(N)KJV v ESV and modern translations.

[dysert]

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.

Yeah, but if a new translation is "omitting" something that shouldn't have been there in the first place (by comparing it to the thousands of manuscripts we now have versus the few we had for the KJV), then it's more an indictment of the KJV -- that it *added* things it shouldn't have.

 

[Keachian]

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

Scriptures would possibly be a better place for this.

I see many Calvinistic Churches use ESV, some call it the Calvinist Bible. (I wouldn't)

It's a word for word translation, the clear testimony of scripture is the Reformed position, surely you believe this, if you don't then why claim the Reformed position?

All the modern translations use the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament Text to base their translations off of,

Just a small correction, the late 19th century, early 20th century translations used W&H, modern translations use the Nestle Aland Greek New Testament.

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.

And yet Alexandria was the seat from which Athanasius stood contra mundum to the heresy of Arianism.

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

Only those for whom holding to the KJV is a tradition of men.

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.

Of course all hits come from people dedicated by their tradition to hold that the KJV is a new revelation in 1611 or something similar.

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?

The question should not be how does this version match up to that version, but rather what is closest to the original.

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'd look into James White's response to Sam Gipp's KJVO

Here is the first in a series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNGa_dRTNMo

 

[Keachian]

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.

The comma johanneum, found in no Greek manuscript and no Latin on before the 7th century iirc.

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.

This is a problematic three-way equally attested to variant:
O - what
OS - he
(-)S - God

James White also has a good video on this variant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEabV25ZIZU

about 4mins in is where he talks about it, but the whole video is good

 

[The Conductor]

Also, the Westcott-Hort text is mostly irrelevant to the discussion, because the ESV uses the Nestle-Aland text, as well as the UBS Greek New Testament. If you think that it denies the deity of Christ, look at Jude 5.

ESV:"Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe."

KJV:"I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not."

Look at 2 Peter 1:1

ESV: "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"

KJV:"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:"

Look at Titus 2:13

ESV: "waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"

KJV: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"

 

[Iosias]

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

True, but that is a minority opinion.

Try Evangelical Textual Criticism