The problem with the responses so far is that they have downplayed problems with the KJV. Unfortunately after 30 min or searching I haven't found a good set of examples. My knowledge is primarily from doing exegesis for years. But I can't easily go back and find all the passages I've looked at.
The following gives a few examples: https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-kjv-rv-elegance-accuracy
Unfortunately it uses the same two passages to talk about textual problems. Everyone uses them because they're particularly clear. But problems occur on almost every page. The advantage of this article is that it also talks about translation errors. Even where the KJV gets the Greek text right, it often makes mistakes in translation. Not only do we have more manuscripts now, but there are a lot more non-Biblical documents from the same culture. Currently scholars simply know more about how NT Greek worked.
Finally, there are changes in word meanings that can give you the wrong impression if you don't already know the meaning.
My recommendation is that you should stick with your ESV unless you want a translation that's freer.
Note by the way that I don't use the ESV myself. In addition to issues of the Greek text and the grammar, there are theological issues. Evangelical translations such as the ESV are made by people who believe that the Bible is inerrant. This doesn't affect translations very often, but it does sometimes. The best-known example is Is 7:14, which is quoted by Matthew "a virgin shall conceive." The problem is that the Hebrew of Is 7:14 simply means "young woman." While such women were, of course assumed to be virgins, the word doesn't *mean* virgin. Matthew quoted a Greek translation, which did have virgin. But evangelicals prefer to translate Isaiah to match the quotation in Matthew. There aren't a lot of situations like this, but there are a few.
Roughly speaking there are several kinds of scholarship involved in translation.
- textual scholarship - reconstructing the original Hebrew and Greek
- grammar
- literary and theology scholarship - unfortunately you can't translate a passage without knowing what it means. That means your translation will inevitably be affected by your theology.
- style. making it understandable. There are several legitimate approaches to style, e.g. word for word and thought for thought. This also includes the question of whether you regard "man" and "men" acceptable when the original clearly includes persons of both genders.
In King James, all of these are basically just out of date.
New King James updates the style, but uses approximately the same scholarship as the original King James in other areas.
Most other translations are very similar on the scholarship, differing mostly on style. However evangelical and mainline translations differ slightly on theology. I follow mainline scholarship. Hence I use NRSV. That's typically the translation that you'd find recommended in a course on the Bible in a major university. But evangelicals generally reject the theological scholarship behind them, though they agree with mainline scholarship on text, grammar, etc.
ESV is pretty much the equivalent of the NRSV, using evangelical preferences. In fact it started with the mainline RSV (an older version of the NRSV), and adjusted it to match the translators' evangelical preferences, plus making some improvements based on newer scholarship.
NIV is probably the best known. It uses the same scholarship as ESV, but is somewhat freer. If you find it significantly easier to understand, you might want to use it. There are newer versions such as Holman that I don't know well enough to comment. Other things like Living BIble and New Century are even freer than the NIV. They're find for reading a whole chapter, but I wouldn't use them for detailed study.
(Incidentally, the newest NIV has moved to using gender-neutral language. If you don't like it, stick with your ESV or maybe the original NIV, if you can get it.)
The following gives a few examples: https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-kjv-rv-elegance-accuracy
Unfortunately it uses the same two passages to talk about textual problems. Everyone uses them because they're particularly clear. But problems occur on almost every page. The advantage of this article is that it also talks about translation errors. Even where the KJV gets the Greek text right, it often makes mistakes in translation. Not only do we have more manuscripts now, but there are a lot more non-Biblical documents from the same culture. Currently scholars simply know more about how NT Greek worked.
Finally, there are changes in word meanings that can give you the wrong impression if you don't already know the meaning.
My recommendation is that you should stick with your ESV unless you want a translation that's freer.
Note by the way that I don't use the ESV myself. In addition to issues of the Greek text and the grammar, there are theological issues. Evangelical translations such as the ESV are made by people who believe that the Bible is inerrant. This doesn't affect translations very often, but it does sometimes. The best-known example is Is 7:14, which is quoted by Matthew "a virgin shall conceive." The problem is that the Hebrew of Is 7:14 simply means "young woman." While such women were, of course assumed to be virgins, the word doesn't *mean* virgin. Matthew quoted a Greek translation, which did have virgin. But evangelicals prefer to translate Isaiah to match the quotation in Matthew. There aren't a lot of situations like this, but there are a few.
Roughly speaking there are several kinds of scholarship involved in translation.
- textual scholarship - reconstructing the original Hebrew and Greek
- grammar
- literary and theology scholarship - unfortunately you can't translate a passage without knowing what it means. That means your translation will inevitably be affected by your theology.
- style. making it understandable. There are several legitimate approaches to style, e.g. word for word and thought for thought. This also includes the question of whether you regard "man" and "men" acceptable when the original clearly includes persons of both genders.
In King James, all of these are basically just out of date.
New King James updates the style, but uses approximately the same scholarship as the original King James in other areas.
Most other translations are very similar on the scholarship, differing mostly on style. However evangelical and mainline translations differ slightly on theology. I follow mainline scholarship. Hence I use NRSV. That's typically the translation that you'd find recommended in a course on the Bible in a major university. But evangelicals generally reject the theological scholarship behind them, though they agree with mainline scholarship on text, grammar, etc.
ESV is pretty much the equivalent of the NRSV, using evangelical preferences. In fact it started with the mainline RSV (an older version of the NRSV), and adjusted it to match the translators' evangelical preferences, plus making some improvements based on newer scholarship.
NIV is probably the best known. It uses the same scholarship as ESV, but is somewhat freer. If you find it significantly easier to understand, you might want to use it. There are newer versions such as Holman that I don't know well enough to comment. Other things like Living BIble and New Century are even freer than the NIV. They're find for reading a whole chapter, but I wouldn't use them for detailed study.
(Incidentally, the newest NIV has moved to using gender-neutral language. If you don't like it, stick with your ESV or maybe the original NIV, if you can get it.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
.png)
