I was surprise when first started reading the esv as to how much it felt like reading the KJV, its almost like the NKJV in how it reads and sounds.
Who went from KJV to ESV and stayed there/went back to KJV?
- Thread starter Polanus1561
- Start date
- Status
The Authorized aspect of the KJV was based upon the King James support, but not to the Church at large, but mainly to the Church of England.
I like how the Nas reads and do see it as the most literal translation still available for use today.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
I really like how the ESV reads in some places, but in other places not so much. You really shouldn’t start nine straight sentences with the word “and.”
I went from the KJV to the ESV for a season back in 2005. A young associate pastor friend of mine back then was enthralled with the ESV and promoted it more than Crossway! Needless to say he was successful in getting me to purchase one. I used it for a year or so and moved back to the KJV. I didn't have any real issues with the translation per se, but I started to get turned off a bit by all the people I kept meeting who had a "ESV-O" attitude and of course the rampant marketing of the translation by Crossway kind of wore me down. I ended up returning to my old friend (KJV) and have been reading it every since, though today I also mix in the NIV. My wife on the other hand, of whom English is a second language, prefers the ESV over the KJV. The best translation I suppose is the one you read!
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
And why shouldn't sentences start with "and"? That's one of my favorite bits of the KJV!
And I say: I agree.
I never really checked, but I bet the vav consecutive is among the most common ways to start a sentence in the Hebrew OT.
I never really checked, but I bet the vav consecutive is among the most common ways to start a sentence in the Hebrew OT.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
There is nothing wrong with starting a sentence with “and”, however the ESV tends to string together enormously long sections where each sentence begins with “and.” It’s just poor English style and it lacks imagination. Kai can be translated numerous different ways with the same effect.
toledomudhen
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm still vacillating between the two. I lean toward ESV because my pastor preaches from it and also because it is easier to read and I like my ESV study Bible better than my KJV Study Bible.
Sent from my MI MAX 2 using Tapatalk
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
I went from NASB to KJV after reading on the issues involved with methodology. I can’t in good conscience agree with the CT position because I believe it denies a fundmental doctrine: providential preservation.
it does not deny that doctrine, but believe that it understands it in a different fashion, as there is not a need to have either a perfect Greek text, or a perfect English version in order to have the word of the Lord for us today.
I agree with you on the Esv study bible, as to me its the very best one current available to use.
TrustGzus
Puritan Board Freshman
In a more general sense, I went from TR to CT. I used the KJV and NKJV but became convinced the CT represents more accurately what the Apostles actually wrote. So I lean CT. I’m not particularly a fan of the ESV. However, it’s the pew Bible in my church and the Reformation Study Bible only comes in the ESV for CT based Bibles. So I use the ESV quite a bit.
I don’t struggle with the doctrine of providential preservation for two reasons. First, a doctrine has to be establish via Scripture. What systematic theologies have a section on providential preservation? Geisler does. But it’s small, uses no Scripture to support it and he doesn’t adhere to a TR position. Secondly, God preserved TR (many versions of it) MT and CT. If he preserved all of them, then it seems tough to argue one over the other with that as a grounding argument.
For what it's worth, I have a KJV on my desk at work today. Friday it was a CSB. Thursday it was a TNIV. I am not fixed on one version or one family of text for the NT or one method (formal or functional) for translating.
I don’t struggle with the doctrine of providential preservation for two reasons. First, a doctrine has to be establish via Scripture. What systematic theologies have a section on providential preservation? Geisler does. But it’s small, uses no Scripture to support it and he doesn’t adhere to a TR position. Secondly, God preserved TR (many versions of it) MT and CT. If he preserved all of them, then it seems tough to argue one over the other with that as a grounding argument.
For what it's worth, I have a KJV on my desk at work today. Friday it was a CSB. Thursday it was a TNIV. I am not fixed on one version or one family of text for the NT or one method (formal or functional) for translating.
Last edited:
I prefer the formal translations such as the KJV/NKJV /Nas for serious bible studies, as my main preference is to how it is translated. not so much whether it is based upon CT/MT/TR.
Again, I do not see there being a need to have a perfect Greek text nor translation in order to have the word of God to uis now, as to me only the Originals were fully perfect in all aspects.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Actually it does. One only needs to read Warfield to understand this.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Calvin and Turretin have whole sections in there institutes that deal with this issue.
As Turretin puts it, it’s not about errors in some copies, nor the material, but the underlining philosophy and methodology that are the issues.
Those holding to a critical Greek text as I do, would hold that God had indeed preserved for us His completed txt, in all of the various manuscripts and other documents that attest to the original documents themselves.
The 1979 Statement on Bible Inerrancy, I believe RC Sproul himself had a big part in that, states to us that only the Originals were inspired and fully perfect.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Which means that today you do not hold to an inspired text. Consistently, one with this view cannot say it is truly the word of God.
Edit: To be more accurate no one disputes scribal errors. There are some. What Warfield argues is that the text we have today isn’t the same text they had in the first century.
Last edited:
The originals were inspired by he Holy Spirit Himself to be without any errors/mistakes, but none of the translators/textual critics have that capability.
That statement was agreed upon by men such as Dr Sproul, and many others, and each of them held to the Originals alone being fully without errors/mistakes.
they also did not see that being required in order to have an infallible Bible to us for today.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
That the originals alone are inerrant is a statement I find troublesome. The Apostles and Our Lord referred to copies (and translations) of Scripture when quoting the Old Testament, relying upon them as being inspired and infallible.
I wish the word inerrant was not used at all versus infallible. All notions of inerrancy presume access to the originals, yet all that we have are copies. If the copies are in error, why not the originals? Observe where this notion of inerrancy leads. Sigh.
So how do we know the autographa are without error? Scripture so states the same. We need not set about trying to empirically prove what Scripture attests. We need to presuppose God's providential care and preservation of Scripture.
Great quote!
God has done that, but we do not need to have either a perfect/error free Greek text or any English translation to affirm that truth, as the 1979 Statement states so well.
Last edited:
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
I think what's being referred to is this: http://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/old/Resource_545/Book 2, Sec 23.pdf
In particular, Article X - "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."
The words "strictly speaking", and the 2nd statement in the paragraph, need to be included when interpreting this Article.
Also, Article X continues..."We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."
Blessings!
In particular, Article X - "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."
The words "strictly speaking", and the 2nd statement in the paragraph, need to be included when interpreting this Article.
Also, Article X continues..."We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."
Blessings!
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
What does this mean:
"we do not need to have either a perfect/error for Greek text"
Are you properly reviewing your posts before submitting them, or at least checking them after you have selected the Post Reply button? I want you to linger a wee bit each time you post something. Linger over what you have posted before jumping to another post or thread.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I started with Gnb, then NIV. Had a look at some others and settled on the KJV.
I do use now the 21st Century KJV.
I found many of the others to have been carelessly translated or written. Like Genesis 3 vs 16, the ESV version is ridiculous as are a number of others.
I do use now the 21st Century KJV.
I found many of the others to have been carelessly translated or written. Like Genesis 3 vs 16, the ESV version is ridiculous as are a number of others.
U
Username3000
Guest
I am not a fan of the 2016 ESV for that reason. I always use the 2011.
Could you point me to the "number of others" that are ridiculous in the 2016, so that I may compare with the 2011? Thank you.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
The ESV version of that vs is ridiculous, as are a number of other versions/translations.
There are other translations that render it that same way. It's a careless handling of Gods Word and a totally needless change let alone a blatant error.
You can compare various versions at Bible hub. Its a great tool for that.
There are other translations that render it that same way. It's a careless handling of Gods Word and a totally needless change let alone a blatant error.
You can compare various versions at Bible hub. Its a great tool for that.
Last edited:
U
Username3000
Guest
Oh, when you said above, "as are a number of others," you were referring to other translations, not other verses within the 2016 ESV itself. My mistake. Thank you for clarifying.
TrustGzus
Puritan Board Freshman
I am not a language scholar. Perhaps some here are scholars and consulted by translation committees. I don’t think a couple semesters turns one into a language scholar. I personally find it troubling when various Christians speak of a translation at point X or Y being ridiculous or some other superlative without something from a translator level document backing it up.
Committee based translations and subsequent changes are not done lightly. Qualified linguistic scholars with a high view of the Scripture are the types of people doing such translations.
Is it possible you might be overstating your case about Genesis 3:16?
Committee based translations and subsequent changes are not done lightly. Qualified linguistic scholars with a high view of the Scripture are the types of people doing such translations.
Is it possible you might be overstating your case about Genesis 3:16?
U
Username3000
Guest
That is a valid concern.
I know nothing of Greek. My concern with Genesis 3:16 in the ESV 2016 is only on a layman's level.
- Status
Similar threads
