-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
English Standard Version
- Thread starter Erik3
- Start date
- Status
I have been reading the ESV for the past eight months in my devotions, not so much looking at doctrinal issues but more from a readability and translation standpoint. That is, even if a translation is doctrinally correct, it can be marred by less than readable English. Of course, English style might be in the eyes/ears of the beholder...
Overall from my translating and comparing with Hebrew and Greek, the ESV would be a fine translation, approaching the status of NKJV and NAS. For liturgical purposes it fits in nicely with the liturgical heritage of the Christian Church. This also means that it would be a good translation to memorize (because of its familiar rhythm).
However, it seems that the ESV is one revision away from being in the same category as NAS/NKJV. Especially in the OT have I noticed that the ESV is at times choppy, and occasionally presents unnatural English. Here are a few examples:
The NAS correctly uses the adverb.
It seems that the ESV is missing the word "he" before "himself" (read it aloud to catch the incongruence).
The ESV is inconsistent in placing the negative. In this case, it is awkward, yet in other places the negative is placed with the helping verb ("do") as in the NAS.
One has to ask what does "full cry" mean to the average speaker/reader of English in this sentence.
I would say that both present unnatural English; NKJV does better.
The ESV misses on two counts: The use of "her" is awkward and very unnatural. Also, the other elements in parallel all have the definite article in English, which would suggest that the NKJV has rendered the parallelism best.
----------
In conclusion I would not hesitate to use this as a preaching Bible or teaching and using in Bible studies.
Upvote
0
I have used the NIV since the late 80's, at the time NAS was just too difficult for me to understand, and I have never been good with the KJV. I did alot of reading of ESV on line and I have picked up one up. I can't discuss the linguistics/what its mssing, what is good like many of you do, however I do really like its readability, and it just seems to have a little more oomph to me than the NIV. Its an easy read, but not a dummied down read like some of the other versions.
The downside is this.....I got the Classic with bonded leather, never having had a problem with bonded leather before, and i gotta tell you, this is the cheesiest cover I have ever seen. I have seen pleather that is nicer than this. It has no sheen or flexibility and I can't imagine that it is going to last....if you look it up on Amazon, you will see others have had similar problems (although I am not sure whther their problems were with bonded leather or with leather).
Other downside....no study bible option available at this time.
Having just gotten this and not written in it, I think I will be exchanging it for a hardback one. Yuck.
The downside is this.....I got the Classic with bonded leather, never having had a problem with bonded leather before, and i gotta tell you, this is the cheesiest cover I have ever seen. I have seen pleather that is nicer than this. It has no sheen or flexibility and I can't imagine that it is going to last....if you look it up on Amazon, you will see others have had similar problems (although I am not sure whther their problems were with bonded leather or with leather).
Other downside....no study bible option available at this time.
Having just gotten this and not written in it, I think I will be exchanging it for a hardback one. Yuck.
Upvote
0
kitkat60 said:
I like that - it is exactly the sense I have when reading the NIV.
I bought the genuine leather edition, which is great, except the font size is a little too small for my aging eyes.
Hang on, that will change soon.
Wish you well on this.
Upvote
0
Note that I had to copy the text rather than the link, as I don't have enogh posts
Good English With Minimal Interpretation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV
Why I would like to see the English Standard Version become the most common Bible of the English-speaking church, for preaching, teaching, memorizing, and study.
I praise God that we have the Bible in English. What a gift! What a treasure! We cannot begin to estimate what this is worth to Christians and churches, and even to the unbelievers and the cultures of the English-speaking world. Ten thousand benefits flow from the influence of this book that we are not even aware of. And the preaching of this Word in tens of thousands of pulpits across America is more important than every media outlet in the nation.
I would rather have people read any translation of the Bible -- no matter how weak -- than to read no translation of the Bible. If there could be only one translation in English, I would rather it be my least favorite than that there be none. God uses every version to bless people and save people.
But the issue before the church in the English-speaking world today is not "no translation vs. a weak translation." It is between many precious English Bibles. A Bible does not cease to be precious and powerful because its translators overuse paraphrase and put way too much of their own interpretation into the Bible. That's the way God's Word is! It breaks free from poor translations and poor preaching -- for which I am very thankful. But even though the weakest translation is precious, and is used by God to save and strengthen sinful people, better translations would be a great blessing to the church and an honor to Christ.
The King James Version
When I turned 15 -- on January 11, 1961 -- my parents gave me a beautiful, leather-bound King James Bible. I loved it. I loved the smell of it and the feel of it, and the dedication inside ("This book will keep you from sin or sin will keep you from this book," Mother and Daddy), and most of all the message of it for my embattled teenage years. God met me in this book day after day when I was a teenager.
The Revised Standard Version
Three and a half years later as a freshman at Wheaton I remember the very place in the bookstore where I picked up the first Bible I ever bought for myself, a Revised Standard Version. It was close enough to the King James so that I felt at home, but its English was not Elizabethan; it was my English. So I was doubly at home. This became my reading, meditating, memorizing Bible for the next 37 years.
The New American Standard Bible
But I hit a problem in 1980. I became the preaching pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church. What version to use? The RSV was out of print -- they weren't making pew Bibles any more. I needed a literal version with all the words and phrases as close to the original as possible. I could not preach from another kind of Bible, because I made my points from the very wording of the Bible, and when the wording vanished into paraphrase I could not make my points with clarity and authority. The most literal modern translation was the NASB, and that is what I chose. So I have preached form the NASB for over 20 years. But I groaned that it was never going to be the common reading, memorizing Bible of the people. It is too awkward and unnatural in the way it flows.
The New International Version
Key question: the NIV appeared in 1978. I read it. Why didn't I use it? The reason I didn't use it is the reason I am here tonight. The NIV is the best-selling modern translation of the Bible. There are about 150 million copies in print. The NIV makes up about 30% of all Bible sales. Among evangelicals the percentage would be far above 30% and is probably the Bible most evangelicals read most often. And the one most pastors use in preaching. Why am I not on board?
Not only am I not on board. I would be happy to see the NIV sail into the sunset if it could be replaced by the ESV as the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the English-speaking church. I feel so strongly about this that I volunteered to do this tonight before I was asked. There is no coercion here. I feel what I am about to say with a passion built up over 25 years. I have longed that there be something more readable than the NASB and more literal than the NIV. The NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and so much interpretation that I could not preach from it.
Now let me say again that the NIV is the precious Word of God. Oh, how careful we must be not to belittle the Word of God. And yet we must not put any human translation above criticism. God has used the NIV to bring millions of people to faith in Christ. But at the same time I believe there have been negative effects that could be avoided. My biggest concern has to do with preaching. When a paraphrase becomes the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the church, preaching is weakened -- robust expository exultation in the pulpit is made more difficult. Preaching that gives clear explanations and arguments from the wording of specific Biblical texts tends to be undermined when a Bible paraphrases instead of preserving the original wording on good English. And when that kind of preaching is undermined, the whole level of Christian thinking in the church goes down, and a Bible-saturated worldview is weakened, and the ability of the people -- and even the pastors themselves-to root their thoughts and affections in firm Biblical ground diminishes.
The English Standard Version
My aim tonight is to help you be persuaded that exposing millions of people (pastors, teachers, students, laypeople) to the ESV would undo the dominance of the NIV and put in its place a more literal, and yet a beautifully readable, memorizable Bible -- the ESV, And this would be a good thing.
In the following examples of NIV paraphrasing compared to the more literal ESV there are four convictions at stake.
Appendix 1: Examples of NIV Paraphrasing Compared to the More Literal ESV (Compiled April 11, 2003)
Romans 1:5
Appendix 2: Two Examples of the Effect on Preaching
John 11:1-6
Definitely a bible worth considering IMO (just get the hardback or the genuine leather!!!)
Suzie
Good English With Minimal Interpretation: Why Bethlehem Uses the ESV
Why I would like to see the English Standard Version become the most common Bible of the English-speaking church, for preaching, teaching, memorizing, and study.
The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;
the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
Who can discern his errors?
Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!
Then I shall be blameless,
and innocent of great transgression.
Let the words of my mouth
and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight, O LORD,
my rock and my redeemer.
--Psalm 19:7-14
I love the Bible the way I love my eyes -- not because my eyes are lovely, but because without them I can't see what's lovely. Without the Bible I could not see "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Cor. 4:4). Without the Bible I could not know "the unsearchable riches of Christ" (Eph. 3:8). Without the Bible I would not know that I am a great sinner and that Christ is a great Savior. I love the Bible because it gives the wisdom that leads to salvation, and shows me that this salvation is nothing less than seeing and savoring the glory of Christ forever. And then provides for me inexhaustible ways of seeing and knowing and enjoying Christ.reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;
the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
Who can discern his errors?
Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!
Then I shall be blameless,
and innocent of great transgression.
Let the words of my mouth
and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight, O LORD,
my rock and my redeemer.
--Psalm 19:7-14
I praise God that we have the Bible in English. What a gift! What a treasure! We cannot begin to estimate what this is worth to Christians and churches, and even to the unbelievers and the cultures of the English-speaking world. Ten thousand benefits flow from the influence of this book that we are not even aware of. And the preaching of this Word in tens of thousands of pulpits across America is more important than every media outlet in the nation.
I would rather have people read any translation of the Bible -- no matter how weak -- than to read no translation of the Bible. If there could be only one translation in English, I would rather it be my least favorite than that there be none. God uses every version to bless people and save people.
But the issue before the church in the English-speaking world today is not "no translation vs. a weak translation." It is between many precious English Bibles. A Bible does not cease to be precious and powerful because its translators overuse paraphrase and put way too much of their own interpretation into the Bible. That's the way God's Word is! It breaks free from poor translations and poor preaching -- for which I am very thankful. But even though the weakest translation is precious, and is used by God to save and strengthen sinful people, better translations would be a great blessing to the church and an honor to Christ.
The King James Version
When I turned 15 -- on January 11, 1961 -- my parents gave me a beautiful, leather-bound King James Bible. I loved it. I loved the smell of it and the feel of it, and the dedication inside ("This book will keep you from sin or sin will keep you from this book," Mother and Daddy), and most of all the message of it for my embattled teenage years. God met me in this book day after day when I was a teenager.
The Revised Standard Version
Three and a half years later as a freshman at Wheaton I remember the very place in the bookstore where I picked up the first Bible I ever bought for myself, a Revised Standard Version. It was close enough to the King James so that I felt at home, but its English was not Elizabethan; it was my English. So I was doubly at home. This became my reading, meditating, memorizing Bible for the next 37 years.
The New American Standard Bible
But I hit a problem in 1980. I became the preaching pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church. What version to use? The RSV was out of print -- they weren't making pew Bibles any more. I needed a literal version with all the words and phrases as close to the original as possible. I could not preach from another kind of Bible, because I made my points from the very wording of the Bible, and when the wording vanished into paraphrase I could not make my points with clarity and authority. The most literal modern translation was the NASB, and that is what I chose. So I have preached form the NASB for over 20 years. But I groaned that it was never going to be the common reading, memorizing Bible of the people. It is too awkward and unnatural in the way it flows.
The New International Version
Key question: the NIV appeared in 1978. I read it. Why didn't I use it? The reason I didn't use it is the reason I am here tonight. The NIV is the best-selling modern translation of the Bible. There are about 150 million copies in print. The NIV makes up about 30% of all Bible sales. Among evangelicals the percentage would be far above 30% and is probably the Bible most evangelicals read most often. And the one most pastors use in preaching. Why am I not on board?
Not only am I not on board. I would be happy to see the NIV sail into the sunset if it could be replaced by the ESV as the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the English-speaking church. I feel so strongly about this that I volunteered to do this tonight before I was asked. There is no coercion here. I feel what I am about to say with a passion built up over 25 years. I have longed that there be something more readable than the NASB and more literal than the NIV. The NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and so much interpretation that I could not preach from it.
Now let me say again that the NIV is the precious Word of God. Oh, how careful we must be not to belittle the Word of God. And yet we must not put any human translation above criticism. God has used the NIV to bring millions of people to faith in Christ. But at the same time I believe there have been negative effects that could be avoided. My biggest concern has to do with preaching. When a paraphrase becomes the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the church, preaching is weakened -- robust expository exultation in the pulpit is made more difficult. Preaching that gives clear explanations and arguments from the wording of specific Biblical texts tends to be undermined when a Bible paraphrases instead of preserving the original wording on good English. And when that kind of preaching is undermined, the whole level of Christian thinking in the church goes down, and a Bible-saturated worldview is weakened, and the ability of the people -- and even the pastors themselves-to root their thoughts and affections in firm Biblical ground diminishes.
The English Standard Version
My aim tonight is to help you be persuaded that exposing millions of people (pastors, teachers, students, laypeople) to the ESV would undo the dominance of the NIV and put in its place a more literal, and yet a beautifully readable, memorizable Bible -- the ESV, And this would be a good thing.
In the following examples of NIV paraphrasing compared to the more literal ESV there are four convictions at stake.
1. A more literal translation respects the original author's way of writing. It is a way of honoring the inspired writers.
2. Translators are fallible and they may mislead the English reader if they use unnecessary paraphrases to bring out one possible meaning and conceal others.
3. A more literal translation gives preachers more confidence that they can preach what the English text says with authority that it reflects what the original Greek or Hebrew text says.
4. A more literal translation which preserves ambiguities that are really there in the original keeps open the possibility of new insight by future Bible readers.
I do not claim that the ESV is without its own level of "paraphrasing." Some will always be necessary. And there will always be disagreements about how much is necessary. I am simply arguing that the ESV is the best balance available of readability and literalness. I hope that it becomes the standard for the church.2. Translators are fallible and they may mislead the English reader if they use unnecessary paraphrases to bring out one possible meaning and conceal others.
3. A more literal translation gives preachers more confidence that they can preach what the English text says with authority that it reflects what the original Greek or Hebrew text says.
4. A more literal translation which preserves ambiguities that are really there in the original keeps open the possibility of new insight by future Bible readers.
Appendix 1: Examples of NIV Paraphrasing Compared to the More Literal ESV (Compiled April 11, 2003)
Romans 1:5
ESV Through [Christ] we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith (hupakoen pisteos) for the sake of his name among all the nations.
NIV Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.
Romans 3:20NIV Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.
ESV By works of the law (ex ergon nomou) no human being will be justified in his sight.
NIV No one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.
Romans 11:11NIV No one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law.
ESV Did they stumble in order that they might fall (hina pesosin)? By no means!
NIV Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!
Romans 13:8NIV Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!
ESV Owe no one anything (Medeni meden opheilete), except to love each other.
NIV Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another.
Hebrews 6:1NIV Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another.
ESV . . . not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works (nekron ergon)
NIV . . . not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death.
James 2:12NIV . . . not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death.
ESV So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty (nomou eleutherias).
NIV Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.
1 Peter 1:20NIV Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.
ESV He was foreknown (proegnosmenou) before the foundation of the world.
NIV He was chosen before the creation of the world.
NIV He was chosen before the creation of the world.
Appendix 2: Two Examples of the Effect on Preaching
John 11:1-6
ESV Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, "Lord, he whom you love is ill." 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, "This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." 5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So, (oun) when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.
NIV Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. 3 So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick." 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." 5 Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.
NOTE: It is impossible to make the point from the NIV that Jesus' delay is an expression of love for Mary and Martha and Lazarus, and thus draw out the point that love sometimes does hard things because seeing the glory of God is a more precious gift than being sick or even dead.
Romans 8:35-36NIV Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. 3 So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick." 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." 5 Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.
NOTE: It is impossible to make the point from the NIV that Jesus' delay is an expression of love for Mary and Martha and Lazarus, and thus draw out the point that love sometimes does hard things because seeing the glory of God is a more precious gift than being sick or even dead.
ESV Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? (36) )As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed (thanatoumetha) all the day long."
NIV Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long."
NOTE: From the NIV translation one could argue from a health, wealth, and prosperity "gospel" that "famine and nakedness" will not happen to God's children (as they seem to in verse 35) because the Old Testament support that Paul quotes in verse 36 only says "we face death," but not that we really "are being killed." So the paraphrase "face death" removes an utterly crucial argument that Paul gave and that the preacher needs to make the true point that true Christians really do get killed and really do face famine and nakedness.
Link is from the desiringgod.org website.NIV Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long."
NOTE: From the NIV translation one could argue from a health, wealth, and prosperity "gospel" that "famine and nakedness" will not happen to God's children (as they seem to in verse 35) because the Old Testament support that Paul quotes in verse 36 only says "we face death," but not that we really "are being killed." So the paraphrase "face death" removes an utterly crucial argument that Paul gave and that the preacher needs to make the true point that true Christians really do get killed and really do face famine and nakedness.
Definitely a bible worth considering IMO (just get the hardback or the genuine leather!!!)
Suzie
Upvote
0
my church just switched to ESV in september. i like NIV a LOT better-much easier to understand.
Upvote
0
The ESV misleads the reader in this text by confusing what the disciples have authority over, and what they do.
John 20:23
ESV: If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.
NKJV: If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
In the Greek the word KRATHTE (you [plural] retain) has the sense of "hold fast, or retain" (BAGD, 448). The ESV misuses the word "withhold" in this context. Notice that the ESV is claiming that disciples are controlling the forgiveness - "they are lording it over someone by withholding forgiveness." However, in the Greek, it is clear that what the disciples retain or hold against (KEKRATHNTAI - Perf. passive, 3rd person plural) the person are the sins (plural - because the verb is in the plural), not the forgiveness (singular).
Upvote
0
Knight
Knight of the Cross
- Apr 11, 2002
- 3,395
- 117
- 52
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I've come to greatly appreciate the ESV. It's faithful to the original text, yet maintains a good level of readability and close attention to English.
I highly recommend this translation.
I highly recommend this translation.
Upvote
0
Knight
Knight of the Cross
- Apr 11, 2002
- 3,395
- 117
- 52
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
filosofer said:
I've never felt that the NIV is dumbed down. It's dynamic in its translation to be sure. However it does not hesitate to use "theological" terms like justification, and sanctification.
To each their own preference.....
I have the hardcover. I'd like to get the genuine leather at some point. Preferably the Deluxe Reference edition. (Larger type and margins.)
What have you heard? (Just curious)
Upvote
0
Actually I wasnt referring to the NIV as being dumbed down - the ones I specifically didn't care for were the NLT and the CEV. NLT is ok in the OT, but in the NT it just didn't quite do it for me. And CEV, just didn't like. I come from an RSV background, so I am most comfortable with the familiar, I guess. I currently use NIV, and have actually been fine with it...I just like the ESV better.
I am going to pick up the hardcover for now when I do my exchange. Save my pennies for the leather when they come out with the most fabulous study bible ever (whenever that is going to be).
I am going to pick up the hardcover for now when I do my exchange. Save my pennies for the leather when they come out with the most fabulous study bible ever (whenever that is going to be).
Upvote
0
Do you realize that Alexandria Egypt was the hotbed and base of operations for heresy of all types (Gnostic, Arian, etc.) in the first 4 centuries of the church?
Do you also realize that Antioch was the base of operations of evangelism to the Gentile world, and was the place where the disciples were first called Christians?
Now, do you realize that there are two basic "Original Greek" texts of the New Testament? These two texts are:
Now the question is simply this: Will you trust the "Original Text" that comes from the center of heresy or the Original Text that comes from the center of pure evangelism? The choice is yours. Choose wisely!
Do you also realize that Antioch was the base of operations of evangelism to the Gentile world, and was the place where the disciples were first called Christians?
Now, do you realize that there are two basic "Original Greek" texts of the New Testament? These two texts are:
- The Alexandrian Text, also called the Critical Text, which is found in Wescott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, and UBS and which underlies the RV, RSV, NIV, NAS, NRSV, ESV, NCV, NLT, GWT, Holman, "Recovery" Version, etc.
- The Byzantine Text, also called the Syrian Text or Anticoh Text. This is the text that underlies Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible (the 7th Byzantine translation into English), and even the New Testament of the New King James version.
Now the question is simply this: Will you trust the "Original Text" that comes from the center of heresy or the Original Text that comes from the center of pure evangelism? The choice is yours. Choose wisely!
Upvote
0
Philip
Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity
- Jun 23, 2003
- 5,619
- 241
- 53
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
christian-only said:
Do you realize that Arius was trained in Antioch? Do you realize that it was St Athanasius of Alexandria that defend the doctrine of the Trinity against Arius at the Council of Nicea?
Upvote
0
TSIBHOD
Voice of Reason
Good point, Philip.
But really, examine the differences between them. The differences are not huge. If you want to believe false doctrine, you can do it with any manuscript and any version. If you want to hear the truth, any of the main manuscript families and any of the Bible versions will give you that. So they have minor differences -- big deal. Is anyone going to misunderstand God solely because they read a Bible proceeding from the critical text rather than the majority text (or vice versa)? No. . . .
I have dealt with this issue before on these forums, and I had one simple argument that no one was able to refute. It is good to keep arguments simple, after all, when one can. Try your hand at my argument:
I. THE DISTINGUISHING MARK OF A CHRISTIAN
II. PEOPLE WHO BEAR THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT
III. THE REAL REASON FOR CLOSENESS TO GOD
IV. WARNING AGAINST LOGICAL FALLACY
But really, examine the differences between them. The differences are not huge. If you want to believe false doctrine, you can do it with any manuscript and any version. If you want to hear the truth, any of the main manuscript families and any of the Bible versions will give you that. So they have minor differences -- big deal. Is anyone going to misunderstand God solely because they read a Bible proceeding from the critical text rather than the majority text (or vice versa)? No. . . .
I have dealt with this issue before on these forums, and I had one simple argument that no one was able to refute. It is good to keep arguments simple, after all, when one can. Try your hand at my argument:
I. THE DISTINGUISHING MARK OF A CHRISTIAN
1.) You can tell a good tree because it produces good fruit (Matthew 7:15-20).
2.) Christians are good trees and thus produce good fruit (John 15:5-8).
3.) If "Christians" do not bear good fruit, they are cut down and cast out (Matthew 3:10; John 15:2).
4.) If God's children, however, mean to bear good fruit, but are hindered, they are "pruned" (John 15:2); they then produce good fruit (Hebrews 12:11).
5.) It is clear then that good fruit is mutually inclusive with being a follower of Christ and having eternal life (Romans 6:21-22).
6.) Jesus speaks of "commandments" and the "commandment" in John 15. The "commandment" is that we love one another (John 15:12).
7.) Indeed, the summary of all the commandments is love, both of God and of "neighbors" (Matthew 22:37-40).
8.) If we keep the commandments, which are based on love, then we will "abide" in His love (John 15:10).
9.) Whoever "abides" in Christ bears good fruit (John 15:5).
10). Therefore, whoever loves is a Christian (1 John 4:7-8).
11.) Additionally, while love is the chief virtue (1 Corinthians 13:13), it is not the only fruit, and others will be present with it, as a "package deal," so to speak (Galatians 5:22).
12.) Thus, you can tell that a person is a Christian by seeing if he loves others (John 13:35).
2.) Christians are good trees and thus produce good fruit (John 15:5-8).
3.) If "Christians" do not bear good fruit, they are cut down and cast out (Matthew 3:10; John 15:2).
4.) If God's children, however, mean to bear good fruit, but are hindered, they are "pruned" (John 15:2); they then produce good fruit (Hebrews 12:11).
5.) It is clear then that good fruit is mutually inclusive with being a follower of Christ and having eternal life (Romans 6:21-22).
6.) Jesus speaks of "commandments" and the "commandment" in John 15. The "commandment" is that we love one another (John 15:12).
7.) Indeed, the summary of all the commandments is love, both of God and of "neighbors" (Matthew 22:37-40).
8.) If we keep the commandments, which are based on love, then we will "abide" in His love (John 15:10).
9.) Whoever "abides" in Christ bears good fruit (John 15:5).
10). Therefore, whoever loves is a Christian (1 John 4:7-8).
11.) Additionally, while love is the chief virtue (1 Corinthians 13:13), it is not the only fruit, and others will be present with it, as a "package deal," so to speak (Galatians 5:22).
12.) Thus, you can tell that a person is a Christian by seeing if he loves others (John 13:35).
II. PEOPLE WHO BEAR THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT
1.) I know numerous people who bear the fruit of the spirit. Their lives have been changed by Jesus.
2.) These people do not all use the same Bible version. Some use KJV; others use NASB; others prefer NKJV, or Amplified; and so on. (The same point could be made that these people do not all go to the same type of church.)
3.) Since these people manifest the fruit of the Spirit, and they do not all use the same Bible version, it is therefore necessarily not the Bible version that makes the Christian.
4.) One could argue, "They would be better Christians if only they would use the right Bible version."
5.) However, this argument is circular, presupposing that whatever version is the "right" version.
6.) Additionally, Christians of all maturity levels are represented fairly evenly among the users of most (if not all) of today's popular Bible versions.
7.) I conclude that all of those Bible versions are essentially equal in furnishing a believer with the Scriptures.
2.) These people do not all use the same Bible version. Some use KJV; others use NASB; others prefer NKJV, or Amplified; and so on. (The same point could be made that these people do not all go to the same type of church.)
3.) Since these people manifest the fruit of the Spirit, and they do not all use the same Bible version, it is therefore necessarily not the Bible version that makes the Christian.
4.) One could argue, "They would be better Christians if only they would use the right Bible version."
5.) However, this argument is circular, presupposing that whatever version is the "right" version.
6.) Additionally, Christians of all maturity levels are represented fairly evenly among the users of most (if not all) of today's popular Bible versions.
7.) I conclude that all of those Bible versions are essentially equal in furnishing a believer with the Scriptures.
III. THE REAL REASON FOR CLOSENESS TO GOD
1.) I have established that just because one uses a certain Bible version will not make him holy.
2.) Also, one could use a variety of different versions based upon a variety of different manuscripts, and be holy in any case.
3.) It is having our hands (our deeds) cleansed and our hearts (our motives) purified that draws us near to God.
4.) The outward manifestation of a pure heart is a pure tongue (James 1:26).
5.) Also. . . there is one other main manifestation of a pure heart: love for one another (1 Peter 1:22).
6.) This kind of love is such that will "go to the wall" for someone (John 15:13).
7.) If this love within causes you to use a certain Bible version, well and good. You must not expect it to affect others in the same way though.
8.) For God within always causes love, and this love may cause varying other things in your life. But while love may cause you to adopt a certain Bible version or certain denomination, the adoption of the said things can never cause you to love.
9.) "We love because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19 ESV).
2.) Also, one could use a variety of different versions based upon a variety of different manuscripts, and be holy in any case.
3.) It is having our hands (our deeds) cleansed and our hearts (our motives) purified that draws us near to God.
4.) The outward manifestation of a pure heart is a pure tongue (James 1:26).
5.) Also. . . there is one other main manifestation of a pure heart: love for one another (1 Peter 1:22).
6.) This kind of love is such that will "go to the wall" for someone (John 15:13).
7.) If this love within causes you to use a certain Bible version, well and good. You must not expect it to affect others in the same way though.
8.) For God within always causes love, and this love may cause varying other things in your life. But while love may cause you to adopt a certain Bible version or certain denomination, the adoption of the said things can never cause you to love.
9.) "We love because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19 ESV).
IV. WARNING AGAINST LOGICAL FALLACY
1.) For this section, I will start off with a quote from Wikipedia.
2.) So do not attempt an argument that "no true Christian would do that," unless "that" is some action contrary to love. For love makes the Christian (1 John 4:16-17).Wikipedia said:
Upvote
0
Knight
Knight of the Cross
- Apr 11, 2002
- 3,395
- 117
- 52
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Understood. I've grown more and more fond of the formal equivalence translations myself... (NASB, ESV, etc....) I will say that, as far as dynamic translation go, the NIV is the most "formal" of those that I've seen.kitkat60 said:
I like the NLT ok. It's good when I just want to read. It's also good for someone new to Christianity as it tends to avoid 5-dollar-word theological terms..... I think that people should eventually move to a more formal translation but this is a good start.
I, too, am not so fond of the CEV. I have a copy but I rarely use it.
Hopefully there will be one this summer. I've heard rumors about a Ligonier Study Bible that will be put our by Ligonier Ministries. At this point all this is is rumor though. (I've been dropping birthday hints to my wifer about a Deluxe Reference ESV.....
So we'll see. )
Upvote
0
Philip said:
That's beside the point. Arius began to teach his false doctrine in Alexandria because he knew it wouldn't fly in Antioch. Origen was already teaching it in secret, so he just had to make it public. And as far as Athanaisus, the man was exiled when the Arians took over and there was constantly a fight going on - the Arians exling him, him coming back and exiling them. The place was a mess! To take manuscripts from that war zone and throw away the true manuscripts from Antioch is foolishness. But that's what today's "scholars" are doing.
Upvote
0
Oh yeah. It does make a difference what text you use in translation and what translation you study and read. If you translate the Textus Receptus you get the full word of God. If you translate the CT you get all these verses missing like the NIV does Matt. 17:21, Matt. 18:11, Matt. 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:3,4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Rom. 16:24 -- And certainly there is a difference between the NIV and NKJV here:
(1 Cor 6:9 NKJV) ...Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites...will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Cor 6:9 NIV) ...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God.
The NIV condones homosexuality! It makes it look as if only gay-rape is wrong but gayness is OK. Well, that's wrong!
(Lev 18:22 NKJV) 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
(Lev 18:22 NIV) "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Yeah, the NIV got it right in the OT. But it should've got it right in both places.
(1 Cor 6:9 NKJV) ...Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites...will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Cor 6:9 NIV) ...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...will inherit the kingdom of God.
The NIV condones homosexuality! It makes it look as if only gay-rape is wrong but gayness is OK. Well, that's wrong!
(Lev 18:22 NKJV) 'You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
(Lev 18:22 NIV) "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Yeah, the NIV got it right in the OT. But it should've got it right in both places.
Upvote
0
In a previous post I griped about the lousy quality of the bonded leather cover. Well, I was at Borders this past week, and I looked at the various ESV bibles. All of the black ones had the same cheesy-non-leathery looking cover that mine has. The burgundy looked like expected and the saddle brown looked fine too, and both of those felt supple, unlike the black one which feels almost brittle.
I realize this has nothing to do with the translation itself, but ifyou do choose to get leather, I think there are good choices.
I realize this has nothing to do with the translation itself, but ifyou do choose to get leather, I think there are good choices.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
