15 Comments on The English Standard Version (ESV) Study Bible. “A Dream Come True”?

Byron Kelley said : Guest 5 months ago

I stick with the KJV. It's reliable and was not translated from the corrupt manuscripts that all modern bibles were translated from.

Ralph said : Guest 6 months ago

One point I would like to stress clarifying my other comments on this blog, as you study into the manuscript Bible preservation issue, It will save you a lot of heartache if you first of all understand verbal plenary, inspiration and preservation. Wikipedia and the Dean Burgon Society both do a great job of defining. God bless you all as you seek the truth.

Mary Selander said : Guest 6 months ago

Excellent article. I'm thankful for my father, who did an exhaustive study of the King James and modern versions. He taught us all about Westcott and Hort and the two streams of manuscripts. ALL modern versions come from the corrupt stream of manuscripts (Alexandrian and Siniaticus texts) and ONLY the King James comes from the Masoretic Text. Even the NKJV differs from the KJV and agrees with modern versions, so it is NOT really a KJV modern day revision. Interestingly, for a time he worked as a custodian in a Catholic school. One day while cleaning a classroom, he saw on the board two lists of Bibles that were being compared. On one side was a list of acceptable versions, and EVERY MODERN VERSION was on this list. On the other side was supposed to be a list of corrupted versions. ONLY the KJV was listed as corrupted and not permitted to be read! I think that only spoke volumes.

Mr Hill said : Guest 7 months ago

You are better off sticking to the KJV. The ESV is just another #Catholic Lie & deception. https://www.youtube.com/user/husky394xp/search?query=ESV

Heather said : Guest 7 months ago

Thank you for what you are doing and God bless you! To sola scriptura...I am reading the link you posted and I am understanding like never before what you have discovered and written. Thank you and God Bless you and your family as you serve Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Ralph said : Guest 7 months ago

Pastor Bruce, please take a long hard look at the textual criticism issue. Wescott &Hort, Nestle/Åland and the Roman Catholic/ Jesuit influences relating to the modern bibles, also follow the copyright money trail, then the deception starts to make sense..

T. I. Miller said : Guest 7 months ago

The phrase, older more reliable text, is an assertion at best and possibly a contrivance at worst. This fervor to eliminate scriptures began in the 1800's with the discovery of a tiny few long lost manuscripts alleged to be older. Even so does that then make them more reliable?Wescott/Hort and Nestle/Marshall have made a lot of assumptions. They seem to be the main culprits that caused these deletions to be accepted. Time to examine their assumptions as well their Catholic predilections.

Pastor Bruce K. Oyen said : Guest 7 months ago

I compared all the KJV verses in this article by the semi-anonymous author, Mr. K., with the New KJV. There’s very little difference between the two translations regarding these verses. So, unless one is strictly KJV-only, and unless one believes all differences from the KJV must be rejected, we can use the New KJV as a point of comparison on these verses. This means, if we reject the ESV and NIV because they differ with the KJV on these verses, we can reject those translations because they also differ from the New KJV. Next, I will compare Mr. K’s list of KJV verses with the Modern English Version, which is a very recent revision of the KJV. Blessings! Pastor Bruce K. Oyen

Ralph said : Guest 7 months ago

From my research, the posts by Scott H and Sola Sciptura are exactly right.

Scot H said : Guest 7 months ago

The KJV is the best English translation period. It is based on the correct manuscripts, not the corrupted Alexandrian ones. Look up David W. Daniels; he has made numerous videos and published many books on this subject.

Ralph said : Guest 7 months ago

Excellent article! I have studied this deeply for many years and it is my belief this is why churches and denominations are being destroyed. We lived it first hand in our EFCA Church in Malmo Minnesota.

T. I. Miller said : Guest 7 months ago

I want to thank Art K. for this work of love for the truth. I do question comparing 1 English translation with another English translation, be it KJV or something else. It went to my E-Sword study program where I can scan 13 translations in short order. My RSV eliminates some of the same portions as does the ESV. My Nestle/Marshall Interlinear in the footnotes I read over and over " removed by Nestle ". To answer these thorny question we need to go back to the ancient manuscripts not just the KJV. How does the Greek compare to the Latin and Aramaic? Why did some Greek translation scholars leave everything in and other scholars have no problem eliminating them. Is it because of bias or not? What have you stirred up Art?

Ron DeMitchell said : Guest 7 months ago

Which would you recommend most? I do have a King James Bible on my phone.

Sola Scriptura said : Guest 7 months ago

What is so deceptive about the ESV, is that on its website it claims to build on the scholarship of the KJV, yet it used a completely different set of Greek manuscripts! The translators use the so-called critical Greek Text , which didn’t even exist until 1881. That text uses Greek manuscripts which clearly wax catholic and are of spurious authenticity. The history of the two different streams of Greek manuscripts can be fond at the link below. I strongly believe that any Bible literate Christian should have some measure of understanding of this critical issue: http://followingjesuschrist3.com/2015/10/24/the-bible-version-controversy-a-brief-history/

Ron DeMitchell said : Guest 7 months ago

I was wondering which translation is the best one to have. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are faithful translations, but then there are inaccurate paraphrases.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked