English Standard Version vs KJV

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Plain Old Bill, Jan 10, 2004.

  1. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I have read some of the ESV and what I have read seems very faithful. I have also read what went into the making of the ESV.In addition I have read comments by some of our members whose opinions I have a certain respect for.
    My question would be ,what would hinder the ESV from being as accurate and accepted a version as the KJV?
     
  2. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    Alan Jacobs, professor of English at Wheaton College, writing in the December, 2003, edition of First Things magazine

    THE REST OF THE ARTICLE
     
  3. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear RSR , thankyou very much for your reply. I have made three entries in this forum regarding the NASB,New Scofield,& the ESV. The purpose of the entries was to see if there was anything other than the KJV that would not be highly crticised by KJV only's types. The NASB came under sudden attack and was also defended with great energy. The Scofield seems to be pretty acceptable to the KJV only types. The ESV does not seem objectionable at all in any way to them. You may be right this could be the universally accepted replacement for the KJV.
     
  4. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVO only types attack the ESV just as much as any other translation of God's word.

    But that won't be the deciding factor of whether it becomes a universal translation. The KJV was attacked and ridiculed as well by the Geneva Bible Onlies, but they eventually died out. Actually, there is still a few Tyndale Only Bible groups, I use to have a few links. They basically compare other versions (including the KJV) to the Tyndale and if it doesn't exactly line up (and since Tyndale is the standard) they then accuse of adding or subtracting from Gods word. Since the KJVO generally accept the Tyndale as God's word (as well as the Geneva, though the Geneva's never accepted them), I posted that link awhile ago for the KJVO comment but they didn't have anything to say.

    Anyway, more important then the KJVO approval (which will never be . . . by definition) the ESV needs a general shift in Christomdom from dynamic equivelence back to formal, or the NIV will continue its surpremecy. The NRSV is also quite popular in more mainline and liberal churches, who would need to abandom the gender-inclusive language. And last but not least, the ESV will need to beat out the NASB, its sister, to whom there are a lot of simularities. Only God knows (or perhaps only God will control) which of those two become dominant if any.
     
  5. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are some fairly well recognized fundamentalists who are or were not KJV only.
    John R. Rice, R.A. Torrey,B.H. Carrol,John Gill,The King James Version Tranlators,C.H. Spurgeon,A.H. Strong, & Benjamin Warfield.
     
  6. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is the ESV’s balance of thorough, up-to-date scholarship and deference to the elders’ wisdom that makes it the best available English Bible. What this means, further, is that the ESV is the best candidate yet for the long-hoped-for “replacement” of the KJV, the translation that bridges denominational gaps and strikes the right balance among the virtues of clarity, correctness, and grace.
    ________________________________________________

    Stephen, I read that just last evening. Anything that J.I. Packer put his hand to has turned out ok, in my thinking.

    I don't have a copy of the ESV, but I am thinking about acquiring one soon. I am not into the translations controversies, and still enjoy my J.B. Phillips New Testament, RSV and my old faithful 1945 KJV with all my notes. I would never own a Scofield Reference Bible in any version, andmore than I would own a Jehovah's Witness Bible...New World, is it?

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  7. Singleman

    Singleman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    On this board KJVOs usually attack the most popular modern versions, the ones that pose the greatest threat to the pre-eminence of the KJV, namely NIV, NASB, & NKJV. The ESV is sort of under their radar. Once the ESV becomes more well-known it will also no doubt become a target.
     
  8. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, given the fact that the ESV is based on superior mss, has a "who's who" of Bible believers on the translation team and consulting team, and the preferred translation methodology, I see no reason why the ESV should not be much more preferable than the KJV.
     
  9. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't "superior" a subjective assessment?
     
  10. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    J.I. Packer - General Teachings/ Activities </font>[/QUOTE]This article is spurious at best.
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't "superior" a subjective assessment? </font>[/QUOTE]Some think so, given that people of our post-modern culture think everything is subjective. But I'm one of those odd critters that still believes in truth. ;)
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    J.I. Packer - General Teachings/ Activities </font>[/QUOTE]This article is spurious at best. </font>[/QUOTE]Spurious? Defend Packer?
     
  14. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    J.I. Packer - General Teachings/ Activities </font>[/QUOTE]This article is spurious at best. </font>[/QUOTE]I have read and even quoted several of this guys articles until I got to looking at his index... he pretty much doesn't like anyone or any group that is widely known in Christianity especially if they disagree with him on any point large or small.

    He covers the whole spectrum with his accusations from Jack Hyles to Bob Jones to John MacArthur to the GARBC to Guidepost Magazine to Josh McDowell to Bill Bright to Bill Hybels. It seems that he just sees a name, finds a few things he doesn't like, and speculates the rest.

    Saying his articles are spurious or that he employees half-truths is about as kind as one could be to this guy.
     
  15. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, then, are you saying that whatever you believe, regardless of why you believe it, is "truth?" That seems to me to be the ultimate in subjectivity, isn't it?
     

Share This Page

Loading...