ESV translation another Vatican version?

[Orange_County_Chopper]

So apparently there seems to be some discrepancies with this translation. The last thing I would want is to be reading this translation regularly if it really does bear similarity with Roman Catholic Theology. Point of reference.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

So apparently there seems to be some discrepancies with this translation. The last thing I would want is to be reading this translation regularly if it really does bear similarity with Roman Catholic Theology. Point of reference.

There are discrepancies in every Greek manuscript of the NT that exists. That would include the so-called 'received text' that the KJV is based upon. No two manuscripts are in 100% agreement.

In fact the so-called Textus Receptus was compiled by a committed Catholic who stayed with Rome. Luther used it as the basis of his German Translation. So is the TR and the KJV another Vatican Translation?

This argument gets to be tiresome.

i'm no fan of the ESV, and truth be known, i preferred the 1952 RSV to it. While it does have some questionable translation, so does the KJV.

 

[file13]

This argument gets to be tiresome.

Amen. This is why I think you should have many translations and if possible, try to pick up a little Greek to at least understand what's really going on with these NT translations and what this whole "textual criticism" thing is all about.

But ya know, as long as folks don't go crazy about the KJV being like the Qu'ran, use the KJV. I do for my personal devotions because I like the majesty of the language. But it's a translation like any other and so it's not perfect. Ditto with the ESV. I personally like the ESV for a "modern literal" translation. But even there, there's the occasional spot I disagree with the translation choice.

The moral of the story, just like there's no perfect church, there's also no perfect translation. This is what happens anytime you throw us sinners in the mix and I often wonder if God does this so we don't think too highly of ourselves....

 

[JM]

(some of this will sound familar to you folks who have been around a while since I wrote most of it for a class)

I begin by making it clear I am not a King James Only proponent. I believethe scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the words of God and the only rule of faith and practice. The holy scriptures are composed of the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament are the verbally inspired words and the revelation of God. The Bible is inerrant and infallible. Divine inspiration of the original autographs extends to the divine preservation of a pure text to this day and that the preserved word of God is found in the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Textus Receptus. The Authorized King James version of the Bible is a translation and I pray that one day soon the church will have another translation of the scriptures based on these holy texts.

There are discrepancies in every Greek manuscript of the NT that exists. That would include the so-called 'received text' that the KJV is based upon. No two manuscripts are in 100% agreement.

Partially true. The Textus Receptus is not a Greek MSS but a Greek edition of the New Testament.

In fact the so-called Textus Receptus was compiled by a committed Catholic who stayed with Rome. Luther used it as the basis of his German Translation. So is the TR and the KJV another Vatican Translation?

...facts can be slippery...the TR is based on Beza's 4th edition of the Greek text. It differs only slightly from other versions of the TR. A common difference would be, "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ." A simple reversal of words. Scrivener's remarks on this issues are important and should be consider when dealing with the TR. The Greek text edition circulated by Theodore Beza was in common use and considered reliable. There was little or no further textual criticism done to his Greek edition and was received by the church as authoritative. In history we find a clear witness of the Protestant church to this Received Text. The church is the witness, the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15) and only pride would have us reject its witness outright. Richard Muller is quoted in "Verbatim" (vol. 10, iss. 1),

"In addition, the Protestant orthodox held, as a matter of doctrinal conviction stated in the locus de Scriptura sacra of their theological systems, the providential preservation of the text throughout history."

My presupposition is similar to the view held by the 17th century Reformers, as found in their Westminster and Second London Baptist Confessions. According to these confessions, the scriptures are:

"immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them." (article 1:8)

This simple doctrinal statement made by our forefathers makes good sense. God communicated to man through revelations and persevered it for His people.

This argument gets to be tiresome.

I agree that it does. If I say, "the AV is a good translation based on the best Greek edition we have" someone is going to marginalize me with "KJVO!" This is not my position at all. I agree that it gets tiresome but the inspiration and inerrancy is the "sine qua non" or indispensable and essential doctrine of Protestantism because it is the foundation of all doctrine. We cannot declare the originals only, exchanging "King James Onlyism" for "Original Text Onlyism," our very idea of sola scriptura does not allow for it. Consider for a minute what the text critic actually does with the Greek...his method is purely rationalism and humanistic to the core. Those who prefer to use a rational approach in defining the New Testament text have to admit that scripture is selected by the text critic. In the office of a scholar many manuscripts are studied. The assumption is often stated that "only the originals are inspired." The scholar must conduct examinations of the many manuscripts to determine which verse is more likely to be inspired and therefore authentic. But what kind of method does he use? What is his rule to determine what is, might be or is not scripture? The Bible critic or critics, whatever the case maybe, must choose and whatever kind of rule chosen becomes their guiding principle. It is not driven by the logic of faith the Reformers used but a secular naturalistic presupposition. This presupposition looks to man for answers and denies the God who acts in history and intervenes in our daily lives. It ultimately denies the God breathed nature of the Bible.

Without a foundational set of manuscripts Protestantism is reduced to just one of many traditions with sola scriptura a late development and no less of a tradition then that found in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. This tradition is reduced to a Magisterium of scholars instead of Popes, Cardinals and Bishops. Today we have replaced the Roman Magisterium with a Magisterium of Textual Critics, the latter acts as the final authority, and the former tells us what the final authority might be. There is no final authority to appeal to in modern evangelicalism. This makes the biblical text shifting sand.

 

[JM]

This modern rational approach falls prey to the fallacy of induction. The scholar begins with the manuscript evidence he has in his hands, the assumption that only the originals are inspired and attempts to form an opinion on the validity of the readings by the manuscript evidence available to him.

If the scholar makes an assessment of 9 manuscripts he might observe that 1 John 5:7 is not among them and may doubt the reading as valid. This is called a hasty generalization. Was the scholar ever able to assess all the manuscripts that ever existed?

Was he able to consider the phantom original, the one and only inspired copy of 1 John? No.

If more manuscripts become unearthed they may prove to be older then the first 9 he examined and contain the doubted passage. The scholar is never able to quote from scripture as authoritative since he is not able to know for certain which verses are valid and which ones are not.

All authority in matters of faith and practice are found in the scholar himself and in his ability to discern the New Testament canon anew for every generation.

Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert inn ancient biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. In a recent blog post about the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature he wrote,

"As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead."

That's all the time I got for this subject folks.

jm

 

[JM]

Just so I don't leave out the Gospel Standard Baptists, J. H. Gosden observes in his commentary on the Standard:

"By inspiration of God gave the Holy Oracles, and power - perennial miracle - He preserves them intact. They are inerrant, unchangeable, unlosable. Could they err or change or be lost, their divine origin would be disapproved and dependence upon them would be misplaced. In such a case there would exist no foundation upon which to build for eternity, no final court of appeal respecting truth and error, no standard of doctrine, no rule of practice, no touchstone of experience."

 

[Metal Minister]

This is why I thank God for sites like bible.cc! It takes all the versions and verse by verse sets them side by side.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[JM]

Metal has a good quote in his sig, now if we could all apply it to the method of biblical criticism we would quickly see that its underlying presupposition is humanistic.

 

[Tsujido]

So apparently there seems to be some discrepancies with this translation. The last thing I would want is to be reading this translation regularly if it really does bear similarity with Roman Catholic Theology.

Interesting! Okay, first up, I don't mind what translation you use, if you want to use KJV, fine, NIV fine, NWT errr okay I may have an issue there.

I do use the ESV in preference to any other translation and no it is not pro Rome in any way, I also use the Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT) and am quite happy to look at most other translations. I do find the ESV to be a faithful translation BUT it is just a translation and like others have said they may disagree with individual points of translation and it should not be regarded as being inspired in the same way as the original texts.

Look at what the ESV is taking over and why, before the ESV, the default Bible for most English speaking churches was the NIV(1984) which was not too bad as translation go and was a reasonable balance between readability and accuracy but it wasn't perfect and the ESV is, in my opinion anyway, closer. Then came the revisions of the NIV which I don't think I need to go into detail here as I am sure most are aware of the issues. So the Evangelical churches needed another Translation, the ESV offered the obvious choice.

I know some prefer the KJV and the language it uses but for many that language makes it harder to read for most which is the main reason why churches look elsewhere.

Anyway glad to be back on the forums.