ESV-Onlyism?

[tampasteve]

Regardless, it is not wrong to show the true Word of God (KJV) and how the ESV does not measure up. Post #14 clearly shows that the ESV is seriously flawed. The topic is if there is an ESV only movement. I know many who have said they prefer the ESV but it is not their one and only Bible. Post #14 should refute anyone's thinking that the ESV should be a person's preferred Bible because it seeks to eliminate and water down important truths within our Bible (the KJV).

Right, which is why I thought better and deleted my post.....

 

[Halbhh]

1 John 5:7
KJB: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

ESV: For there are three that testify.

Note: 1 John 5:7 is the one and only verse in the Bible that tells us clearly about the Trinity point blank. No other verse does this.

That's interesting, because the group I know of that most emphasizes a pure KJV-only is Jehovah Witnesses -- but they have the wrong idea that the trinity is false.

And meantime, in most any other church, people know the trinity is the reality, and few of them are using the KJV.

(update: see Albion's and TampaSteve's notes just below. We do have a person that was in local Kingdom Hall bible studies (many times) though, and so since I know her well and she is in our Bible study now, I will ask her more about this next time I see her. )


Look at what they see in all the other popular Bibles:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

But, nevertheless, these people reading other Bibles know the trinity oneness.

So....? I don't have to have the KJV to realize all three are one together, and neither do most believers, yet the group using the KJV most exclusively fails to get the trinity oneness....? (see update inserted above)

 

[Albion]

From what I've heard, supporters of the ESV are very strong on it, and I know that it is the preferred version for some quite intelligent and choosy people. Still, I haven't picked up any sentiment that would approach ESV-onlyism.

 

[tampasteve]

That's interesting, because the group I know of that most emphasizes a pure KJV-only is Jehovah Witnesses -- but they have the wrong idea that the trinity is false.

Most JW's use their own translation, the New World Translation (NWT) and only use the KJV as a backup as it were.

 

[Albion]

Most JW's use their own translation, the New World Translation (NWT) and only use the KJV as a backup as it were.

Or for use when going door to door. They realize that a lot of people are now alert to their former policy of quoting from the NWT when trying to convince some stranger of the truth of one of their teachings. Now they simply misrepresent the KJV.

 

[tampasteve]

Or for use when going door to door. They realize that a lot of people are now alert to their former policy of quoting from the NWT when trying to convince some stranger of the truth of one of their teachings. Now they simply misrepresent the KJV.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Funny enough I have never had one come to my door...but sometimes they park in front of my house, but they always skip our house.

 

[Halbhh]

Romans 8:1
KJB: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

ESV: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Note: Eliminating the words "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" in Romans 8:1 removes the key answer to Paul's problem he had when he was a Pharisee struggling to obey the Old Law in Romans 7:14-24. Walking after the Spirit is the key to not being under the Condemnation and in overcoming sin. Romans 13:14 says, put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

But what about Romans 8:4? See, we ought to read through. I think you'd agree, but to hear that you do would answer that.

English Standard Version
"in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8, v 4)

On 8:1 the Elliot's commentary reads: "Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.--These words are wanting in the foremost representatives of every group of authorities (except, perhaps, those which belong to the region of Syria), and must certainly be omitted. They have been brought in here from Romans 8:4."

Simply, this doesn't matter. People will be reading more than one verse. I suppose it is helpful if they do read only one verse, but! if people are relying on just a few one-verse quotes, then they have a far more serious and deeply more dangerous problem we need to strive to help them with, right?

 

[com7fy8]

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.

In order for me to really know if a translation is accurate, I would need to be an expert on the languages. And in order to really know if a professor or scholar really is an expert translator, I would have to be an expert, I would think.

Also, I think a translator's agenda can influence how he or she does translation work. And I might not personally know that person so I could be sure about that person's work.

From what I've heard, supporters of the ESV are very strong on it,

And are they experts on languages and without some agenda????

My approach is I trust God to guide me, including however He knows I need correction so I don't have an agenda. And He knows if and how much He has done this with me.

I have found that New King James is close enough to earlier and more modern Bibles.

 

[DW1980]

That's interesting, because the group I know of that most emphasizes a pure KJV-only is Jehovah Witnesses -- but they have the wrong idea that the trinity is false.

The Jehovah's Witnesses have a doctored version of the Bible they use known as the New World Translation. It sets out to eliminate the deity of Christ, unlike the NIV, ESV, KJV, etc which all clearly teach the Trinity.

 

[Halbhh]

In order for me to really know if a translation is accurate, I would need to be an expert on the languages. And in order to really know if a professor or scholar really is an expert translator, I would have to be an expert, I would think.

Also, I think a translator's agenda can influence how he or she does translation work. And I might not personally know that person so I could be sure about that person's work.

And are they experts on languages and without some agenda????

My approach is I trust God to guide me, including however He knows I need correction so I don't have an agenda. And He knows if and how much He has done this with me.

I have found that New King James is close enough to earlier and more modern Bibles.

I think the KJV (and NKJV) are fine, from my own reading (I once read fully through a KJV, and still compare it at times also), and the only key thing we need is that we are reading through fully entire books and for the moment laying to the side (forgetting, putting aside) our ideas/doctrines, and trying to listen to the scripture, so that we are the one doing the hearing/listening instead of the one doing the talking.

So, anyone can do well with most popular translations (* except NLT) if they simply read with listening through complete books.

------
(* - the NLT has questionable extra wording I've seen, so the only strong recommendation I make on translations is to lay aside the sometimes inaccurate NLT and pick up the more accurate and easy to understand NIV)

 

[Albion]

And are they experts on languages and without some agenda????

That would be difficult to say...and it is not as though I've debated the matter with them. I was simply reporting that it seems I have run into surprising number of people who are well-informed, conventional Christians who say that the ESV is the one they prefer for the sake of accuracy. I can't say that I've noticed this with any other translation (aside from KJV loyalists, of course).

I take it for granted that a lot of other people are going to recommend something else, but in their case, it's almost always for the sake of having a translation that is easier to read.

 

[DW1980]

*** Please can we NOT turn this into a KJV Only debate ***

My question relates more to the ESV and how some people seem to be asserting that it is the best/only translation a Christian should use. I can see the similarity, the end result would be the same as the KJV Only, i.e. that all other translations are inferior. But there are important differences, the KJV Only tends to use the KJV as the standard, so "missing" or "different" verses are seen as evidence that the translation is corrupt, because they are there in the KJV. I do not subscribe to this, I think the standard should be the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. To me the question should be, "how well does this translation reflect the text?"

 

[DW1980]

So, anyone can do well with most popular translations (* except NLT) if they simply read with listening through complete books.

------
(* - the NLT has questionable extra wording I've seen, so the only strong recommendation I make on translations is to lay aside the sometimes inaccurate NLT and pick up the more accurate and easy to understand NIV)

This is interesting, I used the NLT as my main Bible for years, and God spoke so clearly to me about so many things through it. It is one I would recommend! My move back to the NIV was simply familiarity, and what I had memorised as a teenager/early teens.

 

[Halbhh]

This is interesting, I used the NLT as my main Bible for years, and God spoke so clearly to me about so many things through it. It is one I would recommend! My move back to the NIV was simply familiarity, and what I had memorised as a teenager/early teens.

It's often perfectly good because often it's accurate enough. For example, if you removed 5% of the verses in a Bible and replaced those with only repetitions of other verses even, what remains will still be enough to be life-changing and saving, for instance. And who even gets most of what is in a gospel on the first or second or even third time reading through? I thought I had until I read again. I'm not worried about those reading the NLT until they begin to use isolated verses which are additionally inaccurate, but really just the using of the isolated verses as doctrines (removing context to repaint the meaning) is itself a much more serious problem. Another trouble though that really hits me is what it does to so many powerful verses. Compare all the translations of John chapter 1 verse 1 at Bible hub, and ask if the NLT improved it by adding a word??? No! I felt very distressed to see that added word, because of the subtle and awesome power of His word as it already was worded, and diluting this was not good! But, for someone else, this lack might not even be noticed, because they haven't yet been bowled over by those verses.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's interesting, because the group I know of that most emphasizes a pure KJV-only is Jehovah Witnesses -- but they have the wrong idea that the trinity is false.

Well, I am not a JW.
I believe in the Trinity.
I believe the Lord our God is one God who He exists as three distinct persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost).
Within each of my posts, in my short bio, I list my self as non-denominational.

Also, it is not true that the JW's are the only group that emphasizes a pure Word of God. Where in the world do you ever get that silly idea?
It's pretty common knowledge that the JW's like using their version called the New World Translation.
It's also common knowledge that there are tons of KJV only people who are strongly against the JW religion and other false religious groups.

And meantime, in most any other church, people know the trinity is the reality, and few of them are using the KJV.

I have talked on various Christian forums for many years and have met many KJV only people.
I have watched many KJV only videos by KJV only people.
None of them believe in the false JW religion.
So I am not sure where you are getting your information from but it is totally not true.

(update: see Albion's and TampaSteve's notes just below. We do have a person that was in local Kingdom Hall bible studies (many times) though, and so since I know her well and she is in our Bible study now, I will ask her more about this next time I see her. )

Don't know what you are talking about here. But it would not prove that you are correct in regards to JWs being the sole group of KJV-Onlyism. I never heard such a ridiculous claim in my life. Then again, perhaps you are new to KJV-Onlyism.

Look at what they see in all the other popular Bibles:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

But, nevertheless, these people reading other Bibles know the trinity oneness.

So....? I don't have to have the KJV to realize all three are one together, and neither do most believers, yet the group using the KJV most exclusively fails to get the trinity oneness....? (see update inserted above)

Actually, no. There is no other verse in your Bible besides 1 John 5:7 that says what 1 John 5:7 says. It is the only verse that clearly describes the Trinity point blank. For example: If you were marooned on an island and become a new believer there and and all you had was an NIV, or an ESV, you would not just magically come to the realization of what 1 John 5:7 says. You need 1 John 5:7 to tell you point blank the truth of the Trinity.

Also, 1 John 5:7 is not promoting the Oneness false doctrine or Modalism (Which is a belief held by United Pentecostals).
1 John 5:7 is merely saying that all three persons of the Trinity are all one God;
Surely you do not believe in three separate gods.
This would be Tritheism
(Which is a belief held by Mormons).
This says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct gods. This is polytheism or the worship of more than one God. But the Bible makes it clear that the Lord our God is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

*** Please can we NOT turn this into a KJV Only debate ***

My question relates more to the ESV and how some people seem to be asserting that it is the best/only translation a Christian should use. I can see the similarity, the end result would be the same as the KJV Only, i.e. that all other translations are inferior. But there are important differences, the KJV Only tends to use the KJV as the standard, so "missing" or "different" verses are seen as evidence that the translation is corrupt, because they are there in the KJV. I do not subscribe to this, I think the standard should be the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. To me the question should be, "how well does this translation reflect the text?"

But how can you truly know what the Hebrew and Greek says when you (and everyone who has lived the past few hundred years) has not grew up speaking and writing Biblical Hebrew and Greek to truly know what it says with 100% certainty?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But what about Romans 8:4? See, we ought to read through. I think you'd agree, but to hear that you do would answer that.

English Standard Version
"in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (Romans 8, v 4)

On 8:1 the Elliot's commentary reads: "Who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.--These words are wanting in the foremost representatives of every group of authorities (except, perhaps, those which belong to the region of Syria), and must certainly be omitted. They have been brought in here from Romans 8:4."

Simply, this doesn't matter. People will be reading more than one verse. I suppose it is helpful if they do read only one verse, but! if people are relying on just a few one-verse quotes, then they have a far more serious and deeply more dangerous problem we need to strive to help them with, right?

Romans 8:4 does not talk about the "Condemnation."

Note: The "Condemnation" is mentioned in Romans 8:1 is defined for us in John 3:19-21. We are not under the Condemnation if we.... walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Romans 8:4 does not really say that.

 

[Halbhh]

Actually, no. There is no other verse in your Bible besides 1 John 5:7 that says what 1 John 5:7 says. It is the only verse that clearly describes the Trinity point blank. For example: If you were marooned on an island and become a new believer there and and all you had was an NIV, or an ESV, you would not just magically come to the realization of what 1 John 5:7 says. You need 1 John 5:7 to tell you point blank the truth of the Trinity.

Hard to say, because I did read the KJV early, through, fully, whether seeing this already in the KJV at that time preempted this question for me, but there are many verses that show us in various ways the trinity oneness (not some other kind). Especially in the Gospel of John for example. So, supposing you were marooned with whatever translation of the Gospel of John on an island, you'd be able to read through it and then know Christ Jesus is one with the Father. However, I'm content either way on what you are aided by in a translation! I love the KJV, from my youth, and I have no objections to it, if that helps. I trust you know if I'd never read it, I could still be saved and taught through other translations also. Peace and love to you, brother.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hard to say, because I did read the KJV early, through, fully, whether seeing this already in the KJV at that time preempted this question for me, but there are many verses that show us in various ways the trinity oneness (not some other kind). Especially in the Gospel of John for example. So, supposing you were marooned with whatever translation of the Gospel of John on an island, you'd be able to read through it and then know Christ Jesus is one with the Father. However, I'm content either way on what you are aided by in a translation! I love the KJV, from my youth, and I have no objections to it, if that helps. I trust you know if I'd never read it, I could still be saved and taught through other translations also. Peace and love to you, brother.

Again, no verse says what 1 John 5:7 says. It is the clearest most concise verse that explains the Trinity point blank. Jesus saying I am and the Father are one is not the same as 1 John 5:7 because the Holy Spirit is not included in Christ's statement of when He says He and the Father are one.

Please take no offense.
I merely love the Word of God and I love standing up for what is says.

Anyways, may God's love shine upon you today.

 

[Halbhh]

Romans 8:4 does not talk about the "Condemnation."

Note: The "Condemnation" is mentioned in Romans 8:1 is defined for us in John 3:19-21. We are not under the Condemnation if we.... walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Romans 8:4 does not really say that.

Hmmm....well, we'd prefer of course not want to be marooned with only the book of Romans, and nothing more, but even in the ESV I could read through and gain much. It's very hard to say how much other things I already have learned help my understanding, but it reads this way:

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.a 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set youb free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,c he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. "

This echoes in a way, or reminds, of the wonderfully compact Ephesians 2:8-10 ... (we notice it's 3 verses truly, instead of the often quoted just 2 verses 8 and 9)

To me this is all really together. I mean that verse 1 by itself isn't enough. More: in Paul's writing I can see that sometimes he will start a theme and go for several chapters on it, and only many chapters later come to the 2nd part that belongs right together with it. Together, two parts which go together, and both necessary, but chapters in between. Even moreso than in other books, one has to read entirely through Paul's epistles fully to get what he says correctly, at least for me and many of us.