Why Is the ESV "Better" Than Other English Versions?

Did the ESV come from the Textus Receptus??? Or from the Alexanderian text or any of the other North African texts???

 

My personal litmus test (underline personal) for an MV is if 1 John 5:7 (Comma Johanneum) is present in the text.

If it is there without explanation or footnote then it passes my test #1.

Then I go from there.
Is it there with an explanation?
Is it a footnote?
Is it missing altogether without a word of explanation?
Then I will check several passages for faithfulness to the underlying Greek text.

An example: Pilippians 2:4-8 (commonly called the "kenosis") of the ESV
...but made himself nothing... Very poor (imo),
KJV ...but made himself of no reputation... though it has an archaic flavor to the words seems much better than calling the object of what Christ did in the voluntary setting aside of His Glory "nothing".

However, I do use many MVs (CD-ROM) for the portions where they are faithful to the KJV TR (so-called) as a study help with word nuances and legitimate variations of meaning of a particular word.

From what I have heard the ESV may topple the NIV, but the ESV online version (as good as the English is to most of the TR it contains) doesn't even have 1 John 5:7 as as a footnote.

I realize that this is not a thread for 1 John 5:7 but I believe it to be a major MV issue as far as I am concerned. It is missing in the ESV.
I also realize that the extant (exisiting) Greek manuscripts which contain the Comma are late and few, however the Comma goes back into the 2nd century as Scripture and cited as such by the earliest of the Latin Church fathers from
the Old Itala translation(s) (II - IV Centuries).

To me the absence of the Comma is a major detraction of any MV.

My opinion, of course.

HankD

[ July 28, 2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

I use a similar test to determine what text the version is based on which would include John 1:18, Mark 1:2, 1 Timothy 3:16, and others. After determining the textual basis I then look at how some of the words are translated to try to determine the translational philosophy of the translators.

 

The ESV is translated from the current critical texts.

 

I have been doing a little research into the origin of the ESV and I found this. it states " A evangelical revision of the Revised standard version." Did not the RSV have it's origins in one of the North African texts, such as the Alexandrian, vaticanus or the Siniatus???

 

There is no secrecy or plot. The ESV is an update of the RSV, based upon the latest biblical scholarship and critical texts. From the web site:

 

But that still dodges my question. The RSV omits verses and words such as blood; Which is the basis for salvation according to Ephesians 1:7 under the dispensation of grace..North African texts omit many other words and veses.

 

This goes back to the textal debate, Byzantine vs. Alexandrian, and is off topic. Nevertheless, one can say, "The TR/MT adds verses and words such as blood; ... Byzantine texts add many other words and verses..."

It depends on your belief about the underlying Greek texts. And of course, the RSV, NASB, ESV and NIV do not eliminate "blood"; the substitutionary atonement is clear in all those versions.

Another off topic comment: believers have always been "under the dispensation of grace"; take it to the theology forum

[ July 28, 2002, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

 

It has everything to do with textual debate; Everything that's older is not always better.They (manuscripts other than the TR) contain books that were never accepted by Christians or orthodox Jews in the early church, also, these manuscrips were written in Rome and North Africa.
Any Bible translation written from 1881 to present fall in this catagory. (Psa 11:3)

[ July 28, 2002, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Japheth ]

 

Actually, Japheth, there are several English bible translations which use the same general underlying texts as the KJV. They would include the NKJV, KJII, 21st Century Bible, the 3rd Millenium Bible, Jay Green's Literal Translation, and several others.

Also, the two most prominent of the Alexandrian witnesses, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, were most likely both copied in Alexandria. In fact Armitage Robinson believes that both the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus were originally together in some ancient Egyptian library. His opinion is based on the fact that in the margins of both manuscripts we see the same system of chapters for the book of Acts, taken from the way Euthalius divided them, and found in two other early codices (Amiatinus and Fuldensis) which are Latin Vulgate.

Many now believe Vaticanus is older by about 25 years, dating to 325 AD, and that Sinaiticus, which dates to about 350 AD, was copied from Vaticanus.

What most proponents of the "oldest and best" manuscript theory either fail to know or just ignore is that Vaticanus was traced over in the 15th century by a monk named Clemens leaving very little of the original writing intact. It has been suggested that the vast majority of Vaticanus should be dated to the 15th century due to this over writting, for most of the original has been obscured by the 15th century scribe.

 

I would like to see the proof of the NKJV,KJII,21st century bible, and all of the others that some claim derive from the Textus Receptus. If these are akin to the KJV, Then why are'nt they under constant attack from the ones who claim that the KJV is old, outdated,archaic ect.... The King James is constantly under attack because of what it says about it's self (Heb 4:12)

 

Japheth,AMEN brother!!

 

Heb 4:12 is in every MV and it does not refer to the KJV. These versions are not under attack because the issue with teh KJV is not primarily the text (though an argument is strong that it is translated from an inferior text). The KJV itself is not under attack. You seem to misunderstand what the issue is. The issue is the translation itself. These versions under consideration here are in modern language, as the Word of God should be.

 

I can only suggest you do a little personal study. If you will read the Preface to the NKJV you will note, "In light of these facts . . . the editors decided to retain the traditional text (refering to the Textus Receptus) in the body of the New Testament . . ."

The introduction to Jay Greens Literal Translation says, "The Greek text herein is purportedly that which underlies the King James Version, as reconstructed by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894."

And if you will check the other English bibles I posted you will note similar statements.

 

no, it is under attack by the falsehoods its modern "defenders" level at it.

 

For one thing, no one is attacking the KJV. Also what does the KJV say about itself that other translations don't?

 

Well first of all it says there IS a Hell Matt 16:18 and Luke 16:23. The so called "better" translation removes hell 23 times and in it's stead puts Sheol or Hades, along with a host of other "improvements" such as 2nd Tim 2:15 the word "study" is removed. Also, Phil 2:6 takes away the deity of Jesus Christ. matt 7:14 is changed from "Narrow is the way" to " Difficult is the way' there is nothing difficult about salvation. This does not fall under theological debate, this is textual debate, if the NKJV is a derivitive of the TR then someone "dropped the ball".

 

You make two errors: 1) you fail to understand the original languages and 2) you make the KJV your standard of truth.

 

I dont think Sheol is going to scare a lost person into getting saved, most people have never heard of Sheol. The TR cuts no slack;the truth sometimes can be hard to accept.I have compared the other "translations" to satisfy my own curiosity against the TR and they come up short, even the so called "English Bibles" that derive from the TR and not the Alexandrian, Siniaticus and Vaticanus. They omit whole verses and parts of some, attacking the diety of Christ among other things..

 

Since when is salvation supposed to be motivated solely by fear? I think it has alot more to do with sincere repentance and recognizing that how much hell is justly deserved.

Are you suggesting that the TR does not use the terms Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna which are translated as "hell" in the KJV?

...as KJVOnlyism sufficiently demonstrates.

Really? You have compared the Greek and Hebrew of the TR to MV's?... or did you just compare the KJV to MV's? In case you didn't know, the KJV isn't based solely on the TR.

Now, to say that something has been deleted you must have the standard. The standard in this case is the originals themselves Unless you have them or concrete evidence as to what the originals said, you have no case to prove that anything has been deleted.

In any event, anyone who has rationally looked at this issue will agree that if MV's were attempting to eliminate the key doctrines of Christianity they did an exceptionally poor job.

NKJV-
Titus 2
13looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, (One person without doubt)
KJV-
Titus 2
13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (One person or two?)

NKJV-
2 Peter 1

1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
KJV-
2 Peter 1
1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Which of these two version more clearly declares the deity of Christ to a modern reader?