(N)KJV v ESV and modern translations.

[DuaneG]

Beforehand, I apologize if this is the wrong forum, if there's somewhere better suited for this.
I didn't see any better place.

I see many Calvinistic Churches use ESV, some call it the Calvinist Bible. (I wouldn't)
All the modern translations use the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament Text to base their translations off of, which are based largely off the Codex Sinaticus and Vaticanus, two admittedly very corrupt manuscripts, manuscripts from Alexandria which was the capitol of gnosticism, etc.

The KJV and NKJV are based off of entirely different manuscripts, which according to many are far more accurate.

I'll spare details, anyone who isn't aware of all this can do a great search on Yahoo for "KJV v NIV" and look at the verses omitted by all modern translations in comparison to KJV, Google "Westcott and Hort" to learn about their communication with demons, their doctrine against the deity of Christ, of Hell and etc.

My question is, if we look at bereancall.org/newsletters/foundations.htm and see all the differences between the KJV and all modern translations, how do you (not in a judgmental way or pushing KJV only, serious question. I mean not offend nor cause a war) justify using something else?

Although I do like the ESV, my conscious wont afford me the opportunity to read anything outside of the NKJV after I learned the history of the compiling of the Westcott and Hort MSS and all the verses being removed by those with an agenda.

Thoughts?

 

[mlqurgw]

Beforehand, I apologize if this is the wrong forum, if there's somewhere better suited for this.
I didn't see any better place.

I see many Calvinistic Churches use ESV, some call it the Calvinist Bible. (I wouldn't)
All the modern translations use the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament Text to base their translations off of, which are based largely off the Codex Sinaticus and Vaticanus, two admittedly very corrupt manuscripts, manuscripts from Alexandria which was the capitol of gnosticism, etc.

The KJV and NKJV are based off of entirely different manuscripts, which according to many are far more accurate.

I'll spare details, anyone who isn't aware of all this can do a great search on Yahoo for "KJV v NIV" and look at the verses omitted by all modern translations in comparison to KJV, Google "Westcott and Hort" to learn about their communication with demons, their doctrine against the deity of Christ, of Hell and etc.

My question is, if we look at bereancall.org/newsletters/foundations.htm and see all the differences between the KJV and all modern translations, how do you (not in a judgmental way or pushing KJV only, serious question. I mean not offend nor cause a war) justify using something else?

Although I do like the ESV, my conscious wont afford me the opportunity to read anything outside of the NKJV after I learned the history of the compiling of the Westcott and Hort MSS and all the verses being removed by those with an agenda.

Thoughts?

I prefer the KJV partly because of what it was translated from and partly because I am convinced it is as good a translation as any. It has its problems where things could have been translated better but I love the language and in some places it does the best job of conveying the nuances of the words. I also use an NASB in study and occasionally the ESV. I have several translations on my shelf but use those most of the time.

 

[Pete_Martinez]

I was an ESV fan until i found out that it has an amillenial slant to it. Because being a dispensationalist (those evil evil dispensationalists) it didn't sit too well with me.

Stuff like...
KJV
Psa 128:5 The LORD shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.
Psa 128:6 Yea, thou shalt see thy children's children, and peace upon Israel.

ESV
Psa 128:5 The LORD bless you from Zion! May you see the prosperity of Jerusalem all the days of your life!
Psa 128:6 May you see your children's children! Peace be upon Israel!

When I discovered this I started finding amillenialism all over the ESV, unfortunately i haven't touched it in so long that I don't remember where I found the other stuff, that's the only verse that I remember off the top of my head.

But if you like amillenialism ESV is a very good choice to go with.

 

[JM]

My wife and I visited this issue about a year ago when it was time to buy new Bibles. The NKJV was considered for textual and translation reasons but ultimately we decided to go with the AV. Our children were raised on it and even when they have difficultly, they are richly rewarded for they are encouraged to look up the word or passage for clarity.

 

[DuaneG]

Well, for those unaware, the modern translations do things like this,

NKJV
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

ESV
7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

1 Timothy 3:16
NKJV
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.

ESV
16Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

Modern Translations do things like this with almost 200 verses.

 

[mannysee]

The Westminster Presbyterian I attended used the NIV as their public bible. I personally aren't too fond of this bible.

One WPC in town has an article on their website: Why we don't use the KJV.

My own at the moment are the AV, ESV, ALT (NT), EMTV (NT).
Sure, the MT has variations from the TR, but these two NT translations (especially the ALT) I find very helpful with explaining some words.

I've got to say, my main bible is still the AV.

For me, I just leave the text debates up to those who study these things.

 

[JM]

Puritan Board has a bunch of threads on the topic. Some argue for the TR others for a CT.

 

[Joyful Jeanie]

I appreciate your post. I truly feel the NKJV is the best translation, though I own copies of the ESV, NIV, NASB, NLT, RSV, Amplified and have read through them all. I have been struggling with the ESV since our new pastor several year ago switched with no explanation. I have discovered so many essential (to me) verses deleted/changed from the ESV. It all started with "Chief" Cornerstone, a wonderful name of our Lord being changed to cornerstone with a small notation referring you to a note at the bottom that said "Greek head of the corner." I have always been frustrated with the pronouns of our Lord not be capitalized as they are in the NKJV. To me this takes away from the Divinity of our Lord. Then, when my pastor was teaching through Acts, Acts 9:5 where Jesus tells Paul "It is hard for you to kick against the goads" is deleted along with Paul's conversion statement in Acts 9:6 "Lord, what do you want me to do?" Then, in Bible Study this year the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6 was noted from the ESV which deletes the last line "For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen". This is just a small sampling that has lead me to nickname the ESV the Essentially Sacrilegious Version. What better way for the enemy to pervert our beliefs than to bring in a Bible version that is so widely accepted for its "readability." I will do the research you have recommended. Again, I appreciate you post--you spoke my heart.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

I was an ESV fan until i found out that it has an amillenial slant to it. Because being a dispensationalist (those evil evil dispensationalists) it didn't sit too well with me.

Stuff like...
KJV
Psa 128:5 The LORD shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.
Psa 128:6 Yea, thou shalt see thy children's children, and peace upon Israel.

ESV
Psa 128:5 The LORD bless you from Zion! May you see the prosperity of Jerusalem all the days of your life!
Psa 128:6 May you see your children's children! Peace be upon Israel!

When I discovered this I started finding amillenialism all over the ESV, unfortunately i haven't touched it in so long that I don't remember where I found the other stuff, that's the only verse that I remember off the top of my head.

But if you like amillenialism ESV is a very good choice to go with.

If Amillenialism is good enough for Kim Riddlebarger, its good enough for me.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

Beforehand, I apologize if this is the wrong forum, if there's somewhere better suited for this.
I didn't see any better place.

I see many Calvinistic Churches use ESV, some call it the Calvinist Bible. (I wouldn't)
All the modern translations use the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament Text to base their translations off of, which are based largely off the Codex Sinaticus and Vaticanus, two admittedly very corrupt manuscripts, manuscripts from Alexandria which was the capitol of gnosticism, etc.

The KJV and NKJV are based off of entirely different manuscripts, which according to many are far more accurate.

I'll spare details, anyone who isn't aware of all this can do a great search on Yahoo for "KJV v NIV" and look at the verses omitted by all modern translations in comparison to KJV, Google "Westcott and Hort" to learn about their communication with demons, their doctrine against the deity of Christ, of Hell and etc.

My question is, if we look at bereancall.org/newsletters/foundations.htm and see all the differences between the KJV and all modern translations, how do you (not in a judgmental way or pushing KJV only, serious question. I mean not offend nor cause a war) justify using something else?

Although I do like the ESV, my conscious wont afford me the opportunity to read anything outside of the NKJV after I learned the history of the compiling of the Westcott and Hort MSS and all the verses being removed by those with an agenda.

Thoughts?

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[Joyful Jeanie]

I recommend all who question the new translations to read "Look What's Missing" by David Daniels. It is such and eye opener as to how the modern Bibles have been perverted. I wrote to several pastors I respect asking why they have switched to the ESV and one sent back a video clip that showed him stroking the ESV and gushing over that translation. Of course, he has published an ESV Study Bible so I guess it has something to do with his publishing contract--money talks!? I choose not to listen to this pastor's preaching any more. Koinonia House, Chuck & Nancy Missler, spoke my heart in their response that they only use the KJV and supported Duane G's thinking perfectly. Oh how we must be wise as serpents, yet gentle as doves--but this issue stirs me up, after all we are talking about The Holy Bible!

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

RC Sproul seems to like the ESV translation. Why haven't I read about him talking about the corrupt manuscripts the ESV is based off of according to the OP?

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

I agree with the people who mentioned the ommissions of things from verses, I have spotted a number of them, and do not like it.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

I appreciate your post. I truly feel the NKJV is the best translation, though I own copies of the ESV, NIV, NASB, NLT, RSV, Amplified and have read through them all. I have been struggling with the ESV since our new pastor several year ago switched with no explanation. I have discovered so many essential (to me) verses deleted/changed from the ESV. It all started with "Chief" Cornerstone, a wonderful name of our Lord being changed to cornerstone with a small notation referring you to a note at the bottom that said "Greek head of the corner." I have always been frustrated with the pronouns of our Lord not be capitalized as they are in the NKJV. To me this takes away from the Divinity of our Lord. Then, when my pastor was teaching through Acts, Acts 9:5 where Jesus tells Paul "It is hard for you to kick against the goads" is deleted along with Paul's conversion statement in Acts 9:6 "Lord, what do you want me to do?" Then, in Bible Study this year the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6 was noted from the ESV which deletes the last line "For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen". This is just a small sampling that has lead me to nickname the ESV the Essentially Sacrilegious Version. What better way for the enemy to pervert our beliefs than to bring in a Bible version that is so widely accepted for its "readability." I will do the research you have recommended. Again, I appreciate you post--you spoke my heart.

I love the KJV, however it has its faults in terms of capitalization, which goes far beyond words like "He". First of all, some modern translations do not capitalize the pronouns because they aren't found to be capitalized in the ancient texts. Second of all, the KJV doesn't capitalize "Spirit" when refering to the Holy Spirit in several cases, such as Matthew 4:1. In 1 John 5:7 the word "Spirit" is capitalized, but in 1 John 5:8 it is not capitalized in some editions, like the Pure Cambridge Edition. Another example is Joel 2:28-29, yet it is capitalized in Acts 2:17-18. There are more cases, and often it depends on what KJV text edition you have, as some will capitalize "Spirit" and some will not. In the ESV, "Spirit" is capitalized in every case. The ESV doesn't capitalize pronouns because the ancient texts do not, but it does capitalize "Spirit" in regards to the Holy Spirit each and every time, while the KJV does not.

Every translation has its pros and cons, and not one is perfect.

 

[fistway]

I agree with Lonewolf. No translation is perfect. They ALL have mistakes. It is impossible not to. I trust the King James. I trust(although I have never really warmed to it) the NKJV. I trust the NASB and the ESV. My primary Bible is the ESV. The KJV was done so that the people could have a Bible in their own language that they could read. That language is not my language. Hence my transition to the ESV, although I use other translations for study and message preparation. No modern translation destroys any doctrine or any attribute of God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I will also state that there are some modern translations I would not use. Really, as has been said by others, the best translation is the one that you will read. The translations I have listed here all point to Christ as Savior and will help you grow in your walk.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

I want one of these Bibles:
LCBP 400th Anniversary Edition - YouTube

 

[BBAS 64]

I agree with the people who mentioned the ommissions of things from verses, I have spotted a number of them, and do not like it.

Good Day, OCC

May I ask why...

 

[BBAS 64]

I recommend all who question the new translations to read "Look What's Missing" by David Daniels. It is such and eye opener as to how the modern Bibles have been perverted. I wrote to several pastors I respect asking why they have switched to the ESV and one sent back a video clip that showed him stroking the ESV and gushing over that translation. Of course, he has published an ESV Study Bible so I guess it has something to do with his publishing contract--money talks!? I choose not to listen to this pastor's preaching any more. Koinonia House, Chuck & Nancy Missler, spoke my heart in their response that they only use the KJV and supported Duane G's thinking perfectly. Oh how we must be wise as serpents, yet gentle as doves--but this issue stirs me up, after all we are talking about The Holy Bible!

Good Day,

The fallacy in what David Daniels has done in that works is he presuposes that the KJV of the bible is the standard by wich other other bibles are to be judged. From a textual historical point of view he is plain flat out wrong.


Big Logical error, in doing so he must contend that any bible before the KJV is not the scripture.

 

[Eddie L]

Good Day,

The fallacy in what David Daniels has done in that works is he presuposes that the KJV of the bible is the standard by wich other other bibles are to be judged. From a textual historical point of view he is plain flat out wrong.


Big Logical error, in doing so he must contend that any bible before the KJV is not the scripture.

I agree. We can't compare the ESV to the KJV to determine its accuracy. We have to compare both to the greek and the manuscripts used to translate them. It's not as though someone threw the manuscripts away when the KJV was completed.

 

[BBAS 64]

I agree. We can't compare the ESV to the KJV to determine its accuracy. We have to compare both to the greek and the manuscripts used to translate them. It's not as though someone threw the manuscripts away when the KJV was completed.

Good Day, Eddie

Yes that is true, and we have to which manuscripts we are dealing with. The KJV translators used 3 primary manuscripts one was Beza, Stephanus and the last was the RC Erasmus's 3rd edition of his greek translations.

To be sure not all of them agreed here were variants in those as well, they had to make textual choices, some agree with some I do not.

James White has a great book on the issue:

King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations?: James R. White: 9780764206054: Amazon.com: Books

He does a really good job in explaining the issues and looking at the underlying history and text issues.

In Him,

Bill