ESV Bible

Hi I was just wondering if someone could help me understand a little bit about the ESV I have one and found out recently that it's cut from the same texts that many of the modern translations are derived.I use the KJV,NKJV,Geneva Bibles primarily and I believe These to be the most reliable,esp. since i found out that there are roughly 40+ verses that have been removed.I am not a KJV only person but I do wonder if I am losing something with the ESV,It reads very cleanly and seems close to what I am used to and it's part of the Reformation Study Bible by R.C Sproul who I learn alot from so what are your opinions about this trans.-As long as I mark down the missing verses in my Bible and are aware of there deletion is the rest of the text accurate enough? What do you think? Look I am sincere and understand that text questions can be negatively devisive I just want the truth and just want solid scripture,Thank you so much! :-)

I wonder if it would not be possible for a little leaven to leaven the whole lump? If it is clear that whole verses have been removed, what other corrupt subtleties will there be in the text? The danger of these will lie in their obscurity. The "little foxes that spoil the vines"

In Christ Aaron

I read the ESV, and the King James Both. There is somethings removed from the ESV....... this is because these were not in the original texts that they use to write the modern translations.

The texts they used to write the KJV were newer then the texts used to write modern ones, because they found alot of scrolls after the kjv era that were actually older then the ones used to write the KJV....... wow i think the grammar is a little confusing hopefull you catch the drift....

kjv - texts from a newer century but found quite early
esv - texts from an older century found recently.

Just because the texts for the modern versions are older does not make them more accurate. This is because they had only a few to compare with each other... for instance only a few scrolls of james to compare.... Where as with the KJV scrolls they had over 2000 scrolls compare with eachother for accuracy.

I read both versions..... the things left out have a number reference and then contain the missing text at the bottom. One thing I notice is that instead of saying that Christ was revealed (in) me, they change it to say Christ was revealed (to) me..... which is theologically different, and I don't agree with it, they should leave it as in... which is what the original says.

I like the esv because it somehow retains the poetry of the king james, yet cuts out the weird endings like 'answerth'. I still read the kjv as well, both are good translations with weaknesses and strenths, and I find that reading multiple versions is helpful.

cheers
dt

[url=http://www.esv.org/]www.esv.org[/url]

The ESV is my personal "weapon of choice". Some of my friends call it the "Evangelical's Standard Bible" as pretty much all of the members of the translation committee are prostestant whereas with other translations, the committees have been ecumenical.

I have the Reformation Study Bible as well and find it very useful. RC Sproul is one of my favourite teachers also and anything that he endorses must, in my opinion, be reliable. I still see the KJV as the 'king' translation, but there's no doubt some of the language is archaic and difficult, but there's also no doubt some of the language in the KJV is unbeatable for its clarity. I think you have a good balance brother.

D

I believe that if someone is not King James Only, then ESV is one of the best choices out there. NIV is good from a readability standpoint, and NASB is good from an accuracy standpoint, but ESV is somewhere in between, and has a lot of KJV elements as well.

I've got a couple of copies of the ESV, I honestly spend more time in the KJV than any other version, and a little in the NIV, and even less in the ESV and NASB... that'd probably be my order of reading.

On that note, I got a copy of 'James Earl Jones reads the Bible'... of course from the KJV. I'm having a lot of fun with Darth Vader on my rides in to work =)

Hi guys, I have not yet met a person who backslid in his faith because he read a bible version that
others claim to be less acurate. Were our 1st century brethen led astray because that only had a few patches of scripture availble to them? Besides there are languages where they only have one or two translations anyway. My mother reads her bible daily for over 20 years and she still hasn't got a clue who Jesus it, and I do not think it is because she reads the Good News bible in German instead of a more literal translation.

It does not hurt to read various translations and allow God speak through them to you. There are bible scholars who know the scriptures inside out but haven't got a spark of God's life in them.

2 Corinthians 3:6 (NIV)
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
(KJV)
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
(ESV)
who has made us competent[a] to be(A) ministers of(B) a new covenant, not of(C) the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but(D) the Spirit gives life.

Whatever translation is better
Let's not stumble over the letter.

Philip

delete

There are bible scholars who know the scriptures inside out but haven't got a spark of God's life in them.

We must never forget that the Pharisees were the KJV-only ultra-conservative theologians of their time, had every word of Moses memorized...and these guys thought God Incarnate was the prince of devils. The Sadducees were the more liberal bunch - not getting caught up with resurrections and angels and the like - and they weren't nearly as hard on Jesus as the Pharisees. There is a very profound lesson here.

Pedantics and traditional formalities really mean nothing if your heart is not right with God - and it doesn't matter if you use the KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, AMP. The flip side is that if the heart is right with God, you can use any and all abovementioned translations to reap deep and profound treasures. This is what so many people do not understand. I've heard Keith Daniel preach in blood-drenched fire from the KJV, and I've heard Zac Poonen extract mind-blowingly anointed wisdom from the Message and NLT.

But those who are not right with God, or have areas of compromise or strongholds of immature convictions will fight for one particular pet translation. This is like a poor, hungry man in rags leaning on a shovel, boasting on how great his shovel is while others work with their own shovels, extracting gold and planting seeds and harvesting food. Instead of following their example with his own shovel, however, he cries out against all the different shovels striking gold and shakes his own empty one above his head in anger.

Brother Paul

Sometimes I read the Tyndale New Testament, and it is frequently more easy for me to understand than any of the other versions.

If you haven't read it, I received mine from Amazon.com for about $9. Well worth it.

So are you calling me a Pharisee, brother Paul?

No, and please tell me where I've said "Steve is a pharisee" in my post. Or where Krispy is even mentioned or alluded to. See, this is getting to be so very tiring, and I think bit pretentious on your part - assuming yourself to be SermonIndex's patron saint of KJV-only defense, taking every jot and tittle personally. I tell you, I was not even thinking about you when I typed my post, and I was only stating a perceived truth. If you don't like it, defend your position and prove it wrong without embroiling yourself on a personal level. Play the ball, not the man, as they say. Now, if you want to associate yourself with the statement you extracted, this is sad, for it shows you've clearly disregarded everything else that came after.

Brother, I'll ask you the same questions you often ask me:

"Did you drink your coffee this morning? Did you get up out of the wrong side of bed?"

:-)

No no no... all is good. Just pointing out that not everyone who is KJV is a Pharisee, tho unfortunately many are.

Brother, the KJV is my translation of choice, I love it. It hurts me that you would take my post as a personal attack, as though I had personally called you, "Steve" a pharisee. This is so wrong, brother, and it's hard for me to "chill" after such a public insinuation. If this had come from the lips of an apostate believer, I could just shake it off, but since I love and respect you too much, it cuts me all the more.

What I did in my post concerning the ancient Pharisees and today's modern KJV pedantics was built upon an innocent general observation, and I had no one person specifically in mind here. In my posts, I try to veer away from doing just that - indicting specific persons, specific individuals. I think it's wrong to pick out a person and "stalk" him or her here with hidden invective in each post. I like to focus instead on generalities, and with generalities, I think one can sometimes be justified by painting with "broad stokes" - because the very term "general" in and of itself denotes broadness.

I hope this clears things up dear brother.

Paul

That is of course until someone stomps all over what God is doing and tells them different. And then everything the Lord planted in their life is questioned because they weren't reading the right translation... all because someone had to elevate their own personal shovel.

This "stomping someone" used to be me. Let me share with my brethren here a personal account. I used to chide my wife about her reading the NIV. I would refer to it as the "bloodless" translation, the "New Incorrect Version" and beat her over the head with KJV superiority. I would watch her read her NIV at night, in bed, steadily and slowly, through Genesis to Revelation, a few chapters a night. It took her a year. While she would read, she would periodically exclaim, "God is so awesome.." and you could see the love of Jesus, the innocent love and excitement she was experiencing as she read through the high adventure of Joshua, the plights of David, the magnificence of Isaiah, the mystery of Daniel.

But I wouldn't read my KJV the same way she was reading her NIV; not with the innocence. I had the superior version, and I knew it. I was seeking out high-falutin theological concepts, reading to get knowledge, reading to fulfill a personal agenda of conquering X-amount of scripture in X-amount of time. When my wife would ask me a question pertaining to deep things in Daniel, for example, I wouldn't answer it; I would instead chide her for the version she was reading it in. This sewed confusion in her mind, and the innocent joy of her Bible reading slowly began to dwindle. I would scoff at her NIV, pointing out how different it was from the KJV, how it couldn't be trusted, how it was written by apostate Alexandrian Jews, how only the Textus Receptus was the true word of God, etc.

Brethren, you need to know that all this was a result of my own lack of joy in reading the KJV. When a believer's joy is defeated and the innocence of his own quiet time has been compromised, he begins to sharpshoot the joy and edification others receive from various sources his acquired knowledge cannot accept. If someone is relentlessly critiquing the translations whereby God is feeding others, this is a sure sign the naysayer himself is not being fed at all by the source he claims to be ultimate and exclusive. His or her starvation in God, in turn, brings in a malnourished understanding of God to fit their paltry level, a level that says "though I have nothing and live in a straw hut of dead pedantics, I have much more than all those living in fullness who acquired their sustenance in God from poisionous fields."

Because of my barreness in joy, I spead it unto to my wife, who no longer reads her NIV with that kind of excitement. She doesnt understand how something so allegedly cursed and fake could bring her so close to Jesus. I should have kept my mouth shut, when I was so full of knowledge and bereft of grace. Now, I read the NLT and God gives me wonderful revelation! Talk about turning the tables. Consequently, I am truly embarassed of my zeal-minus-knowledge past. Once God smashes a man into a million pieces, the notorious "translation-battle" becomes quite insignificant. And when a defeated man or woman is absolutely absorbed in Christ and beholds the glory of God, they will not fuss about KJV versus NIV or ESV versus NASB or whatever else. They may have their favorite translation, and high opinions of it, but will never disparage or discourage another from a God-ordained food source. With full confidence, I now tell my wife that it's [i]perfectly fine to read the NIV[/i] if it is where God is presently feeding her.

No longer do I want to usurp the role of Holy Spirit. I pray this post is read with spirit eyes and discerned.

Brother Paul

Regarding the Tyndale, it is true - 80% or more of the KJV is directly lifted from it. But to me it seems as though the differences are in orders of magnificence. When the KJV sounds grandiose, the Tyndale often sounds like it was spoken by my neighbor.

For instance, Romans 8 says, "There is then no damnation to them which are in Christ, which walk not after the flesh: but after the spirit."

The KJV says, "There is therefore now no condemnation..."

Though both are translations of this verse are useful, I appreciate the clearly stated "damnation" of Tyndale's. We all know how at times there may come a false feeling of condemnation. Yet for the believer, all feelings aside, there is no damnation!

Certainly there are instances where the KJV is more current in word choice, but rarely, it seems to me, is the KJV so grammatically simple as Tyndale.

I like as well that the Tyndale doesn't include verse numbers, which makes it very useful for reading and gaining contextual familiarity, rather than proof-texting.

I primarily use the KJV, but the Tyndale is a nice supplement.