King James or ESV which is most accurate?

ESV. Better translation methodology, better manuscripts from which to translate, better translators and advisors.

 

Ditto.

 

Neither of these is the MOST accurate, however if you had to pick between these two, then the ESV would win in the accuracy department.
(Mat 23:24 KJV)
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
(Mat 23:24 ESV)
You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!

 

Ditto the above ditto

 

The KJV is more accurate than ESV becausae of the KJV superiority: the 4-fold "T." (Theology, Translators, Technique, and Texts).

The ESV omitted, added and changed any words such as that ESV affects any doctrines.

<edited by moderator> the Word of God is to add, omit or change the Word of God. (See 2 Cor. 2:17 KJV)

[ August 18, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Better translation methodology is less accuracy.
Better MSS are lowest percent.
Better translators and advisors are low qualified.
Therefore the ESV is less accurate.

 

Askjo ... It is time for you to be switching teachers. The longer you get your ears tickled by Waite and Cloud et al, the longer you keep repeating this nonsense. You posted two posts without one true statement in either of them (except for the comments you quoted from Tom). One of the signs of spiritual growth is growing in discernment, recognizing right and wrong biblical teaching by comparing it to the Bible itself. You will search the entire Bible without finding one ounce of support for the KJVO position. That should tell you all you need to know.

 

I concur. ESV, imo, is not the most accurate, but is more accurate to the source texts than the KJV in today's verbage.

 

So what's you're excuse?????

 

I don't need one. I have learned to recognize right and wrong biblical teaching because I have learned to use hte Scriptures as the authority. That is why I have rejected the false teaching of KJVOnlyism.

 

I love the ESV translation for Isaiah 14:12 "O day star" and many other places. I agree with the other posters that the biggest reason the ESV is more accurate that the KJV is because of better mss.

 

Bro Bill asked: “Where specifically is the ESV inaccurate?”

How about the following, which Metzger in his Textual Commentary acknowledges to be an “error,” even while favoring the manuscripts containing such an error:

ESV Mt 1:7-8 “...and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat...”

ESV Mt 1:10 “...and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah...”

Dr Bob: “Texts - ESV utilizes ALL of the Greek texts, carefully weighing and evaluating texts rather than depending on a half-dozen selected by a Catholic priest.”

The editors of the current Nestle-Aland 27 and UBS 4 texts themselves are willing to depend upon respectively 11 and 20 Greek manuscript witnesses (as well as various versional witnesses) against all others that contain the correct readings of Asa and Amon. So obviously, the ESV translators chose _not_ to utilize all Greek texts, but instead chose to follow a dozen or so manuscripts that contained a patently erroneous reading. At least that number is twice as many as Erasmus, so that result _must_ be correct. I would suggest not.

 

Better translation methodology is less accuracy.
</font>[/QUOTE]Huh?

So? Witnesses are weighed, not counted. 100 people who lie don't add up to truth. 100 liars produce lies.

The ESV is a Bible-believer's all-star list of translators. To disdain these is to attack Bible believing doctrine.

 

ESV Mt 1:7-8 “...and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat...”

ESV Mt 1:10 “...and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah...”

Tom Vols:

“The ESV is a Bible-believer's all-star list of translators. To disdain these is to attack Bible believing doctrine.”

The point is clear: no one is sufficiently worthy to criticize the translational choices of such an “all-star list of translators,” since so to do is to “attack Bible-believing doctrine.” (Don’t some other people make a similar claim regarding the 54 KJV translators?).

Should one thereby presume that the ESV errors that appear within the genealogy of Christ are “insignificant” and “do not impact any major doctrine”? Certainly, so long as it is acceptable to consider a psalmist and a prophet as the _real_ kings of Judah instead of Asa and Amos, and to adjust Jesus’ physical line of descent accordingly.

Bro Bill:

“In addition they have asked for any serious constructive critisism, this being the 1st edition. I am sure when there is an update errors which are discovered will be corrected. So Ziggy am I to assume from your entry that the ESV has only ‘one’ error?”

No need to comment on whether the ESV has other errors (I’m certain it does, like any translation made by fallible humans). But one major error is often sufficient to call a translation into question: the old RSV was generally rejected by conservatives because of its rendering of Isa 7:14; the Good News Bible (TEV) because of its rendering of “blood” as “death”.

As for possible correction of this ESV genealogical blunder, this particular problem was brought to the publisher’s attention within minutes of the ESV’s formal presentation (at an annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society). The reply was to the effect that the translators were bound to the text they had already established and chosen to follow; no correction was likely to be forthcoming. When asked how this tallied with any concept of biblical inerrancy (since inerrancy is a required hallmark for ETS membership), there was no answer. This is not an “error waiting to be discovered” -- it is already known and deliberately ignored under the guise of following the eclectically determined “best” Greek text.

Out of all English translations, the ESV is joined on these two variant names apparently by only the NRSV, New Living Translation, the Inclusive Language Version, and the Jesus Seminar’s “Five Gospels”.

Nearly every other translation retains the correct form of both names (even though their marginal notes often claim an underlying Greek text that contains the errors). The exceptions are the RSV, Berkeley, NAB, and Lattimore (who have Asa and Amos); and Wuest (who has Asaph and Amon).

Even the Message and JW’s New World Translation (supposedly based on the Westcott-Hort text) get the names correct (it is humorous to examine the JW’s Kingdom Interlinear translation and to see the Greek reading Asaph and Amos, with their interlinear “literal” rendering being the correct Asa and Amon).