

Yes, I have read nearly everything on TBS' website, I am aware of their position. I made my comment in light of Rev Ruddell's assessment that it was a "fair critique...for reference...for those who prefer the ESV".

There is still some helpful information in there, but as Rom said, when I see inflammatory (or loaded) language in a supposedly scholarly article, it makes me doubt all of the content. If one wants a critique of the ESV (and I have read those too) there are much more objective ones that weigh pros and cons instead of merely cons.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear Logan, I agree with both you and Rom that the phrase in the article you-all have identified is regrettable. I am glad also to see that you have both identified that there is "helpful information" in the article. I suppose we could debate the "fairness" of the article for a long time, to little profit. In my own assessment of the article, I appreciated especially the beginning section, where several paragraphs expressed appreciation for the work of the translators of the ESV as an improvement over the RSV, among other complimentary statements. There were accurate and documented critiques, and there was a summary argument, that was the most polemic, and for someone who appreciates and favors the ESV, would be the most objectionable. The author of the article is entitled to his opinions, however. If I used the ESV exclusively, it is an article I would want to read, and in that sense, I thought it was fairly presented--I could read it apart from taking offense, and would be bettered by reading it.

As I have said before, I favor the AV, and have read numerous critiques on it, and have been challenged and bettered in my understanding by them. Some have been more or less incendiary, but if a man reads with a love for the truth, those sections that reveal our opponents weaknesses we overlook, and those where he speaks with authority and truth, we take notice, and by God's grace, are helped by that means. My reason for posting the article was not to debate or to deride, but as I said, to add tools and means for those who read the ESV.

 

[Free Christian]

So far a dead heat!

 

[reformedminister]

The TBS article on the ESV is a great article. It is intended to educate the lay-person, to give them a synopsis of the ESV translation as compared to the Authorized Version. It gives helpful facts in short form. I did not mean to be offensive to anyone in my above statement. It is just my observation that most Christians are clueless to the textual differences between the ESV and Authorized Version. Most think the ESV is just another translation in modern English. When given the facts, most people feel inadequate to dig deeper into the matter, because in general they know little about the Bible anyway. Let's face the facts, the modern day Christian does not read the Bible like they should, as compared to Christians of yesteryear, especially the Puritans.

 

[KSon]

Interesting that as of this writing it is exactly split (36/36). On the thread that gave birth to this one, the ESV was given the slight nod, which would tell me that the NKJVers threw in with the KJVers based on textual preference. So, once again, as always, it falls to:

1. Textual preference
2. Belief in what the most-faithful translation of that preference is

Each preference comes with presuppositions. One of the things that I have toyed with doing, though (like much else in my life) it never got past the "thought" stage, is asking the question, "What evidence/proof would you need to encounter before you changed your presupposition regarding textual tradition?" We know that this is just a negative way of expressing the positives that we hold on to that form our presuppositions, but unless we identify what hurdles would have to be cleared to have a "textual-base harmony", we are just talking past one another, as the other's presupposition meets our presuppositional hurdle without proper evidence (in our mind) to clear that hurdle.

 

[Bad Organist]

Hi,

It is interesting to me, that a lot of translations that tout themselves as the modern day KJV, are still not outselling, or being used more than the KJV. In fact a lot of them seem to have a rather short life cycle. There seems to be no shortage of upcoming versions either, one web site mentioned 6 new versions on the horizon. To me a lot of what is going on is nothing more than producing and marketing another product.

Those who favour the ESV, may want to stipulate which version of the ESV they prefer. Since it came out in 2001, we have the following
ESV -text 2001
ESV -text 2007
ESV -text 2011
ESV with Apocrypha
ESV with no chapters or verses or notes (odd this as regular ESV editions state that the notes are integral to the text
ESV - custom edition by the Gideons with New Testament based loosely on the TR.

Amazing when you think of it, in this day and age we live in, in the space of about a decade we have so many versions of a version.

In Canada where I live, I don't think Bibles are sold in anywhere near the numbers they used to be. Most Christian bookstores are history, and those that are still around don't have all that many copies for sale. Secular bookstores put the Bible in the religion or fiction section. In both cases it is the NIV and KJV that have the majority of shelf space.

For those who are interested in Canada, a study was done by a polling firm last year about Bible reading habits in Canada. It makes for depressing reading. Vast majority of Canadians do not read the Bible at all, only 14% read it at least once a week. This follows the trend of church going which also is way down. To read the report, here is the web-site.....
www.bibleengagementstudy.ca

Arie V
F C of Scotland
Toronto, Canada

 

[Solparvus]

Cannot get myself to choose between the two. I will usually always come down in favor of the Received Text, however, personally our family (myself in particular) just cannot get anything but a headache reading the KJV. Makes for a miserable experience when attempting to read God's Word.

We've tried multiple times, apologies to KJV fans, who are often my dearest brothers in Christ.

As for the ESV article by TBS, I think this quote about sums up a little bit of the over the top rhetoric found in the article. It is to say the least, more than slightly inflammatory - and when I see a supposed scholarly article, is enough to make me doubt anything else they have to say:

"People who are concerned with the truth of the Bible will not be fooled by this new
version once they see that it is merely a slightly revised edition of the RSV. Since Crossway
does not have the financial backing of the publishers of the NIV, there does not seem to be
much of a future for the ESV."

Not to mention their prophecy turned out to be wrong

All that said, there is still value in the article, which would be helpful to those who don't understand that it is a revision of the RSV (RRSV would probably have been a mouthful ), and the underlying manuscript differences between the KJV and almost all modern translations.

The ESV has been valuable for my wife and I in our family devotions. I can bear through the old English if I wanted to (my Puritanese is improving), but for the both of us the KJV would be the less profitable.

I have to ask how far we want to shake someone's faith in the version that they're reading anyways (unless it's the Message or some other true per-version). I've memorized from both the KJV and ESV, and both have given life and zeal to my soul and to my prayers, and both provide rich soil for meditation and growth. The time when I could not profit or grow was when I became afraid that the version I was using would not be blessed by God, which is where this debate could lead if we are not cautious.

 

[jambo]

The ESV, no question of even considering the KJV

 

[ReverendJim]

ESV, though I do like the ability to easily differentiate second person singulars and plurals in the KJV.

 

[Logan]

Those who favour the ESV, may want to stipulate which version of the ESV they prefer. Since it came out in 2001, we have the following
ESV -text 2001
ESV -text 2007
ESV -text 2011
ESV with Apocrypha
ESV with no chapters or verses or notes (odd this as regular ESV editions state that the notes are integral to the text
ESV - custom edition by the Gideons with New Testament based loosely on the TR.

The differences (as far as I know) are (very) minor corrections. The same happened to the KJV (corrections over time, alterations in spelling). I would think there are far more and substantial differences in various KJV texts (some of which also have had the Apocrypha, including the original edition), but I don't expect anyone to stipulate which version of the KJV they prefer, nor do I think it is a bad thing that there have been so many variants (with margin notes, without etc).

I don't think it would be a good idea to have a translation and then freeze it in perpetuity, regardless of corrections that should be made. Now if the ESV is sneakily migrating toward a bad translation through these various changes, that's reason for concern. If it is correcting based on more studies made in translation or for clarification or to remove awkward wording, that's a good thing. Some of the Puritans likewise wanted to revise the KJV and make it even better.