Why the English Standard Version ?

I tried the ESV for awhile - but something was missing. Then one day I realized that it was different than the King James Version that I had read in my past. When I switched back to the KJV, it was like coming home to a place that I had not realized that I had left.

I recently switched from the NASB to the ESV, due to the NASB's watered down translation of the Greek word "porneia" in many places. It translates that word to "immorality" without specifying sexual immorality. I am liking the ESV so far.

The NIV was my first Bible as a believer 13 years ago. Then the NKJV. Never could get into the KJV, or understand the logic of holding so tightly to such an outdated form of English which hardly anyone can understand.

Never could get into the KJV, or understand the logic of holding so tightly to such an outdated form of English which hardly anyone can understand.

Heartsong said: Well, I suppose it is because "it" got a hold on me.

The Word sustains us.

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, it all boils down to Jesus.

Never could get into the KJV, or understand the logic of holding so tightly to such an outdated form of English which hardly anyone can understand.

What part of

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Not speaking to any one person, in particular, the people of this generation are spoiled and seek shortcuts. They are not willing to simply take things on faith they want to completely understand every word. I believe much is not understandable because sin lays in front of our eyes. Our hearts are not clean enough to hold the Truth. Pray for forgiveness and ask for Wisdom, then be grateful for even the crumbs of understanding you receive, they are infinitely more then we deserve - we deserve nothing, all that we receive is a gift. That some receive different gifts is explained within the Book.

kindly, white stone

Dear Greg,

Many cults and abherant groups use the KJV simply to keep people in the dark

Please give me chapter and verse for this statement. Are these 'people in the dark' illiterate? Is there some shield that prevents God Almighty from opening their understanding?

I believe it is God Himself who blocks understanding because of lack of faith/sin through failure to accept Jesus as Saviour. Also, I feel it is a watered down Gospel being preached that is responsible, not the words on the page.

Awaiting the examples,
white stone

Amen Greg, well said.

Whitestone, I was referring to words like "hitherto", "witherto", etc. Such words will have many, especially new believers, waste time looking into dictionaries when they can avoid that by reading modern English words.

From my experience, the KJV, for me, is easier for me to understand than a translation that uses today's version of English, but for those who can't understand, or find it difficult to read the KJV, I encourage you to read a translation that makes sense to you. This is just my line of thinking.

The sad thing with this discussion is that the ones causing division are the KJV only advocates. The rest of us are not calling you a heretic for using the KJV. If you want to use it fine, but dont condemn others for preferring another translation. Can't you respectfully agree to disagree.

sigh

Can't you respectfully agree to disagree.

Should I agree to seeing other believer's led down a dangerous path? NO! It is my duty to warn them of the danger?

If it is the KJV readers who are the division why is it they were here first? (I am not discounting there were other translations before and around the 1611 printing, just that the KJV is the Bible of the common man.) I believe the authors of these newer translations brought on the divisions when they changed God's word.

white stone

Disagreement is the essential ingredient of all tolerance. It's usually okay to express that. I haven't noticed any disrespect so far. Division is unavoidable.

Alive-to-God, maybe I should clarify. If you prefer to use the KJV and do not see it necessary to divide over it, I apologize for my blanket statement. That said, there are some who feel so strongly about it that they disrespect others by stating they have an incomplete or demonized version of the Bible. How can we fellowship if you are going to say that the version of Scripture I use is influenced by satan? Aren't statements like that a cause for division?

I myself started with the NIV @ age 17. I believed in Jesus @ 19 and began devouring the bible in the NIV format and proceeded to memorize certain passages.

Eventually I tried to read a KJV format around the same time (age 19) and i'll just say it was not the same as reading the NIV. I had to look up certain words and get used to the way sentences we're arranged in the older style. Also the KJV I was using didnt have passage titles so it was harder to pick up in the middle of a gospel passage if I wanted to.

Now in days I can read a KJV like any other translation but it took me a bit to get used to.

Zac Poonen reads from "the message" translation, which my friend told me it's the bible in "slang" format, which made me laugh. I been looking into that translation for when I want to quickly go through a passage or something.

Come on man. Many hold beliefs that are influenced by Satan and we still fellowship. For the record, I fellowship with people that use Modern Bible Versions.

777, good to hear you are not one who feels so strongly about it so as to break fellowship. But by the tone of some of who have posted recently on this issue, including you, it seemed as if you feel that strongly about it.

Do you think Satan who counterfeits everything from God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus, would attempt to counterfeit God's WORD. Simple question. Yes or No?

Of course he would try. The same would apply to the KJV. The question to me is, what is the evidence for or against each version and the manuscripts they are based on?. We can respectfully agree to disagree with some of our understandings on the matter without being so condescending toward each other.

If NO one minds, IS the Lutheran translation just the KJV translation just in German?

Does It still have the same message as the KJV then?

It has always been, and ever shall be, a battle between the mind and the heart. There were two trees in the garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life. To endeavor to appeal to the one will necessarily disregard the other. It is a mistake to try to reduce God to fit into man's design. It should always be that man be lifted up to God's.

Hi anonymous777...

The Church has already been conditioned to call advocates of the KJV a cult, hateful, stupid, dumb, narrow-minded, not spiritual and just plain terrible people.

Just so you know, I haven't seen anyone here calling those who prefer the KJV as belonging to "a cult, hateful, stupid, dumb, narrow-minded, not spiritual and just plain terrible people." I have felt a subtle notion implied that those of us who use other versions are somehow "missing" something that is spiritually discerned. This is just not the case.

I certainly disagree with the more extreme advocates of the KJV-only (or nearly KJV-only) identity. There was no ulterior motive for this. There was no desire to hold one version over another. Rather, it was only because of great amounts of honest, sincere and prayerful study.

I hope that you realize that there are many of us who have prayerfully studied this issue in depth with purity of heart and sincerity of motive. We have simply arrived to a different conclusion than the one you have arrived to.

I am thankful to God that many people can find and meet God through His Word -- whether it is via today's English, Old English, Middle English, Spanish, Greek, German, or even an oral language like Tarahumara.

After all, the eternal Word of God is much broader and more far-reaching than any stroke of a pen, the ink or the paper that it is printed upon. It was eternal when the universe came into being, throughout the millennia of the Old Covenant, for the nearly 1600 years from the time of Christ to the printing of the first edition of the KJV and the 400 years since.

An old song:

Standing on the Word

1. Sure is my foundation, for I stand to-day
On the living Word that faileth never.
Earth with all its glory soon must pass away,
But the Word of God shall stand forever.

Chorus
Standing on the Word, Standing on the Word,
Standing on the never failing Word of God;
Tho' many foes assail, His promises cannot fail,
For I'm standing on the never failing Word of God.

2.Fearful are the storms that may around me beat;
Many are the foes that would assail me.
I have found a never failing, sure retreat
In the Word of God cannot fail me.

3.Faith is resting on the promise strong and sure;
Hope is anchored safe and cannot falter;
Peace has found a haven from the storms secure
In the Word of God that cannot alter.

4.Like a beacon star to lead me thro' the night,
Like a light upon my pathway streaming,
Is the Word of God to guide my steps aright
To my homeland with its portals gleaming

a777

I marvel that the things that we have shown that are missing in new versions does not alarm anyone. To me, that is another sign of "conditioning" by the spirit of the age.

Statements like that is what I was referring to, statements that are condescending toward those who do not use the KJV. You see us as lesser Christians who are "conditioned" by the spirit of the age.

a77

It is possible that you won't "see" (understand) it. As the versions change, it seems the Church is being conditioned by the spirit of the age to accept all new versions, too, while at the same time to hold the KJV in utter contempt.

I can turn around and ask, is it possible that you won't "see" (understand) the blinding effect of legalistic views concerning the KJV?

For you to say that the KJV is easier to read in general than the more modern versions shows me how biased you are.

You say that we have a "red herring" regarding this issue. I can turn around and say the same about you but I won't. We can go back and forth with condescending statements but they will get us nowhere brother.

Oracio, by your statements, I don't even know if you have considered what has been omitted, changed or added.

I have prayerfully considered the issue, both sides. There are good arguments on both sides. You seem to deny that there are good arguments for the newer versions. You seem to say that it should be so obvious that your view is the correct one, and you show no respect for the arguments on the other side.

One quick example of good arguments against the KJV is regarding the KJV reading 1 John 5:7, where the Trinity is clearly mentioned.

Regarding that verse, Scholar F.F. Bruce explained it as follows in his book History of the Bible in English:

"They [the words of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV] first appear in the writing of a Spanish Christian leader named Priscillian, who was executed for heresy in A.D. 385. Later they made their way into copies of the Latin text of the Bible. When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity. He replied (rather incautiously) that if he could be shown any Greek manuscript which contained the words, he would include them in his next edition. Unfortunately, a Greek manuscript not more than some twenty years old was produced in which the words appeared: they had been translated into Greek from Latin. Of course, the fact that the only Greek manuscript exhibiting the words belonged to the sixteenth century was in itself an argument against their authenticity, but Erasmus had given his promise, and so in his 1522 edition he included the passage. (Today one or two other very late Greek manuscripts are known to contain the passage; all others omit it.)"

To me the evidence seems to be in favor of the view that those words were added later to the Bible and wrongly included in the KJV.

If you choose to believe that those words are authentic that's okay, we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Hello Oracio,

Yours was the first direction I have read which pointed to a specific verse. I went to my copy of Matthew Henry's Commentary and found he has quite a bit to say on verse 7. It would be well worth anyone's reading but it is so lengthy I am hesitant to paste it here. If you have a copy, please look it up. I would like to hear what you have to say about what he writes. If you do not have a copy maybe it would fit within a PM, I could try, or send it in 2-3 parts if you wished. :)

Kind regards,
white stone

Hi anonymous777...

Paul used sarcasm and condescending statements toward Peter and the Galatians. Some of them woke up and some probably did not. Fortunately, Peter did not let his pride get in the way of simple truth.

Do you see how these words can be misunderstood or construed?

Many believers who prayerfully read from various non-KJV versions ARE very much awake. We are also very studious regarding this topic -- and have honestly and sincerely arrived to a different conclusion that you have.

There is also no "pride" in this. There were no ulterior motives in this. We have prayerfully and diligently studied this matter in great depth and have a very different perspective of it than you do.

I agree with Oracio that the rhetoric could probably be just as unappreciated if such statements were turned around. It would probably be just as unfruitful to use similar rhetoric and publicly ponder if others will "wake up" and "not let pride get in the way of simple truth" regarding the "fact" that the NASB, NIV, ESV and other versions are good and faithful versions of the written Word of God.

As has been pointed out many time before by various members of SermonIndex, most of the differences between the KJV and other versions are NOT "omissions." They are mere differences is source material.

Again, I am greatly thankful to God that many people can find and meet the Lord through His written Word -- no matter the language or version. God has been found by those who diligently seek Him since before a physical, written collection of His Word had even been gathered together.

The Word was present at Creation...throughout the Old Covenant...at the time when He became flesh...for the approximate 1600 years between the time that Christ Jesus walked the Earth and the publication of the first version of the KJV...and the 400 years since. The Word will be present when the Heavens and the Earth are destroyed...and when all things are made new.

I praise God that my wife has grown so much from reading the NIV and a few Spanish versions! She is one of the most honest and sincere believers that I know. I praise God that I have known many believers who deeply hunger and thirst for Christ and find Him in various written translations of His Word. I have attended meetings with indigenous tribes where there isn't even a viable written language (or anyone who can read for that matter) -- yet they LISTEN to the Word of God in tears as it is recited in their native languages.

I am often reminded of the title of Brother Ravenhill's book, "SODOM HAD NO BIBLE." We are so blessed today to have a physical compilation of the books from God's Word. This was an extremely rare commodity before the advent of Guttenburg's printing press (and his translation of the Bible). For the vast majority of human history, most people on Earth did not have access to a collection of the books of the Word of God bound together in one place. Now, we can go to the store and buy one for as little as a few dollars -- or even access it online in any language for free.

I just pray that we can show fruit for this investment that many men have given measures of devotion. During such discussions, I often think of the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30). We have been given this great and precious "talent" -- a written version of the Word of God. I pray that we don't just "bury" it under the dirt or bushel of this world, but that can show a fruitful return.

Whit_Stone, due to lack of time I was able to briefly read Henry's lengthy commentary on that verse. Interesting points. Lord willing I plan on prayerfully going through it slower soon. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.