Helpful Article on ESV

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by TomVols, Oct 12, 2003.

  1. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    The New Testament Greek text on which the ESV is based on is the same corrupted text used by the NIV. No matter how much skill was used in translating it, it's still a[n unreliable] version.

    As of the year 1967, there were about 5,255 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. 5,210 of those manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus which underlies the KJV New Testament, that's over 99% of the manuscript evidence.

    The New Testament of the modern versions such as ESV, NIV, and others, are based on the Vatican and Sinai manuscripts plus 43 others, that's less than 1% of the manuscript evidence.

    The Greek text used for the modern versions New Testament have 2,886 Greek words LESS than the Received Text used for the KJV.

    The ESV is just another [unreliable] Bible version in a long line of [unreliable] versions based on the wrong text. Clean up a pig all you want, but she's still a pig.

    Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

    [ October 17, 2003, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    The New Testament Greek text on which the ESV is based on is the same corrupted text used by the NIV. No matter how much skill was used in translating it, it's still a counterfeit version. </font>[/QUOTE] All mss were corrupted in some way or another. That is why none of them agree with each other in every detail. The text used by the NIV and ESV is an honest, scholarly effort to restore the text to its original form. I believe some of the assumptions they use are incorrect or at least questionable but "corrupted" is unwarranted.

    BTW, unless you are in possession of the originals or have received direct revelation yourself, you have no basis to make such a sweeping statement. Being different from the KJV does not make a Bible corrupt.

    You have faulty information. None of the 5,500 or so existing mss agree with the TR. The TR contains text for which there is little or no Greek support from any family. The reason for this is that it was partly derived from a late copy of the Latin Vulgate.

    In a very real way (as opposed to the imagined connection between MV's and Rome), the Vulgate was a source document for the TR and thus the KJV.

    Which equals 6 or 7 times the number of Greek mss used by a single Roman Catholic scholar to create the TR.... and 100% more mss than what Erasmus had for the last 7 verses of Revelation.

    Either words were added or words were taken away... most probably both. I lean toward words having been omitted since the conditions for copying in the early church were probably terrible in most areas.

    Spoken in either Greek or Aramaic. Inspired by the Holy Spirit into a Greek mss that no longer exists.

    The KJV is not "every word of God." It does not qualify since it isn't even the same language that God spoke to man in. It is the Word of God by the fact that it faithfully preserves the message of God's words... like the ESV.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    I would give you the benefit of the doubt that you are NOT calling an English Translation of God's Word a "pig".

    If you were, I would publically censure you. But assume we all use rhetorical language that might seem extreme but is not the intent. [​IMG]
     
  5. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would not call God's Word a pig. Sorry if I offended anyone. I was simply using an illustration like in 2 Peter 2:22, a sow that is washed is still a sow. Corrupted Greek text translated one way or another is still corrupted text.

    The root of our differences is that we do not agree on what is the Bible, especially the New Testament. You guys believe the New Testament is the Westcott/Hort type text. I believe the New Testament is the Greek Words that underlie the Authorized Version.

    You hold up the ESV and other modern English versions and say, "Here is the Bible."

    By the way, do you believe the Greek text that underlies the modern versions is inerrant and complete?

    I hold up the Authorized Version and say, "This is the Bible!" I believe by faith in God's Word that the text which underlies the Authorized Version is absolutely inerrant and complete.

    So, you see, while the translation method is important, the presupposition is to know that the right Words have been translated. There is a huge difference between the texts used. A choice must be made.

    I do not believe the ESV is the Holy Bible. I do not believe the NIV, NASV, or the NKJV are the Holy Bible. They are counterfeits because the text from which they are translated from is counterfeit.

    The Authorized Version is the Holy Bible properly carried over into English.

    Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Thanks for clarifying your position. Would ask you to still be very careful. We ask that folks deal with issues and NOT call names or make blanket condemnatory statements.

    You see, I believe the Greek underlying the Modern Versions is by far superior to the conflated Greek of the Eastern Orthodox church that underlies the AV1611. So the NIV, NASB, ESV truly ARE the Holy Bible and saying they are not is not proper language on the BB.

    But at the same time, I do not denigrate or condemn the NKJV or KJV that use the inferior Greek base and say they are NOT the Holy Bible. Matter of fact, I use the NKJV in the pulpit.

    I will be in Wisconsin next week; let's do lunch! Give me a pm and we'll find a place!
     
  7. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sorry, I have simply not been following the rules around here. I haven't actually seen it in print myself yet (but judging from all the faithful actions of my brothers in here, I know it exists), namely the rule that in every situation and circumstance I should do my best to turn every thread into a KJV Only thread, lest some people who are truly interested in a Bible translation (such as the ESV) had the time and computer bit resources to discuss it (what a disaster that would be!!!).
     

Share This Page

Loading...