ESV-Onlyism?

DW1980 said:

We need translations, and for that we need people who know the language and cultures.

Click to expand...

Yet, nobody knows the language and culture today. The people who lived back in the New Testament times are all dead a long time ago. Biblical Greek is a dead language and people today are merely guessing as to what it is saying. The only way we can know for sure is by looking at the English translation that we have today in trusting in the fact that God preserved His Word for this generation for today. For we know at Pentecost in Acts of the Apostles 2 that God was able to translate people's languages just fine. God did not refer men of God to seek out an ancient language or Hebrew to gain understanding of what He was trying to tell them. God simply communicated to them. For God is simple. He is not the author of confusion. Yet, that is what happens when folks say they know Hebrew and Greek. They really don't know. They cannot read a page of Greek with the apostle Paul standing by them with him giving them the thumb's up. Too many times, I have ran into people saying the Greek means this or that, etc. (while they deny what the English is saying). They don't really know! They did not experience this language as a part of their life when the language was alive. They are only guessing. Guessing. Making assumptions. I do not need to do that with the English. I know English because I grew up with English. God will hold me accountable to His Word in a language I do understand. For I did not repent hearing the Greek.

DW1980 said:

I didn't have much time last night but I googled the first on on your list, and it appears Tertullian was talking about John 10:30, not 1 John 5:7. Yes, he uses the words "these three are one" but it's not a quote. Those words are part of a standard definition of the Trinity. The full quote is:

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."​

So this "these three are one" isn't a direct quote of anything, unlike when he says, "as it is said, 'I and my Father are One".

See also
http://www.equip.org/article/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/
The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?

Click to expand...

Uh, it's pretty obvious by what he wrote that he is talking about the Trinity (For he says, "produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one ). Logic dictates that if he was talking about the persons of the Trinity (i.e. the context), and he says they are one, then he is saying they are one God. This parallels the truth of what 1 John 5:7 says. Also, nowhere does he say they are "one thing." Nowhere does he suggest that the Godhead or the Trinity is a thing. One has to insert such a thing into what he said to make that true. But even if he isn't talking about the Trinity (Which you really have not proven by what he said), you missed the point I was trying to make.

It really is about Observational Science and not Historical Science (See the video I provided if you have not seen it so far).

You said:

Please note, I am not arguing against the use of the KJV,

Click to expand...

Two vines.
Of course you are against the KJV.
Let's not kid each other here.
You are either in defense of the KJV (like me) or you are not.
By your conversation with me so far, it appears that you are not in defense of the KJV as the pure Word of God for our day (like me).
I believe the KJV to be perfect and divine in origin.
It is the Word of God.
For there can only be one Word of God.
One faith.
We get our faith from the Word of God.
Our faith is not based upon a corrupted set of manuscripts.
God does not make mistakes.
Anyways, you believe contrary to this; Hence, why you are trying to discredit sources in the Historical Science category involving the KJV.

You said:

my Gran used it all her life as her English translation (she primarily used a Gaelic Bible as that was her first language) and she was a faithful, godly woman, one of my enduring memories of her is a deep conversation when she told me how important it was "to be walking with the Lord", and encouraged me to read some of the Bible every day, and do what it says.

Click to expand...

In 1992, I was blessed to have seen the immediate corruption or attack upon God's Word right when I was got saved. I was saved by a Chick Tract called, "This was your life" and I had read a little of the book called "New Age Bible Versions" and it was unsettling to me to see an attack upon God's Word. Please take note that I am not a heavy proponent of Chick Publications. There are many things they say and do I do not agree with.

For me, it is a matter of faith. If you cannot trust one word of God within your Bible than what makes you trust the rest of it? If there is no pure Word of God, then our faith means nothing.
I remember, when I ran into an article that showed a supposed major contradiction in God's Word. At that moment, I felt a sick feeling inside of me. I felt, is this man telling the truth? Is the Word of God in error? If so, then my faith would be shattered. At that moment, I quickly talked with God (by prayer) that I did not understand the contradiction I had seen, but I would leave it up to God for Him to explain it to me when the time was right. Many years later that supposed contradiction in the KJV was explained and it gave me deeper understanding of God's Word. What God required of me was faith and later, His understanding came.

You said:

I believe that whether I use the NIV (which I do) or the KJV, or ESV, NLT - I will come to an understanding of what God has done to save me, and come to "proper" Christian doctrine. Which is why seeing all this stuff online that verges on ESV Only disturbed me. For me it's important to have a Bible that is readable, lots in the KJV isn't, and could lead to serious misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

The ESV Only type belief (if it truly exists out there for some) should be disturbing to you but not for the reasons you mentioned. Such a belief would be disturbing to me because they are placing their trust in a Bible that seeks to attack key doctrines of the faith, like the Trinity, Jesus, holiness, etc. and it places the devil's name within it where it should not be.

You said:

Exodus 32:14 - God planned evil?
And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (KJV)
Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened. (NIV)​

So even reading the KJV, you need to have an understanding of the English of the time!

Job 15:26-27 - what does this mean?
He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his bucklers: Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks.​

2 Cor 6:11-13 - again, what does this mean?
O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.​

I do understand these, but only because I was able to look them up in my Bible. So if I have to turn to the NIV to see what that means, am I not better using the one I understand in the first place? By the way, in case you think I am picking on the KJV, the ESV has some of the same problems with bad English and poor translation in places.

Click to expand...

I am not one of those KJV-Only proponents who think it is evil for you to use a Modern Translation. In fact, I think it is a good thing and necessary thing to use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English in the KJV so as to better understand the KJV. But the KJV should be our final word of authority because it is superior by way of comparison to Modern Translations. In Modern Translations: Key doctrines and truths are watered down and the devil's name is placed within them. That alone should give anyone who holds the words of God dear to their heart reason to be concerned. Yet, I have ran into many who seek to write off these things as if they are no big deal or they mean something else. However, God's truth is precise. It is the subtle change in the changing of that truth that comes not from God but of the evil one. Granted, I am not saying a person cannot be saved by reading an NIV, etc. I am also not saying that a person cannot grow in their faith reading an NIV. But if they have the pure Word of God like the KJV, their faith will be more sure and on solid ground (full of assurance with no doubting). They will not be in doubt about what something means trying to scratch their head about a word in a language they don't really know. Confusion. God is not of author confusion.

You said:

Luke 7:47
Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. (ESV)​

She was forgiven because she loved much? Isn't that questionable theology? The NIV is far better, "Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown."

Click to expand...

The KJV is better in this rendering on Luke 7:47 by light years here.

"Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little." (Luke 7:47) (KJV).

You said:

Matthew 23:32
Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.​

This is nonsense in English. It's an idiom which the NIV gets right, "complete what your ancestors started!"

Click to expand...

The NIV is not much better. It is actually pretty bad in a lot of ways.
Just type in KJV vs. NIV into Google and compare the verses.
There is lots of corruption going on in the NIV.
In fact, it is considered one of the worst translations even by those claiming "We have no perfect Word of God for our language today."

You said:

Amos 4:6
I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities.
​

This is another idiom, this time for having nothing to eat, not a dental blessing from on high! And the ESV totally misses it. It might be a literal translation, but the reader is left scratching their head! The NIV is far clearer, "I gave you empty stomachs in every city." So there are things in the ESV too, which would stop me in my tracks and have me thinking, "huh?".

Which brings me back to my OP, exclusive use of one translation is a bad thing. The NIV doesn't get it right all the time either, which is why for study I do compare other translations.

Click to expand...

While certain translations do not get it right, you cannot just pick and choose and stitch together a perfect Bible from looking at various translations alone and by guessing as to what the original languages say. That is no way to truly be held accountable to what each and every word of God says in our Bibles. There can only be one Word of God whereby we can be held accountable that we should be able to understand. Yes, I believe Modern Translations can be helpful, but they should not be our final word of authority. Only one Bible should be our final word of authority and it should not be a Babel type language (Wherein we stand). We stand upon the Word of God in a language that we know because God preserved His Word for this generation today like He promised within His Word. For God's Word says that it will be preserved for all generations. English is the world language today. Just as Greek was the world language at one time.

tampasteve said:

I am sorry, but that is just not correct at all. While Biblical Greek (Koine) died out, it developed into modern Greek, of which many words are shared and most of the Koine NT would be intelligible to anyone familiar with classical Greek, and somewhat intelligible to a modern Greek speaker/reader. This is a language and culture that is well documented and we have other source material to work from in order to study it, it's development, pronunciation, and meanings.

The Greek is understandable and we know exactly what it said and meant and the cultural context because there are still Greek speakers and people around. We are not talking about say, ancient Chaldean or something.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The problem arises is that we placed blind trust in a Strong's Concordance (or some other concordance - which is not inspired). Even then it is a kaleidoscope of definitions that one gets to choose from to fit their own interpretation. It is not as precise as our own language (whereby a person is without excuse as to what God's Word says). God is not the author of confusion. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God talks to us today with the world language of today (i.e. English).

Maybe if you grew up speaking and writing in the Greek culture, you may have a better chance to understand Biblical Greek, but it is still not a guarantee. A lot of time has past since Biblical Greek was written and spoken. This is not the case with 1600's English whereby we have Modern Translations to help update such English. You know English and nobody can say to you that the word "cat" means "dog." For you grew up knowing what a "cat" is (more than likely).

Bible schools today have tricked people into thinking they cannot understand God's Word without a Concordance or without studying the original languages. This was not always so. However, the knowledge of God's Word does not come from gaining a degree. It comes from the power of the Holy Spirit.

The ESV is just based off the RSV but had some bits that offend conservative evangelicals, changed. So it's an OK translation, more or less.

The NIV is actually a dynamic equivalence translation, really more of a sophisticated paraphrase. I wouldn't use it for serious study.

God's word is alive!

Instead of me doing to talking, looking for my doctrine or some other thing, I want to quiet my mind, and do the listening! His Word doing the talking, not me, and me doing the listening.

DW1980 said:

View attachment 220046

I don't have too much time right now but I'd say this.

I don't think I have to be "for or against" the KJV. It's not an either or, as I don't start with the belief that only the KJV is God's word in English. I read the preface to the KJV this afternoon and I think the KJV translators would agree with me on this - they explicitly said that ALL translations - even the meanest - is the Word of God (see attached). They did not claim only the KJV was the word of God. So they certainly were not KJV only. (Obviously I think that if they were here today they'd modify that to account for things like the New World Translation.)

I don't see how you can get to your position without believing that the KJV translators were themselves writing under inspiration (which reading the preface, I don't think they thought that!). If you say that, are you not claiming that in 1611 God gave us "new" Scripture, since the KJV didn't exist before that? And how different is that to JW claims for their "bible", or the Mormons for the JST?

My position is simple, the KJV, like the NIV, ESV, NRSV, NLT - or whatever, is just a translation. No English Bible is directly inspired. They must all be evaluated against the original languages.

I hope this helps explain my position. Whichever translation you use, I pray that God will bless you through it.

Click to expand...

I heard this argument many times before. God can use men despite what their opinion may be of their own abilities. Moses did not think he was up to the task to do God's work, but God desired him to do his work, anyway. I also believe the KJV 1769 version is the perfect Word of God when the printing process was perfected and their was a standardization of spelling.

tampasteve said:

I never mentioned Strong's, though it can be a good resource when used properly by reviewing the text and opinions of manuscripts available. But I do not think anyone would argue about it being inspired, at least I would hope not.

God talks to us in the language we speak. He is greater than one language. But I think you meant to say "God talks to us today with the world language of 1611. (i.e. Early Modern English)."

You do know that one can learn to read and speak Koine Greek, right? It is like learning any other language....we have literally thousands of documents outlining the culture and beliefs at the time to help us understand even that aspect. I myself am also learning it.

Look, you can argue about wanting to know the best language or what have you in order to understand the meanings properly, that is a real and correct argument. If you want to go down that road you are going to need to argue that one needs to learn Koine Greek and Classical Hebrew.

This will be my last post on the subject though, there really is no reason for us to continue to converse on this, it is clear we will not agree. That is OK, I have no need to convert you from KJV-O as I see it as a good translation regardless.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Biblical Greek is too old to be understood with 100% certainty today since the time when it was used. We are merely guessing today. Yes, there is Modern Greek, but it is not exactly like Biblical Greek. The two are different. Too much time has passed between the two for people today to truly know the nuances of the language which would include grammar usage, figures of speech, homonyms, synonyms, etc.

The real issue here is folks are looking at Historical Science when they should be looking at Observational Science. People need to do a side by side comparison between the KJV (Textus Receptus) vs. the Modern Translations (Criticial Text). If they were to do so, they would see that the KJV is superior in many ways.

I mean, it is absolutely silly that folks don't think there is an attack on the Bible and that the devil would not make a subtle attempt to attack God's Word so as to change the faith ever so slightly so as to water down their trust in God's Word. Remember, the devil was subtle at changing the Word of God with both Eve and Jesus. Why folks think his tactics have changed is beyond me. I mean, here you got the devil's name in Modern Translations and an elimination and watering down of doctrine, and truth (like the Trinity, Jesus, holiness, etc.) and we just write such a thing off as being some natural thing? There is war going on. A war behind the scenes that involves the souls of men, my dear friend.

Jason0047 said:

I disagree. Biblical Greek is too old to be understood with 100% certainty today since the time when it was used. We are merely guessing today. Yes, there is Modern Greek, but it is not exactly like Biblical Greek. The two are different. Too much time has passed between the two for people today to truly know the nuances of the language which would include grammar usage, figures of speech, homonyms, synonyms, etc.

Click to expand...

Yes there are differences, but we also use commentaries throughout the last 2000 years explain how they were seeing them in their lifetimes. And Biblical Greek is hardly "dead", Koine is what we use in our services so I have to read, speak and chant in it at least three hours a week.

DW1980 said:

I'm not 100% sure that this is the best forum for this question, so my apologies if it's wrong.

A bit of background: I grew up on the NIV (1984). When I came back to faith I read through the Bible in the TNIV, but switched to the NLT. Last year I felt I should move back to the NIV (I am now using the NIV 2011). But as I did I researched other Bible translations and one of those was the ESV, which I use as a reference Bible. And what some of it's supporters say, strikes me as (with all due respect) a bit KJV Only!

Am I on my own in feeling that there is something of an emergent "ESV Only" movement?

I have seen some people make claims about the NIV in particular, but also other translations, that sound like they are going beyond "the ESV is my preferred translation", to "these other translations are bad because"... Rather than accepting that both are good translations, by excellent scholars, who just happen to approach translation differently (in fact I believe that some translators were on both the NIV and ESV teams!), some "ESV folk" seem to view almost every other translation with suspicion. There are stories of people going into bookshops to buy a different translation and being told the ESV is the most accurate translation (I assume this is not common!), of Churches trying to persuade people to ditch their old Bibles and use the ESV... I could go on.

Is it just me?

Click to expand...

No, it's not you. Rather it's a combination of 1) the fact that translating is as much of an art as is it a science, 2) some people are unnecessarily anal when it comes to so-called accuracy in translation, and 3) publishers (or organizations) want to sell their bible version as 'the best' on the market.

Just pick one. Or, get a parallel bible of some sort; maybe a parallel ESV/NIV or something similar.