The ever-changing ESV Bible

John146 · Oct 13, 2016

Like he said earlier, not only does the ESV take out 17 complete verses, it takes out over 33,000 words in just the New Testament alone. If the ESV is "easier" to read it is not because of it's reading grade scale, but the fact that is takes out so much of God's word.

The ESV takes out the name "Jesus" 18 times, "Jesus Christ" 51 times, "Christ" 39 times, "Lord" 66 times and "God" 38 times. The ESV also removes the word "Hell" 40 times, the words "devil" and "devils" 83 times.

In Matthew 5:22, the ESV makes Jesus Christ a sinner by removing the phrase "without a cause". Remember that Jesus Christ got angry in Mark 3:5.

Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." KJV

Matthew 5:22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." ESV

So many, many more...

eph610 · Oct 13, 2016

fredoheaven said:

As posted, at least there are thirteen verses out of 29 verses with keywords or phrases which have been updated by the Crossway which may have vindicated the so called “outdated” English of the KJV of 1611.Others will be posted later

Permanent Text (2016) ESV Text (2011)
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Exodus 38:11[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]And for the north side there were hangings of a hundred cubits; their twenty pillars and their twenty bases were of bronze, but the hooks of the pillars and their fillets were of silver.[/TD]
[TD]And for the north side there were hangings of a hundred cubits, their twenty pillars, their twenty bases were of bronze, but the hooks of the pillars and their fillets were of silver.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Note: This is actually restoration of the word “and” which has been omitted in the ESV Text of 2011, which is a clear vindication of the KJV reading.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Numbers 14:42[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Do not go up, for the LORD is not among you, lest you be struck down before your enemies.[/TD]
[TD]Do not go up, for the Lord is not among you, lest you be struck down before your enemies.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Note: A clear vindication of the KJV of using “LORD” and not “Lord”.

Jesus is going to head slap you guys one day and we promise we will try not to LOL!

Grace777x70 · Oct 13, 2016

I don't see anywhere in scripture that as Jesus was ascending to the Father - the KJV of the scriptures fell out of His sleeve for us to live by only. The truth is that God's word is God's word in every language and NOT just in 16th century Olde English style.

This whole discussion on the KJV being the only word of God is as much use as knowing the number of male angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

John146 · Oct 13, 2016

Grace777x70 said:

Even when all these "God's word" says totally different things and even teach different doctrines of the Christian faith? Nope, it just can't be so.

Dino246 · Oct 13, 2016

John146 said:

"Takes out"... according to what standard? The KJV? That's circular reasoning. If you're trying to prove the KJV as accurate, you may not use the KJV as the standard against which others are compared. If all you are doing is saying that, in reference to the KJV, the ESV does not have all these words, your assertions have no value, because the root of the issue is the accuracy of Scripture (in my usage, "Scripture" does not equal the KJV exclusively).

If AND ONLY IF you are comparing both the KJV and the ESV with an objective standard can these charges of "taking out" possibly be valid. There is an objective standard: the manuscript evidence as a whole. Your argument fails... again.

John146 · Oct 13, 2016

Dino246 said:

"Takes out"... according to what standard? The KJV? That's circular reasoning. If you're trying to prove the KJV as accurate, you may not use the KJV as the standard against which others are compared. If all you are doing is saying that, in reference to the KJV, the ESV does not have all these words, your assertions have no value, because the root of the issue is the accuracy of Scripture (in my usage, "Scripture" does not equal the KJV exclusively).

If AND ONLY IF you are comparing both the KJV and the ESV with an objective standard can these charges of "taking out" possibly be valid. There is an objective standard: the manuscript evidence as a whole. Your argument fails... again.

Why does the ESV use the KJV as their standard? Look up Matthew 18:11? Why skip 18 and go to 19?

hornetguy · Oct 13, 2016

John146 said:

It doesn't use it as a "standard".....it actually uses the RSV as a standard...

Manuscripts Used in Translating the ESV

Each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text.
The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work.
Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.
The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

Be sure and read the red highlighted part...

John146 · Oct 13, 2016

hornetguy said:

Why do they skip Matthew 18:11?

ESV
10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. 12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray?

Why not make what is verse 12, just make it verse 11?

Why leave a void there? So is "For the Son of man is come to save that which is lost" part of God's word or not? Did the Son of man come to save that which is lost? Btw, footnotes are not the word of God. They only create doubt in the reader's mind.

Dino246 · Oct 13, 2016

John146 said:

Either you're dodging my assertion or you're not paying attention; I didn't make that claim. Once again, your claim that the (editors of the) ESV took anything "out" is only valid if you have a standard where that part is "in". As you claim that the KJV is perfect, using it as the standard is invalid, because it involves circular reasoning. You need an objective standard outside of both in order to support your claim that any words or verses have been taken out. The best you can claim is that the KJV has some words and verses which the ESV doesn't have. Whether they "should" be included is a different issue.

John146 said:

Perhaps they left it out because they did not feel that the manuscript evidence supported its inclusion. If you're so concerned about it, perhaps you should contact the editorial team directly.

It makes sense not to re-number the verses, because that would make it difficult to cross-reference between versions using verse numbers. Although the verse and chapter numbers weren't part of the autographs or most of the manuscripts, there is wisdom in having them consistent across different versions.

Your claim regarding footnotes not being the word of God is severely undermined by the 1611 King James edition of the Bible. It has footnotes.

fredoheaven · Oct 13, 2016

Here more of the verses which has been corrected. I'll post others later...

Permanent Text (2016) ESV Text (2011)
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]2 Samuel 23:34
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai of Maacah, Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite,
[/TD]
[TD]Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai of Maacah, Eliam the son of Ahithophel of Gilo,
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Note: “the Gilonite” is the a fair reading of the KJV which practically a native of Gilo, but when we speak of “of Gilo” he might be only a visitor, alien or stranger that just came to the place of Gilo. See also 2 Samuel 15:12.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]1 Kings 8:48
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]if they repent with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies,
[/TD]
[TD]if they repent with all their mind and with all their heart in the land of their enemies,
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Note: Again ESV is coming back to the “Old KJV” of using “heart and soul” instead of “mind and heart”. “Repentance” is all we know is a change of mind, so the text of ESV 2011 is merely a “vain repetition” for the word “repent” hence it must be corrected as God see’s the heart. Interestingly, “heart and soul” has a better rhythmic style than “mind and heart”. Try it!

Gr8grace · Oct 13, 2016

fredoheaven said:

Here more of the verses which has been corrected. I'll post others later...

Permanent Text (2016) ESV Text (2011)
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]2 Samuel 23:34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai of Maacah, Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite,[/TD]
[TD]Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai of Maacah, Eliam the son of Ahithophel of Gilo,[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Note: “the Gilonite” is the a fair reading of the KJV which practically a native of Gilo, but when we speak of “of Gilo” he might be only a visitor, alien or stranger that just came to the place of Gilo. See also 2 Samuel 15:12.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]1 Kings 8:48[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]if they repent with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their enemies,[/TD]
[TD]if they repent with all their mind and with all their heart in the land of their enemies,[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Note: Again ESV is coming back to the “Old KJV” of using “heart and soul” instead of “mind and heart”. “Repentance” is all we know is a change of mind, so the text of ESV 2011 is merely a “vain repetition” for the word “repent” hence it must be corrected as God see’s the heart. Interestingly, “heart and soul” has a better rhythmic style than “mind and heart”. Try it!

I don't like the ESV. I think it tries to translate more for calvinism and lordship salvation than anything.

But if they keep going back to the KJV for their standard......................................why are you complaining so much?

fredoheaven · Oct 13, 2016

hornetguy said:

Hi Hornet,

Just giving you facts of the changes of the ESV which I did not change, it's the Crossway. Your suggestion of burning is not the issue not unless you wanted to burn them, I'm in no way suggesting that. Scriptural proof of burning books is found in Acts but that pertains to witches books etc.

God bless

Dino246 · Oct 13, 2016

fredoheaven said:

In my opinion, your comment about "Gilonite" vs "of Gilo" is a stylistic preference only. Either makes perfect sense to me. "Heart/soul" versus "mind/heart" is the same, with perhaps some simple familiarity for "heart and soul".

While the Greek word for "repent" involves a change of mind, 1 Kings is translated from Hebrew; the word translated "repent" means more simply, "turn" or "return". I'll welcome the Hebrew experts to add some more context (or correction), but it appears that the word does not incorporate the "mind" the way the Greek word does.

fredoheaven · Oct 13, 2016

Gr8grace said:

No. I am not complaining, and just trying to state the facts in line with the OP. Calvinism and Lordship salvation that's another thing.

God bless you

fredoheaven · Oct 13, 2016

Dino246 said:

In my opinion, your comment about "Gilonite" vs "of Gilo" is a stylistic preference only. Either makes perfect sense to me. "Heart/soul" versus "mind/heart" is the same, with perhaps some simple familiarity for "heart and soul".

While the Greek word for "repent" involves a change of mind, 1 Kings is translated from Hebrew; the word translated "repent" means more simply, "turn" or "return". I'll welcome the Hebrew experts to add some more context (or correction), but it appears that the word does not incorporate the "mind" the way the Greek word does.

okay thank you and need to study further for consideration of "heart and soul vs. mind and heart."

God bless

Gr8grace · Oct 13, 2016

fredoheaven said:

Thats what the ESV is though. It is the lordship salvation crowd's go to version. The ESV is their thing. And lordship salvation is the reigning king in todays churches.

So good luck. And God bless.

fredoheaven · Oct 13, 2016

eph610 said:

They say the greatest sin of a Christian is to offend the little ones. But i am just stating the facts. Apostle Paul have this to say "In understanding be men". I hope I have not offended you brother

Cheers!

fredoheaven · Oct 13, 2016

Gr8grace said:

Okay thank you with this information...

Gr8grace · Oct 13, 2016

fredoheaven said:

Just curious. Did you know that? Because I had the ESV PUSHED on me when I was in the trenches with Johnny Piper and Johnny Mac.

fredoheaven · Oct 14, 2016

More on the OP

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Proverbs 13:16
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Every prudent man acts with knowledge, but a fool flaunts his folly.
[/TD]
[TD]In everything the prudent acts with knowledge, but a fool flaunts his folly.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Note: This also the reading of the KJV as in “Every prudent man”, precision- wise only prudent person has the ability to act with knowledge and sure it’s not in everything that does prudently acts with knowledge.

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Isaiah 2:3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
[/TD]
[TD]For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Note: The omission has been provided as in go “forth” similar to the KJV. The word “forth” is considered an archaic word first known use before 12[SUP]th[/SUP] Ce.

Online Etymology Dictionary
Forth | Definition of Forth by Merriam-Webster

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Ezekiel 40:14
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]He measured also the vestibule, sixty cubits. And around the vestibule of the gateway was the court.
[/TD]
[TD]He measured also the vestibule, twentycubits. And around the vestibule of the gateway was the court.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Note: This is the correction from “twenty” to “sixty” cubits. Sixty to twenty is quite many taking the measure up by 40 more cubits. The KJV reading which is “threescore” is equivalent to 60 cubits which currently the text of the ESV. The old English “score” means 20. While it is thought here that KJV is old English using the word “cubit” is more ancient based on the forearm and below.

Score is late Old English scoru "twenty," from Old Norse skor "mark, notch, incision; a rift in rock," also, in Icelandic, "twenty," from Proto-Germanic *skura-, from PIE root *(s)ker- (1) "to cut" (see shear).

The connecting notion probably is counting large numbers (of sheep, etc.) with a notch in a stick for each 20. That way of counting, called vigesimalism, also exists in French: In Old French, "twenty" (vint) or a multiple of it could be used as a base, as in vint et doze ("32"), dous vinz et diz ("50"). Vigesimalism was or is a feature of Welsh, Irish, Gaelic and Breton (as well as non-IE Basque), and it is speculated that the English and the French picked it up from the Celts
Online Etymology Dictionary

Cubit

ancient unit of measure based on the forearm from elbow to fingertip, usually from 18 to 22 inches, early 14c., from Latin cubitum "the elbow," from PIE*keu(b)- "to bend." Such a measure, known by a word meaning "forearm" or the like, was known to many peoples (Greek pekhys, Hebrew ammah, Englishell).

Online Etymology Dictionary

The ever-changing ESV Bible

Senior Member

eph610

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Gr8grace

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Gr8grace

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Gr8grace

Guest

Senior Member