English Standard Version

which came of course fr the Anglican KJB which came fr the RCC's Douay Rheims.

 

That is the most asinine statement I've seen in quite sometime! The RSV and the ESV coming from the KJB is just plain false! And the KJB coming from the D-R is just outright lying! Can you substantiate your claims with some evedence? Or are you just "Aping" what someone told you?

 

Care to explain why? </font>[/QUOTE]Amos 3:3 " Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"

Can Baptist scholars and Catholic scholars walk together, except they be agreed?

Can Calvinist scholars and Catholic scholars walk together, except they be agreed?

Can Baptist scholars and Charismatic scholars walk together, except they be agreed?

Can Calvinist scholars and Charismatic scholars walk together, except they be agreed?

Can Lutheran scholars and Catholics scholars walk together, except they be agreed?

And more!

These scholars are ESV scholars, but can these scholars agree with each other on what to believe?

 

There are two issues: First, translation. Second, interpretation. Don't confuse the two. Two people can agree on how to translate some text, but disagree on what that text really means.

 

why so? ur sources to the contrary?

ok, i missed a generation in between, but here u have it:

http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutrsv.html

"The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611."

[/quote] And the KJB coming from the D-R is just outright lying! Can you substantiate your claims with some evedence? Or are you just "Aping" what someone told you? [/QUOTE]

don't get so upset just becos there was another Romanist hand in the works besides Erasmus'; or maybe i was just aping these:

http://www.newman-asu.org/lit_corner/lit_bibleinenglish.html

"The Roman Catholic "Douay-Rheims Version," then, was not a reaction to the King James Version, as some think. Instead, the King James translators "diligently compared" the Rheims New Testament with other older versions when producing their "Authorized Version," and its latinized diction influenced some of their renderings."

http://www.christianisrael.com/douay/about.htm

"Thus the New Testament appeared nearly thirty years before the Anglican "Authorized Version", and although not officially mentioned as one of the versions to be consulted, it is now commonly recognized to have had a large influence on the King James Version (see Preface to Revised Version, i, 2; also, Carleton, "Rheims and the English Bible")."

 

There are two issues: First, translation. Second, interpretation. Don't confuse the two. Two people can agree on how to translate some text, but disagree on what that text really means. </font>[/QUOTE]Can God and Satan walk together, except they be agreed? What did God tell Adam concerning the forbidden tree? What did the Satan tell Eve concerning the forbidden tree?

 

An outright LIE .

What do you mean maybe? Yes you were!

They had acess to the D-R alright, and they rejected the same.

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars , shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

How would they agree if they disagree each other? Turn right or left? Their dilemma between their belief on what to translate or what to interpret is nonsense.

 

Spurious!!!!

 

um, how wld U know?

can u read the hearts n minds of the translators? u seem to know better than them!

actually i'd read it elsewhere before. i found this particular URL only after a search tonite.

n ur source, praytell?

sounds like we touched off a raw nerve here ...

 

hmm, after hearing fr the horse's mouth, was that all the evidence u cld find?

 

Um, right. How convincing.

 

Yes, by checking out the ESV website one will learn that it was nothing but a wicked ecumenical project. And the quality is not good as compared to the Textus Receptus and to faithful versions. It appears that a bunch of neo-evangelical scribes (scholars) got together. The site parades their fine (carnally speaking) Doctor titles and scholarly merits and the like, but if the translation of itself does not commend itself to the concsiences of the men knowledgeable in the Scriptures all these niceties are worthless show-offs.

Harald

 

hmm, after hearing fr the horse's mouth, was that all the evidence u cld find? </font>[/QUOTE]"The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611."

If so, where are missing verses? Do you know where RSV and ASV derive?

 

what have missing verses got to do with their "not" being revisions?

if they were identical, they could NOT have been revisions ... just a thot!

 

I seriously doubt that there will ever be a better overall translation from the Hebrew and Greek texts into English than the ESV.

 

I agree. The KJV-only folks are missing out.

 

I hope this is sarcasm. If not, it's one of the dumbest things I've read on this board in a long time. And that's saying something.

 

Wow, this was a good thread until it got hijacked.

I'm interested myself in getting an ESV for personal study/comparison. Am I understanding that the consensus here (KJVO input notwithstanding) is that the ESV is superior to the NAS?

 

My view is that for readability and clarity the ESV far exceeds the NASB. For accuracy, I think they are about the same. This SITE has a good review and analysis.

Andy