What do you think of the ESV?
- Thread starter OldOrthodoxChristian
- Start date
-
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.
S
Not to burst your bubble but the KJV OT was also translated with an eclectic textual base. In fact the KJV translators often preferred Vulgate readings to those of the Masoretic text, as can be seen by comparing it with the Catholic equivalent of the KJV the Douay-Rheims (1609). Also I will state that just because the Masoretic text is Hebrew doesn't mean it's better than the LXX or Vulgate.
N
I use only the KJV of the Bible, for one it does not have a copy write. Who can claim to own the word of God and make others pay to quote their version of the Scriptures? And whether or not the KJV is the oldest english version doesn't really matter, it is the oldest correct version in my opinion. I think we have become to PC in this world that we are more worried about offending people and could care less if we offend God.
Dear Nooseus: What you said is not true! The King James Version
dpes have a copyright! See:
The King James Version Is A Copyrighted Translation
THE KJV IS A COPYRIGHTED TRANSLATION
God bless you. In Erie Scott R. Harrington
R
actually the ESV is not based on westcott and hort...it is based on nestle and aland...
it is always ironic when people call the newer bible translations 'catholic'...since the king james version was translated from an edition of the greek new testament prepared by a committed catholic...
while the hebrew masoretic text is superior to the greek septuagint it is not perfect...sometimes the new testament writers chose the septuagint reading over the hebrew reading of a particular old testament passage they were quoting...so it is not unjustified when modern bible translators select a reading from the septuagint when there is a clear flaw in the masoretic text...
the modern bible translations don't omit verses...they remove added verses that were never part of the originals in the first place...
it is always ironic when people call the newer bible translations 'catholic'...since the king james version was translated from an edition of the greek new testament prepared by a committed catholic...
while the hebrew masoretic text is superior to the greek septuagint it is not perfect...sometimes the new testament writers chose the septuagint reading over the hebrew reading of a particular old testament passage they were quoting...so it is not unjustified when modern bible translators select a reading from the septuagint when there is a clear flaw in the masoretic text...
the modern bible translations don't omit verses...they remove added verses that were never part of the originals in the first place...
H
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the ESV. It's a bit more literal than some people like, but sometimes you need that. The KJV tends to translate things differently than it was written, like all the time hell is used. I prefer NKJ for that reason, but someone said it earlier: "The version the person will actually read is the best." What I tend to do is have multiple versions, even in Spanish, and I compare and contrast the verses.
The problem most people have with the ESV stems from 1 John 5:7 where they remove the verse, but it's important to realize that in the earliest text of the bible in Greek, that verse is not there. Does that mean it is not of God? No, of course it is of God, but they were looking for a literal translation when they wrote it.
God has communicated many things from different translations, and He has me read different translations for different purposes. For instance, NKJ when I read the bible while listening to "The word of promise" mp3s because it is from the NKJ. Or the ESV when explaining something to someone in the most plain text I can give them. Or the KJV when I am dealing with one of the people that believe in KJV only. It's all a part of becoming all things to all men, that they may be saved.
The problem most people have with the ESV stems from 1 John 5:7 where they remove the verse, but it's important to realize that in the earliest text of the bible in Greek, that verse is not there. Does that mean it is not of God? No, of course it is of God, but they were looking for a literal translation when they wrote it.
God has communicated many things from different translations, and He has me read different translations for different purposes. For instance, NKJ when I read the bible while listening to "The word of promise" mp3s because it is from the NKJ. Or the ESV when explaining something to someone in the most plain text I can give them. Or the KJV when I am dealing with one of the people that believe in KJV only. It's all a part of becoming all things to all men, that they may be saved.
John 3:16 (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (ESV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
..they completely and purposely left out begotten.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 (ESV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
..they completely and purposely left out begotten.
H
cronjecj: This has to do with the translation of the word μονογενες (monogenes), which is a compound of μονος which means "only" and γενος, which means "race, species, kind and family". The reason people like you and I have a problem with this because using monogenes as only begotten, shows the divinity in which Jesus shared with the Father. Saying He was the only-begotten son shows they share a genus, the way a biological son would share with a biological father. They have the same "divine trait" if you will. So people tend to think that the ESV is a horrible translation. Now, don't get me wrong, I agree that it should be only begotten, but the reason the translators didn't use "only-begotten" and opted for "only" is because of the word γενος(genos). Their question was "does it mean family, which would make it only-begotten, or does it mean kind, which would make Jesus one of a kind(or only-kind)?" Hence being the "only" son. I tend to believe BOTH are true. Jesus was one of a kind, AND the only begotten son.
Now, like you, I believe it would have been better to use "only-begotten", but does that mean I think it's a horrible translation, or not the scripture? By no means. Sure, the ESV has it's flaws, and some of those are present in the fact that they were trying to be literal, but the KJV has it's major flaws as well.
Now, like you, I believe it would have been better to use "only-begotten", but does that mean I think it's a horrible translation, or not the scripture? By no means. Sure, the ESV has it's flaws, and some of those are present in the fact that they were trying to be literal, but the KJV has it's major flaws as well.