Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
What made you stay with the ESV / go back to KJV?
Who went from KJV to ESV and stayed there/went back to KJV?
- Thread starter Polanus1561
- Start date
- Status
Krak3n
Puritan Board Freshman
I stuck to the KJV as the "only" Word of God for awhile, and had to be broken of that cultic attitude. (Not all KJV people are that way, I was.)
After that I used the ESV, found I enjoyed not carrying my extra KJV dictionary for those admittedly rare occasions. And stuck with the ESV. I'll also say that I really enjoy the ESV Reader's Bible, I do read more without the text all broken up.
Edit: I blame James White ultimately. He was key to moving me from my former mindset.
After that I used the ESV, found I enjoyed not carrying my extra KJV dictionary for those admittedly rare occasions. And stuck with the ESV. I'll also say that I really enjoy the ESV Reader's Bible, I do read more without the text all broken up.
Edit: I blame James White ultimately. He was key to moving me from my former mindset.
I'm on my third AV/KJV, but I also have an ESV for Kindle. I got the ESV because it was the best-formatted bible for Kindle I could find at the time. It didn't hurt that is was no-charge, either.
But I can't say I switched. I still read my KJV. I'm used to the old language and like it. When I am asked to preach, I preach out of an NKJV out of deference to the congregation.
I found the ESV to be fairly well done, but it had quirks that gnawed at me a little--and those had nothing to do with the choice of texts to translate. Instead, they were the occasional turns of phrase that seemed out of character, or the occasional left out adjective that my OCD-like mind thinks is important.
But I can't say I switched. I still read my KJV. I'm used to the old language and like it. When I am asked to preach, I preach out of an NKJV out of deference to the congregation.
I found the ESV to be fairly well done, but it had quirks that gnawed at me a little--and those had nothing to do with the choice of texts to translate. Instead, they were the occasional turns of phrase that seemed out of character, or the occasional left out adjective that my OCD-like mind thinks is important.
The church I am in uses the KJV, but we use the ESV for my family worship, with the exception of the psalms, which we still stick to the KJV, more for the beauty of the old translation than the accuracy.
In my personal reading and study, I use the 2017 Lutherbibel (German), for I feel the German language retains more of the syntactical nuances of the original languages more than modern English can.
In my personal reading and study, I use the 2017 Lutherbibel (German), for I feel the German language retains more of the syntactical nuances of the original languages more than modern English can.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
I have tried not a few translations, but always prefer the AV, because, the AV
(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in a dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.
No debates here, please.
(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in a dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.
No debates here, please.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Brother Jeff, hope our paths cross in future, in our little Reformed community in Singapore.
I have tried not a few translations, but always prefer the AV, because, the AV
(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in a dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.
No debates here, please.
I think it would be quite easy to state why you stayed with KJV/ESV if you are convinced if your version fulfills point (1).
But yes no textual debates please - of course that can be a reason for your choice.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
I am going to extend you the greatest amount of charity in my assumptions about this response, assuming that the sarcasm implied therein was not intended. Go in peace.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Junior
Sorry, no sarcasm was intended nor can I see how a hint of any can be found.
All I was doing was affirming:
1. if you or anyone's choice of translation was based on the belief that said translation "drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts" then that would probably be a big reason for your choice.
2. this isn't the subforum/thread for textual debates etc. But again of course, one could state that he came to a choice because in his mind , the KJV/ESV won the textual debate.
Peace.
Last edited:
U
Username3000
Guest
I began using the ESV as a new Christian, and have repeatedly dabbled with the KJV and NASB for various reasons (beauty of language, some preferred translations of particular words, etc.); but, I always return to the ESV.
I prefer the CT over the TR; my church uses the ESV; the KJV would be a stumbling block for my family; the ESV has the best physical Bible format/layout selection by far; and I just plain like the translation, which I almost consider to be KJV meets NASB, in a sense. It is modern, yet classic.
I also believe that the ESV, with its ever growing popularity, is becoming the closest thing that the western Church has to a standard translation; at least, in my circles, it is most commonly used, which then makes it very nice to "speak the same language" as my brothers and sisters.
I prefer the CT over the TR; my church uses the ESV; the KJV would be a stumbling block for my family; the ESV has the best physical Bible format/layout selection by far; and I just plain like the translation, which I almost consider to be KJV meets NASB, in a sense. It is modern, yet classic.
I also believe that the ESV, with its ever growing popularity, is becoming the closest thing that the western Church has to a standard translation; at least, in my circles, it is most commonly used, which then makes it very nice to "speak the same language" as my brothers and sisters.
josiahrussell
Puritan Board Freshman
Never really been a KJV guy until recently.
I went NIV to NKJV to ESV to NASB with some KJV sprinkled in
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I went NIV to NKJV to ESV to NASB with some KJV sprinkled in
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hi Pastor Jeff! Pam and I still have very fond memories of your time with us in the recent past. Hope you and Auntie Shirley have been well!
I mainly use both the Esv/Nas versions, as believe that both of them would be more accurate as to what the originals taught to us. Still view the KJV as being a good translation, just not able to read it with understanding as well as the other 2 versions.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
I don't believe I have read as much as two chapters together in any other English version than KJV. I have loved it so long, nothing else sounds quite the same.
No debates, just disagree on point 1.I have tried not a few translations, but always prefer the AV, because, the AV
(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in a dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.
No debates here, please.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
I never really left the KJV, nor went to the ESV. When I began reading the KJV in 1986 I picked up an NIV as a supplement, to help me to better understand passages I found difficult.
Over the years, though I stayed with the KJV/NIV combination primarily, I began to add other translations to the mix. I became fond of the NKJV and would sometimes go to the NASB since it is supposed to be the most literal mainstream translation.
I was somewhat prejudiced against the ESV because of opinions I read on forums. The massive promotion by Crossway, the fact that it is not a new translation, but a revision of the RSV, which is a revision of the RV, which is a revision of the AV.
I finally got a copy and began to incorporate it into my supplemental reading. I was surprised at how similar it is to the KJV in many verses. So I haven't gone there yet, but I am dipping my foot in the water more and more, and liking it.
Over the years, though I stayed with the KJV/NIV combination primarily, I began to add other translations to the mix. I became fond of the NKJV and would sometimes go to the NASB since it is supposed to be the most literal mainstream translation.
I was somewhat prejudiced against the ESV because of opinions I read on forums. The massive promotion by Crossway, the fact that it is not a new translation, but a revision of the RSV, which is a revision of the RV, which is a revision of the AV.
I finally got a copy and began to incorporate it into my supplemental reading. I was surprised at how similar it is to the KJV in many verses. So I haven't gone there yet, but I am dipping my foot in the water more and more, and liking it.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
That's my problem too. The KJV was the Authorized Bible as held by almost everyone. It has never been deauthorized and replaced by anything approaching unanimity. We are just not in reforming or synodical times at present. Someday we will be again. I'm no Bible bigot as I consider many other translations in my studies. But my AV is where my eyes go first and usually last. It has become part of who I am.
Personally (and I mean personally) I think that dropping verses and phrases as the Greek text of the ESV (and most other modern translations) is a lot more likely than it is to add verses and phrases.
One more disclaimer - whatever is the opposite of expert is what I am in this field.
Funny, just this morning I was contemplating a word I hadn't seen used in a long time: "Tyro." I was just itching to find a reason to use it.
That might be what you're looking for.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Good word. I had to look it up.
I am not a beginner but I am a novice in this area.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Yup.
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
What made you go NASB to KJV?
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
I have tried not a few translations, but always prefer the AV, because, the AV
(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in a dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.
No debates here, please.
On the last one--it italicizes words that aren't actually in the Hebrew or Greek but are needed to add to make sense in English (in the same way the NASB does)?
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
I have tried not a few translations, but always prefer the AV, because, the AV
(1) drew upon the best Hebrew and Greek manuscripts;
(2) was translated with a conservative philosophy of translation;
(3) deployed great wisdom when using transliteration;
(4) matched the majesty of the style of Scripture in a dignified and very elegant English;
(5) when read according to the purpose for which the Scriptures were delivered by God, is easily understood; and,
(6) makes the sense of Scripture clearer through the use of italicized words.
No debates here, please.
You could add one more: I see the most appealing thing about the KJV the fact that they have a way to distinguish the second person singular plural, which I find myself often needing to look up; this is a huge plus.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Sounds like you are at least not an abecedarian.Good word. I had to look it up.
I am not a beginner but I am a novice in this area.
abe·ce·dar·i·an
noun
\ˌā-bē-(ˌ)sē-ˈder-ē-ən\
plural -s
1: one that is learning the rudiments of something (such as the alphabet)
2archaic : one that teaches the alphabet and the rudiments of learning
3capitalized : one of a 16th century Anabaptist sect that despised human learning on the ground that the illiterate needed no more than the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
I have no expertise or an opinion worth the powder to blow the dust off anyone's bible. Since you asked, my largest reasons were for the majesty and heritage of the KJV and not the manuscript tradition. Also, when I do get around to memorizing verses, I find KJV easier. Incidentally I find the NASB more readable than many translations. I don't find it wooden or Yodaish as others do.
- Status
Similar threads
