ESV Erases Jesus' Miracle Escape

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dino246 said:
Confess Jesus is Lord... Confess the Lord Jesus.

So different that one's salvation is at stake? Seriously? Give your head a shake.
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY! If a lost person confesses Jesus is Lord, he will still be lost.
 
Hevosmies said:
Oy vey! What did I just read.

I love you dearly John. I really do. But this just looks like you are just trying so hard to find something wrong with the ESV.

Look I agree that the KJV is the best translation in english. And thats the bottomline because I said so.

But lets be for real: The mainstream translations say the same thing! ESV KJV NASB <- VERY few differences there
Click to expand...

Confessing Jesus is Lord is not the same as confessing the Lord Jesus. When you confess the Lord Jesus, you are confessing His testimony.
 
Dino246 said:
You're asking someone who holds an a priori opinion that all the new versions are corrupt. He'll find a way to make it so, even if it's patently ridiculous as his previous comment was.
Click to expand...

Is Jesus the only son of God? Or is he the only begotten?
 
John146 said:
ABSOLUTELY! If a lost person confesses Jesus is Lord, he will still be lost.
Click to expand...
My goodness. Your reasoning on this is beyond ridiculous.

How about you go and read 1 Corinthians 12:1-3 and then rethink your position.
 
Dino246 said:
My goodness. Your reasoning on this is beyond ridiculous.

How about you go and read 1 Corinthians 12:1-3 and then rethink your position.
Click to expand...

Proves my point. Only one with the Holy Ghost can confess Jesus is THE Lord.
 
John146 said:
Is Jesus the only son of God? Or is he the only begotten?
Click to expand...
How old was Ahaziah when he became king?

We can go round in circles on this, or we can accept that we disagree. However, if you keep posting ridiculous arguments, I will keep refuting them.
 
John146 said:
Yep, not until one is saved, not to be saved.
Click to expand...
I'll let Jesus sort that one out. I'm not going to tell someone that they aren't saved whether they confess Jesus as Lord or confess the Lord Jesus. Frankly I think you're making silly arguments over semantics, and that you cannot support from Scripture the distinction you so confidently assert.
 
Dino246 said:
How old was Ahaziah when he became king?

We can go round in circles on this, or we can accept that we disagree. However, if you keep posting ridiculous arguments, I will keep refuting them.
Click to expand...

Refuted this many times. You have not accepted it, I believe, because you do not want be a part of the KJV believing crowd. They’re a bunch of weirdos you know.🤓
 
Dino246 said:
I'll let Jesus sort that one out. I'm not going to tell someone that they aren't saved whether they confess Jesus as Lord or confess the Lord Jesus. Frankly I think you're making silly arguments over semantics, and that you cannot support from Scripture the distinction you so confidently assert.
Click to expand...

Semantics is important when it comes to God’s word.
 
John146 said:
Refuted this many times. You have not accepted it, I believe, because you do not want be a part of the KJV believing crowd. They’re a bunch of weirdos you know.🤓
Click to expand...
You have refuted nothing. You've only played games with numbers and avoided the painful reality that the text is inconsistent.
 
Dino246 said:
Many people assume the KJV is "the true Bible" not because of any objective reason, but because of familiarity with it. They are familiar with and may have memorized the wording of many of its passages. Someone comes along and reads a different translation, and those familiar with the KJV will compare the new version to the KJV. Any difference from the KJV may be perceived as "incorrect" or even "corrupted". Now consider the reverse: someone grows up with the ESV, becomes familiar with it, and memorizes many passages. Then someone comes along and reads a familiar passage from the KJV. The ESV reader will have every reason to think that the KJV is "incorrect" or even "corrupted". The flaw with this reasoning is in overlooking the fact that both the KJV and the ESV are translations, and not the originals as penned by Paul, Peter, and the others.

The KJV was translated primarily translated from seven printed Greek editions, not directly from manuscripts. The translators checked then-available materials such as earlier English versions (from which the KJV draws heavily), and some foreign-language versions. Now, there are almost 6,000 manuscripts available for the Greek NT, and a great many in other early languages, that were simply not available for examination in 1611. Most modern translations, including the ESV, were translated with reference to this much larger body of source material.

Where a passage contains certain words in the KJV that aren't found in the ESV, you can be certain that there is a good reason why, even though you may not agree with the reason. Most of those "missing" words can likely be found in footnotes. The reality is that they aren't "missing" at all; the translators made a decision that those words don't belong because they probably weren't in the original text. There are words and entire passages whose provenance is questionable; there is scholarly debate on whether such words were actually written by the author of that text. 1 John 5:7 is in this category. The KJV also contains a great many words that weren't in the original languages; the translators added them for one reason or another. Most of these are printed in italics today. Should we toss the KJV because there is so much "added" to the text?

Instead of assuming that words not present in the ESV were "deleted", assume that there are differences in source material and that the scholars who do the challenging work of translation are doing their best to present a sound, accurate, and reliable text. Differences are just that - differences. You'd have to look to the JW's and Mormons to find intentional corruption of the biblical text.
Click to expand...
ok; not with every single Dave Flang video; but every once in a while, I intend to relay a video of his.
 
posthuman said:
why are you picking on ESV? a dozen other major versions which came before ESV don't have 'through the midst' either.

even Darby:

They took up therefore stones that they might cast [them] at him; but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple, [going through the midst of them, and thus passed on.] ​
​
brackets this phrase.
Click to expand...
That's a Dave Flang video. His other videos; "pick on" other modern day translations, from time to time.
 
It always amazes me that Christians with the highest view of biblical inspiration are so naively willing to the use the most corrupt Bible translation, the KJV. That's because they lack the awareness or integrity to read any of the standard books on Text Criticism, the science that determines the earliest and most accurate Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. In seminary we learned that 400,000 copy errors crept into the NT texts over the centuries; so it's crucial to put the manuscripts into families by geographical region and date to allow the recovery of original readings. The KJ translators did their best with what they had, but lacked the key early reliable NT manuscripts and were therefore forced to rely on centuries older copies. In the case of John 8:59, the key phrase ("going t;hrough the midst of them" ) has an appalling lack of support in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and that is why that ESV (following the NRSV and NIV, to name just a couple of excellent modern translations) omits it. There is no disagreement about his in modern seminaries, both conservative and liberal. Perhaps a separate thread is needed to systematically expose the many corrupt readings that have crept into the KJ text.
 
MadHermit said:
It always amazes me that Christians with the highest view of biblical inspiration are so naively willing to the use the most corrupt Bible translation, the KJV. That's because they lack the awareness or integrity to read any of the standard books on Text Criticism, the science that determines the earliest and most accurate Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. In seminary we learned that 400,000 copy errors crept into the NT texts over the centuries; so it's crucial to put the manuscripts into families by geographical region and date to allow the recovery of original readings. The KJ translators did their best with what they had, but lacked the key early reliable NT manuscripts and were therefore forced to rely on centuries older copies. In the case of John 8:59, the key phrase ("going t;hrough the midst of them" ) has an appalling lack of support in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and that is why that ESV (following the NRSV and NIV, to name just a couple of excellent modern translations) omits it. There is no disagreement about his in modern seminaries, both conservative and liberal. Perhaps a separate thread is needed to systematically expose the many corrupt readings that have crept into the KJ text.
Click to expand...
Welcome to CC! I hope you came with your armour on. There are several here who, as you can see from this thread, are vigorous defenders of ye ole King Jim. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: John146
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back