Saturday, September 27, 2008

What About the ESV???




My dear, faithful, and wise husband left this comment on another pastor's blog this afternoon.  If you are thinking about getting the new, highly-acclaimed English Standard Version of the Bible, you might want to think twice.

I had not even been paying attention that we had another new version hitting the markets again. I did a quick Google search, and found the ESV online so I could check to see whether it agreed with the other new versions or with the KJV. Of course it was 3 for 3 in going along with the modern versions, and I knew there was no more need to keep checking.

Here are the three references I quickly checked:
Mark 1:2, "prophets" changed to "Isaiah". It is obvious that those two words are not remotely close to being the same in a Greek text. And what Mark quotes in verse two is not found in Isaiah, but rather Malachi 3:1.
Error #1.


Luke 2:33, "Joseph" is changed to "father". Same comments concerning the words in a Greek text. Jesus Christ had no earthly father. Error #2.

Colossians 1:14, “through his blood” removed. Hebrews 9 tells us in verse 22, “and without shedding of blood is no remission.”
Error #3.


That is just scratching the surface.  I need a Bible I can put my complete faith in, not another corrupted, error-filled, deceptive work of liberal scholarship.


By the way, these same errors, as all of the new versions have, line up with the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Most professing Christians are ignorant of the fact that if they don’t have a KJV, they have the equivalent of the JW bible.

So there you have it.  I agree -- I need a Bible that I can put my complete faith in.  For the rest of the discussion, go here.

16 comments:

  1. I've been hearing some things lately that even the KJV takes out some of the original things in our Bible that clarifies our Hebrew roots. It is hard to know which version to trust. I think it is most important to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. I use NKJV, by the way. I've had mine since I was 16 and have always loved it. Does it have some of those modern changes too?


    Carol

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's funny you should post that, I was just on a site before I came here looking up what was wrong with the NASV (our Pastor uses it). Thanks for posting this on the ESV too. I agree! I was using the ESV for 3 or 4 yrs. before I went back to the KJB. I thought it would be a good Bible by all the hype and was impressed by the list of contributors. What first tipped me off with the ESV was the reference as Satan as the Bright & Morning Star, which of course is Jesus, not satan. Then I also noticed complete verses missing just like in the other versions, and that is what really brought me back to the KJB. I don't like things, like entire verses missing, or names, or important words like "blood". It would be nice to be able to read and understand readily the original Hebrew, but ...


    Have a blessed Lord's Day!

    ReplyDelete
  3. That Good Part http://thatgoodpart2.blogspot.comSeptember 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM

    It is getting "very" hard to find a KJV Bible! Look in any bookstore...the Devil is especially after our children...check out all the "neat" looking decorated Bibles for Children...none of them KJV!!!


    My Pastor was speaking of end-times this morning...you can't help it, can you with all that is going on?


    Good post!


    Have a blessed Lord's Day!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just found your website and so far I really love it. I've gone back to read some of your older post and really appreciate how honest you are. My husband is thinking of changing careers and become a preacher so I'm in prayer for both of us! Thank you again and I will be back I'm sure. Lynn Marie

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amen! Good post!

    ReplyDelete
  6. To be honest the KJV is no better than any other translation, it also contains many mistranslations and errors. That's why we have to be like Bereans and study...there are many resources on-line where you can find the original Bible and see the different meanings of Greek words. Always remember that when you are reading a Bible translation, the person who translated already has their own ideas about what it should say and the translation will slant in that direction. Food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  7. $1000.00 reward if you can produce the original Bible


    No copy of the original autographs exist

    The original autographs were never in a Bible (bible means a collection of books)

    You seem very ignorant of what a translation is, ever noticed how much of the NT is a translation?

    For example, Acts 22 Paul speaks in Hebrew, and Luke translated it and wrote it down in Greek. Are you questioning the validity of that chapter?


    Sorry, I don't bow to false god of Greek scholarship, nor human reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  8. diamondsintheroughOctober 8, 2008 at 1:02 PM

    Anonymous,

    What I am going to say here I am not saying with any malice. When you were first saved (if you are saved -- only you and God know for sure), you believed the Bible, didn't you? You believed what God said, that you are a sinner deserving of eternal ****ation, and that Jesus Christ, God's Son, shed his own sinless blood in your place on Calvary. Then some "educated" person came along and taught you to doubt God's Word. And now it's your mission to help others to doubt it, too. What kind of a mind casts doubt on God's Word? I'll give you a hint: read Genesis 3.


    Like Bible Man above said, there is no such thing as the "original" Bible. There are manuscripts in the original languages, but there are <i>thousands</i> of copies of them, and 5% of those differ from each other in doctrine and in content. The KJV was translated from the texts of the other 95%, those that agree with eachother. Guess which manuscripts every modern Bible was translated from? Yep, the 5% that are full of inconsistencies. If you are reading/studying anything other than the KJV today, it's no wonder you believe the Bible is full of errors.


    When you hear someone say that the "original" Greek says such and such, he is either lying or he doesn't know what he is talking about. Ask him WHICH Greek he is talking about. I wonder if he knows there are literally THOUSANDS of Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament alone.


    God said he would preserve his WORDS, Psalm 12. If there is not a Bible on earth that is perfect and preserved without error, we might as well burn our Bibles, turn all the churches into libraries and coffee shops, and go out and live like the devil. God's words were given by inspiration and preserved miraculously through the ages by God himself. Is he so uninvolved that he unable to keep his Word?? No. He is STILL preserving his words, and he knows who are the enemies of truth. Those who have added to or taken away from his Word will have their reward. Revelation 22:18,19; Deuteronomy 4:2

    ReplyDelete
  9. 2  

    Mark

    Analyze

    Note

    Email [ESV] [HCSB] [KJVS] [MSG] [NASS] [NETP] [»NETP - 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,*[tc Instead of "in Isaiah the prophet" the majority of MSS read "in the prophets" (A W À13 S Irlat). Except for Irenaeus (2nd century), the earliest evidence for this is thus from the 5th (or possibly late 4th) century (W A). The difficulty of Irenaeus is that he wrote in Greek but has been preserved largely in Latin. His Greek remains have "in Isaiah the prophet." Only the later Latin translation has "in the prophets." The KJV reading is thus in harmony with the majority of late MSS. On the other hand, the witnesses for "in Isaiah the prophet" (either with the article before Isaiah or not) are early and geographically widespread: א B D L Δ Θ À1 33 565 700 892 1241 2427 al syp co Ir. This evidence runs deep into the 2nd century, is widespread, and is found in the most important Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean witnesses. The "Isaiah" reading has a better external pedigree in every way. It has the support of the earliest and best witnesses from all the texttypes that matter. Moreover it is the harder reading, since the quotation in the first part of the verse appears to be from Exo 23:20 and Mal 3:1, with the quotation from Isa 40:3 coming in the next verse. The reading of the later MSS seems motivated by a desire to resolve this difficulty.]

    "Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,

    who will prepare your way,]

    ReplyDelete
  10. Most MSS ([A] Θ [Ψ] À13 33 S it) read "Joseph," but in favor of the reading ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ (ho patēr autou, "his father") is both external (א B D L W 1 700 1241 pc sa) and internal evidence. Internally, the fact that Mary is not named at this point and that "Joseph" is an obviously motivated reading, intended to prevent confusion over the virgin conception of Christ, argues strongly for ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ as the authentic reading here.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 14 in whom we have redemption,*[tc διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (dia tou haimato autou, "through his blood") is read at this juncture by several minuscule MSS (614 630 1505 2464 al) as well as a few, mostly secondary, versional and patristic witnesses. But the reading was prompted by the parallel in Eph 1:7 where the wording is solid. If these words had been in the original of Colossians, why would scribes omit them here but not in Eph 1:7? Further, the testimony on behalf of the shorter reading is quite overwhelming: א A B C D F G Ψ 075 0150 6 33 1739 1881 S latt co as well as several other versions and fathers. The conviction that "through his blood" is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.] the forgiveness of sins.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous, you are missing the point. But thank you for all that cutting and pasting.


    "Thy word is TRUTH," John 17:17. Manuscript evidence that does not support the TRUTH is worthless. The ancient manuscripts are not the final authority. God is. <i>God's words</i> are TRUE.


    Mark 1:2 is not found in Isaiah. Joseph is not the father of Jesus Christ. Satan is not the Morning Star. These passages in the ESV contain errors. Lies, if you will. Any book that is called a "bible" and contains these errors is NOT God's word. <i>God's</i> Word is TRUE.


    If whatever Bible you are reading contains errors (lies), then it is not God's Word, no matter how much manuscript evidence there is for the words that it contains.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What you are missing is that the KJV and all other Bibles are translated from manuscripts. The Kjv even differs from the Greek mss. There are several places in the KJV in which there is not one Greek text to support it. To say that the KJV out weighs the Greek mss would be say that Gods word didn't exist until theKJV was translated. When it itself was translated from Greek text. No where in the Bible does it state that the KJV is THE Word of God In an of it's Self. It is a translation of the copies we have. If you put the Kjv version above the Greek text. You are putting the cart before the horse.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Thy word is TRUTH," John 17:17. Manuscript evidence that does not support the TRUTH is worthless. The ancient manuscripts are not the final authority. God is. God's words are TRUE."


    that state is worthless. Since the Kjv was translated from Greek text mss. That the same as saying anything that doesn't agree with me is wrong. When has that arguement been right. Acts 17:11. They even studied the mss to see if what Paul said was true. KJV worship is no different than the Jews worshiping the brass serpent later on. The brass serpent was used by God and brought into being by God's command, but later had to be destroyed because it became an idol to the people. The same has happened to the Kjv.

    ReplyDelete
  15. First, I am not saying the KJB corrects the Greek that GOD gave, but you can't find those manuscripts today.


    One of the passages you are thinking of where the KJB doesn't agree with any of the existing Greek texts is Acts 12:4, in which the KJB uses the word "Easter". Compare Acts 12:1-5 with Leviticus 23:5,6. I have explained this in previous posts, but the days of unleavened bread <i>followed</i> the passover. No one was waiting for the passover to take place, especially not Herod. The Bible says Herod wanted to please the Jews. What would have pleased them better than to see the death of James, a Christian, on the passover? But Passover was already done. No, Herod was waiting for his own pagan Easter to be over. If the Greeks used "pascha" for both passover and Easter, fine. But in English, the correct word in that particular case is Easter. Otherwise there is an error in your bible. <i>God</i>'s word is all true.


    Second, I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, and to me it doesn't make any difference what the old languages say. I am interested in the TRUTH of the words I hold in English. I am not a KJV worshiper; I worship the God who gave it, inspired the words of it, and preserved it, the Lord Jesus Christ. If the NIV/ESV/NASV or any of those others were all true, I would cling to them as well. If you want to call the ESV or the NIV God's Word, go ahead, but I know they contain errors, lies, false statements. I am not interested in a book that is from God, that is supposed to be all true, but contains errors. Especially since he is going to judge me by it. When I say "lies", I am not talking about mis-translations. I am talking about outright lies. Truth is not dependent on what the ancient mss say. Truth is truth.


    Why should it be such a hard thing for God to do, to preserve the words that he gave? He inspired his words, but he wasn't interested in going to the trouble to preserve them? Then why believe anything? If you believe that, you have no final authority but your own education and opinion. You are a god unto yourself.


    Well, anonymous, it has been nice talking with you. I have a family to care for and much to do today. You don't have to agree with me that the KJB is God's Word, and I can't spend all day trying to convince you. Besides, debate is a work of the flesh. :o) And you have a Bible. Believe what it says. I wish you no ill.


    ReplyDelete
  16. You said - " Second, I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, and to me it doesn't make any difference what the old languages say. I am interested in the TRUTH of the words I hold in English. I am not a KJV worshiper; I worship the God who gave it, inspired the words of it, and preserved it, the Lord Jesus Christ. If the NIV/ESV/NASV or any of those others were all true, I would cling to them as well. If you want to call the ESV or the NIV God's Word, go ahead, but I know they contain errors, lies, false statements. I am not interested in a book that is from God, that is supposed to be all true, but contains errors. Especially since he is going to judge me by it. When I say "lies", I am not talking about mis-translations. I am talking about outright lies. Truth is not dependent on what the ancient mss say. Truth is truth. "


    " I am interested in the truth of the words I hold in English" Then you have to take effort to make sure it is translated correctly. If you are not interested in the Greek and Hebrew, The LANGUAGE that GOD gave His word in, then you're not really interested in knowing truth.


    You say "If you want to call the ESV or the NIV God's Word, go ahead, but I know they contain errors, lies, false statements" and later "When I say "lies", I am not talking about mis-translations. I am talking about outright lies." This is a false statement, to put it kindly. It sounds like you look for one sided views that agree with what you want to hear. KJV has errors. The original KJV 1611 had over 8000 footnotes on alternate renderings that were removed in later editions by. KJV onliers who know of these footnotes say that they were put in by the publishers. But that doesn't make sense, since the publishers weren't greek scholars and it wasn't their work to change.


    You also said "Truth is not dependent on what the ancient mss say. Truth is truth. " Truth in the Bible has everything to do with the Ancient MSS because they are what the Bible is translated from. Finding out what God Truly gave the Original Authors is the most important thing you can do in studying the Bible. Truth is only Truth if it comes from GOD. Not translators.


    Lets take one place. Though if you honestly look there are others.


    KJV 1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8.And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


    ESV 1John 7 For there are three that testify: 8.the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.


    The KJV version tell doesn't appear in any visible Greek Manuscript except two, one from Dublin and one forged from Berlin. One of which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a printed book. It's absence from all versions except from the Vulgate, even from the many of the best and oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate. To say that this is genuine despite no real textual support for it is just to be willingly ignorant.


    You claim that the other translations are outright lies. Who's telling the lies? How? Because they different from your KJV? You see, with kinda off attitude, you are actually putting your faith in the KJV and not really wanting to know what was actually God said in the Greek which is what the KJV is translated from.


    My purpose ins't to bring doubt but people should know what they believe and why they believe it.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...