1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJV -vs- ESV

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Phillip, Oct 4, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 4
  1. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    LauraB, this topic is for you. For others who have not seen this, LauraB feels that her KJV is the only Bible documented as being an accurate translation of the Word of God (LauraB correct me if I am stating this wrong.)

    LauraB, also remember, the heat gets hot in this kitchen when KJVO and non-KJVO rivals debate this topic, so be ready for a knock-down drag-out.

    I'll help start this one for you. I disagree with your statements and use the New English Version a lot----tell me what is wrong with it...

    (have fun---but be ready for some tough swipes)

    [Subject name was changed to comply with posting rule #7 - Moderator]
    [ October 04, 2002, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob 63 ]
     
    #1 Phillip, Oct 4, 2002
  2. eric_b

    eric_b <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not familiar with the NEV actually, can you give me some info on it?

    Eric
     
    #2 eric_b, Oct 4, 2002
  3. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Call me stupid, ignorant or whatever....I meant the ESV. Sorry about that, this probably needs to be corrected in the "Subject line". I am taking some new non-narcotic pain pills for my back, but medicine and I don't mix too well, so maybe I can use that as an excuse!!??
     
    #3 Phillip, Oct 4, 2002
  4. eric_b

    eric_b <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would never in a million years call you "stupid", "ignorant", or even "whatever" [​IMG] I have a copy of the ESV, and I think it's okay, but that it inherited some idiosyncrasies from the RSV (on which it was based). Fortunately, the most blatant problems with the RSV were fixed in the ESV, and hopefully they'll make further improvements in later revisions.

    I refer to my KJV much more frequently than my ESV, actually, so I guess I'm on LindaB's side on this one [​IMG]

    Eric

    [ October 04, 2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]
     
    #4 eric_b, Oct 4, 2002
  5. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am pretty much in agreement with you. I was giving her a boost and letting her know that it is okay to disagree here. Yes, I use my KJV more than anything with other translations (like the ESV) to help me understand sections that don't make a lot of sense. For me, Paul's letters are somewhat hard to understand in the KJV English, but once I see it in an easier translation, then I can see it easily in the KJV. So, really, my real study is usually with a KJV using something else as a backup. That is, when I'm not trying to struggle with some of the Greek (let alone Hebrew). I know this is a little off subject, but what are your thoughts of the new Holman project?
     
    #5 Phillip, Oct 4, 2002
  6. eric_b

    eric_b <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I used to use NASB more than anything else, but lately I've been using the NKJV more and more because I'm becoming more sympathetic to the idea that the Textus Receptus is more reliable than the CT. I think I'll want to read up on that issue, but the TR text seems more internally consistent. I often read passages in both NKJV & NASB, and look things up in my concordance when they dramatically disagree (the last part of Rom 12:1, for example).

    As far as the HCSB goes, I've been using it a lot in my devotional reading lately and have been impressed with it. It could turn out to be a good alternative to the NLT as a devotional Bible and to the NIV as a general purpose Bible. It isn't really a replacement for the NKJV/NASB as far as serious word study goes, probably, but that isn't what it was really intended for.

    When the complete translation comes out in 2004, I expect to be one of the first to buy a copy [​IMG]

    Eric

    [ October 04, 2002, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]
     
    #6 eric_b, Oct 4, 2002
  7. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope I didn't run LauraB off. I was hoping for her to join in.

    You mentioned the TR as being better. I tend to agree with this also, but I am not finding a lot of good literature on the subject (besides the basic KJVO arguments). Do you know anything I can read or is there any information available on the net discussing the merits of the TR vs. the other manuscripts?
     
    #7 Phillip, Oct 4, 2002
  8. eric_b

    eric_b <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not I, but DocCas is The Man as far as this stuff goes, so hopefully he'll stumble across this thread and post something [​IMG]

    Eric
     
    #8 eric_b, Oct 4, 2002
  9. Clay Knick

    Clay Knick New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    ESV all the way!

    Clay
     
    #9 Clay Knick, Oct 4, 2002
  10. eric_b

    eric_b <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clay, you're not one of those ESV-Only fanatics are you? ;)

    :D :D :D

    Eric

    [ October 04, 2002, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]
     
    #10 eric_b, Oct 4, 2002
  11. eric_b

    eric_b <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    #11 eric_b, Oct 4, 2002
  12. Clay Knick

    Clay Knick New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I'm a read the Bible and
    study it and then translate
    it into your life fanatic.
    The best translation is the
    one that is read-and lived!

    Clay
     
    #12 Clay Knick, Oct 5, 2002
  13. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clay, I can't argue with that. I think most Christians will get the message quite clearly with any of the "mainstream" translations and gleen what the Holy Spirit wants them to. I am feeling like eric_b regarding the TR, but I am definitely not "If you don't read the KJV" you'll never make it to heaven crowd.

    BTW Thanks for the links Eric_b
     
    #13 Phillip, Oct 5, 2002
  14. eric_b

    eric_b <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, bro [​IMG]
     
    #14 eric_b, Oct 5, 2002
  15. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Phillip,
    I'm not denying that such a crowd exists; but I do not think those of us on the BB that are "KJVO" would subscribe to such heresy. The KJVO philosophy that is described in this forum is not a very accurate description.

    I, by faith, believe the KJV to be God's preserved Word for the English speaking people. I believe the MV's originate from a separate textual basis. That is why I am KJVO. There are many that would like to add inaccurate points to convey their perspective of what KJVO means.
     
    #15 Pastor_Bob, Oct 5, 2002
  16. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Phillip,
    I'm not denying that such a crowd exists; but I do not think those of us on the BB that are "KJVO" would subscribe to such heresy. The KJVO philosophy that is described in this forum is not a very accurate description.

    I, by faith, believe the KJV to be God's preserved Word for the English speaking people. I believe the MV's originate from a separate textual basis. That is why I am KJVO. There are many that would like to add inaccurate points to convey their perspective of what KJVO means.    </font>[/QUOTE]I appologize, I went too far in my description. I do reserve the right to disagree with you and let me ask you 2 questions so that I can better understand your position.

    1. What did the English speaking culture do for a Bible before 1611?
    2. What about the NKJV?
    3. What do you do about translations into other languages? Do you translate from the KJV or from original documents?
    4. Are you aware that there was a debate during the KJV translation and four different manuscripts were used in Revelation alone, how do we know which is correct?
    5. Without the originals, how can you define which ancient manuscript is the most accurate?

    Okay, I'll change that to FIVE questions. Sorry

    I'm still learning, so I'm not saying I'm right.
     
    #16 Phillip, Oct 5, 2002
  17. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1. They used the Geneva Bible, Wycliffe Bible, Tyndale Bible, and others that were translated from the Greek Textus Receptus.

    2. The NKJV has influences from the Westcott/Hort Text that I am concerned about.

    3. Any faithful translation from the Majority Text is the Word of God regardless of what language it is in.

    4. I was unaware of this. Could you please site your source of this information. I believe that God providentially preserved His Word. The MS's that were in majority agreement would be the correct ones to use.

    5. The Received Text is an accurate compilation of the originals IMO.
     
    #17 Pastor_Bob, Oct 5, 2002
  18. Pastork

    Pastork New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2002
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Bob,

    Since I use the NKJV regularly, I would be very interested in hearing what you think are the "Westcott/Hort text" influences on the NKJV. Could you list some of them for me?

    Thanks,
    Pastork
     
    #18 Pastork, Oct 5, 2002
  19. eric_b

    eric_b <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you mean 'Majority Text' or 'Textus Receptus'? I was under the impression that they were two separate things, and that the KJV came from the Textus Receptus...? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still learning this stuff...

    Eric
     
    #19 eric_b, Oct 5, 2002
  20. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you mean 'Majority Text' or 'Textus Receptus'? I was under the impression that they were two separate things, and that the KJV came from the Textus Receptus...? Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still learning this stuff...

    Eric    </font>[/QUOTE]Eric, you are correct, many people have mistaken the 'Majority Text' for the 'Received Text (Textus Receptus)' they are NOT the same source material; however, this is a common misunderstanding. You are right!
     
    #20 Phillip, Oct 5, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 4
Loading...