"I'm So Excited!"

AJ, you can look up the ESV online. Go to www.biblegateway.com and you can look up bible passages in several versions - KJV, NKJV, NIV, NAS, HSB, TNIV, ESV, etc.

You can look up the same passage in several versions at a time to compare them.

 

"Soitenly!!" (Do you remember where the source of my quote, here?)

Ya know, it's kinda' like the KJV, with the translator notes such as found at Matt. 1:11, although there are no translator notes on Mt. 18:11

Note Mt. 1:11!

(FTR, this is the best I could do on "short notice" for the 'type' style of the text consistent with the 1612 type of the KJV)

The hidden and unspoken implication of your post carries a false assumption, namely that the ESV translators "left out" something, in this case, a particular verse, when translating. Not so! The verse is not found in some manuscripts, and the choice of texts, hence absence or presence of some readings is reflected in the preface of the ESV, thus-

The question of the best text(s) certainly is a debatable issue, and has been undertaken a few times on this forum.

I have even offered a few comments on this, the subject of texts, myself, as to my preference for the Majority texts, basically.

However, here in the ESV, the translation is consistent with the Greek text chosen, and the footnotes accurately reflect the "significant alternative reading" as found in the MT and TR.

Thus the implied and unspoken (but definitely directed) 'dig' at the ESV (and by hidden implication any other version that does not use the same textual basis as the KJV) is definitely out of line and uncalled for, IMO. Not to mention, it has little if anything to do with the subject at hand, and the OP.

Ed

 

FTR, I do not own an ESV (or several of the other versions or editions I sometimes cite) either, but one can easily get 'free' access to about 50 different editions and versions of the Bible in the English language, 'on-line' including the ESV, via Bible Gateway, StudyLight.org, and Biblios.com, and a few other sites, as well, although I have not counted the exact number.

So yes, you can look it up. :thumbsup:

Ed

 

The thread was posted in the debate forum which does open it up to scrutiny.

If they are "excited" because they got a new ESV, I was just stating the opposing view (debate if you will) that it is not exciting to some folks, and in fact it may be debated that it contains errors.

Sorry if I struck a nerve in you. I apologise.
AJ

 

No, you did not strike any 'nerve' by not preferring the ESV (or any other version, for that matter) or by preferring any particular version. Hence, no apology is needed for that, by any stretch.

As to not being excited by it, that is also a fair opinion to be offered.

I'm not particularly "excited" by any particular 'version' in English, although I have a couple that I normally 'prefer,' namely a particular 1967 KJV, and a particular edition of the NKJV, both study Bibles, and because of my own personal preference for the Majority Text of the NT. I do not happen to have my own copy of any one of the 'strictly' MT versions, however, and thus use the two that I do, primarily.

However, as I said, I will cite any version when I believe it is an accurate rendering of the text, OT or NT, yes from the WYC, and WYC-Purvey to the latest edition to be translated, that I have seen.

And as I said, the question is not that the ESV is inaccurately rendered here (it is not, either in the text, or the translator footnotes), but rather the textual basis of the version.

It was just that the implications, in your original post that I replied to, are unwarranted.

Ed

 

Actually, the first NT to actually use "chapter and verse" division was that of William Whittingham in 1557 (adapted from the TR1551 of Robert Estienne), and also the first 'complete' Bible to do so, was the GEN of 1560, also translated primarily by Mr. Whittingham. When one finds these "chapter and verse" divisions "on-line" in the earlier English versions such as the WYC, TYN, and MCB, these divisions have since been applied [by some unknown individual(s)] 'retroactively' to these versions.

So Dale-c, you are entirely correct, here. :thumbs:

Ed

 

Hey Ed?

If the position that I brought up in my first post was "unwarranted", then why are we still discussing it?

AJ:wavey:

 

You know, that verse, and others missing or contained in a Bible translation, is either SUPPOSED to be there as inspired by the Holy spirit or NOT supposed to be there. It doesn't matter which text you prefer for a Bible translation, one is either RIGHT or it is WRONG. You can't have BOTH being right. God either inspired those words or He didn't. Again, I repeat, BOTH manuscripts cannot be correct.

 

That sounds logical enough.

 

It does, doesn't it?

 

Hmmm, so we should determine what is or is not God's Word by logic?

 

How about dealing with what I posted. You have two DIFFERENT manuscripts that versions are translated from.......they DIFFER............some have verses.............some do not.............Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit.............so those verses either NEED to be in there, or they are not supposed to be in there. You can not have it both ways! One is RIGHT, the other is WRONG! That's LOGIC. I see no problem with using it. Why do you?

 

It's in the "footnote" because the translators are not "sure" if it's REALLY supposed to be in the Bible or not. Some other versions DO leave verses out completely, some versions put them in, depending on which manuscript is used. This leads to doubts about whether something is "Scripture" or not. That's my point. I think most of the "arguing" between different versions/manuscripts comes from this very problem. Both manuscripts CANNOT be right. One is WRONG. Now, which one?? :BangHead:

 

First, most every Bible of which I'm aware is translated from text(s), not a manuscript or manuscripts. I do believe one can find a specific translation of Aleph, but have never seen one.

That includes the KJV, ESV, and every other version which I have usual access to.

franklinmonroe, on other threads, as well as I have pointed out that no two manuscripts of any significant length, agree in place in every detail, so which specific 'manuscript' out of the several thousand is it to which you are subtly referring? C? K? 88? 116? 635? 1213?

You have more than once implied this. Do you have some special knowledge that you would like to share with us, maybe, as to which MS you are referring?

The NT text that would effectively later be called the TR was initially compiled by Erasmus from a mere handful of manuscripts, simply because they were what he had access to. His later editions and all those which have since followed incorporated more and more manuscripts, as they were accessible to the compilers.

The current available MT by the late Hodges and Farstad, that I have on my desk, referenced over 400 MSS. According to them, and also Pierpont and Robinson, there are over 1000 translatable differences between the latest TR and the readings of the great majority of the Byzantine (Majority) texts. (FTR, the current UBS-2, which I also have, references far more MSS that does the W/H, as well, as several have also pointed out, in various places.)

And that is just in the NT! And one current text, no less.

Even the KJV translators did not follow a single edition of the NT text, although they primarily translated the NT from the TR1598 of Beza. May I suggest you read up on the actual history of the English Bible, rather than simply repeating something, you have heard.

I have no problem with a version preference, having stated my own several times. However, that does not give me the right to deny a fact about that version.

I liken the support of the Bible to something that was attributed to the late Dr. Cornelius van Til, regarding this very subject, and I like his illustration. He likened the actual verbatim text of Scripture, and the fact that we are not seeing it clearly to driving over a bridge where the deck was under water, with a bit of muddy water covering the roadway. One could clearly see the outlines of the guard rails so could assume one was on the bridge. He noted that one was actually driving on a surface of water, over a covering of mud, on the bridge. One could not see the actual bridge deck, at all, and technically was driving on this muddy water, with out being able to discern if the deck was actually there. He added, "However, it does makes a great deal of difference as to whether or not that bridge deck is actually there!"

Uh- Good point!

Ed

 

Well, that would be a very simple solution if we only had to choose between two manuscripts; but we have many manuscripts.

Greek manuscripts have generally been grouped by men into 'families' with similar readings (although not always identical). There is some open discussion still about which MSS belong into each group (since some MSS exhibit traits of multiple families). The broad families we are most familiar with are: the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine Text type; but these are just names, and some men have divided the MSS differently.

Some individual families have become the basis for men to create a printed critical text (where those not-so-identical readings [variants] are removed from the main text and sent to the apparatus [like footnotes]). The TRs are critical texts based mostly upon Byzantine MSS. There are also eclectic Greek texts which use readings from across several families. Then other men translate from these printed critical texts, but often do not follow just one source exclusively. But even when different translators are following the same exact source, they may choose different words and constructions to express the source text in the target language.

So, how can we know that only the "right" MSS with their information all got properly segregated together? And, how can we know that the textual critics kept the "right" variants in their main text (and put the "wrong" ones in the apparatus)? And, how did the translators know that the critical text was "wrong" when they selected the "right" reading from a completely different source? And, how do we know which translator picked the only "right" (English) word from all the "wrong" ones?

 

Again you all seem to be trying to turn this into a KJVO topic! I was VERY CAREFUL to never ONCE mention the KJV in my posts because of that very reason! I'm simply saying, choose WHATEVER text you want, of the MANY that are available. None of them agree 100%. ONE or a LOT of them have to be WRONG then. As I said ..picking the RIGHT one leads to ....................:BangHead: It's FRUSTRATING that some of you try to use ANYTHING posted to assume one is promoting the KJV over others.

 

You are correct. This is not a KJV thread and you have made that clear.

The various mss issue does cause a problem for us. All we can do we study, research, and seek God's wisdom as to His direction.

 

Whew! Thank you! :wavey: