Hi I was just wondering if someone could help me understand a little bit about the ESV I have one and found out recently that it's cut from the same texts that many of the modern translations are derived.I use the KJV,NKJV,Geneva Bibles primarily and I believe These to be the most reliable,esp. since i found out that there are roughly 40+ verses that have been removed.I am not a KJV only person but I do wonder if I am losing something with the ESV,It reads very cleanly and seems close to what I am used to and it's part of the Reformation Study Bible by R.C Sproul who I learn alot from so what are your opinions about this trans.-As long as I mark down the missing verses in my Bible and are aware of there deletion is the rest of the text accurate enough? What do you think? Look I am sincere and understand that text questions can be negatively devisive I just want the truth and just want solid scripture,Thank you so much! :-)

_________________
brian

I wonder if it would not be possible for a little leaven to leaven the whole lump? If it is clear that whole verses have been removed, what other corrupt subtleties will there be in the text? The danger of these will lie in their obscurity. The "little foxes that spoil the vines"

In Christ Aaron

_________________
Aaron

I read the ESV, and the King James Both. There is somethings removed from the ESV....... this is because these were not in the original texts that they use to write the modern translations.

The texts they used to write the KJV were newer then the texts used to write modern ones, because they found alot of scrolls after the kjv era that were actually older then the ones used to write the KJV....... wow i think the grammar is a little confusing hopefull you catch the drift....

kjv - texts from a newer century but found quite early
esv - texts from an older century found recently.

Just because the texts for the modern versions are older does not make them more accurate. This is because they had only a few to compare with each other... for instance only a few scrolls of james to compare.... Where as with the KJV scrolls they had over 2000 scrolls compare with eachother for accuracy.

I read both versions..... the things left out have a number reference and then contain the missing text at the bottom. One thing I notice is that instead of saying that Christ was revealed (in) me, they change it to say Christ was revealed (to) me..... which is theologically different, and I don't agree with it, they should leave it as in... which is what the original says.

I like the esv because it somehow retains the poetry of the king james, yet cuts out the weird endings like 'answerth'. I still read the kjv as well, both are good translations with weaknesses and strenths, and I find that reading multiple versions is helpful.

cheers
dt

[url=http://www.esv.org/]www.esv.org[/url]

The ESV is my personal "weapon of choice". Some of my friends call it the "Evangelical's Standard Bible" as pretty much all of the members of the translation committee are prostestant whereas with other translations, the committees have been ecumenical.

_________________
Benjamin Valentine

I have the Reformation Study Bible as well and find it very useful. RC Sproul is one of my favourite teachers also and anything that he endorses must, in my opinion, be reliable. I still see the KJV as the 'king' translation, but there's no doubt some of the language is archaic and difficult, but there's also no doubt some of the language in the KJV is unbeatable for its clarity. I think you have a good balance brother.

D

_________________
David

I believe that if someone is not King James Only, then ESV is one of the best choices out there. NIV is good from a readability standpoint, and NASB is good from an accuracy standpoint, but ESV is somewhere in between, and has a lot of KJV elements as well.

I've got a couple of copies of the ESV, I honestly spend more time in the KJV than any other version, and a little in the NIV, and even less in the ESV and NASB... that'd probably be my order of reading.

On that note, I got a copy of 'James Earl Jones reads the Bible'... of course from the KJV. I'm having a lot of fun with Darth Vader on my rides in to work =)

_________________
Ian Smith

Hi guys, I have not yet met a person who backslid in his faith because he read a bible version that
others claim to be less acurate. Were our 1st century brethen led astray because that only had a few patches of scripture availble to them? Besides there are languages where they only have one or two translations anyway. My mother reads her bible daily for over 20 years and she still hasn't got a clue who Jesus it, and I do not think it is because she reads the Good News bible in German instead of a more literal translation.

It does not hurt to read various translations and allow God speak through them to you. There are bible scholars who know the scriptures inside out but haven't got a spark of God's life in them.

2 Corinthians 3:6 (NIV)
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
(KJV)
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
(ESV)
who has made us competent[a] to be(A) ministers of(B) a new covenant, not of(C) the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but(D) the Spirit gives life.


Whatever translation is better
Let's not stumble over the letter.


Philip

delete

_________________
Jordan