{"id":5003,"date":"2017-11-20T10:48:13","date_gmt":"2017-11-20T15:48:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cristolaverdad.com\/?p=5003"},"modified":"2024-05-29T20:03:02","modified_gmt":"2024-05-30T00:03:02","slug":"is-the-esv-english-standard-version-a-good-bible-translation-pt-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/cristolaverdad.com\/?p=5003","title":{"rendered":"Is the ESV (English Standard Version) a Good Bible Translation? Pt.3"},"content":{"rendered":"
This entry is part 3 of 4 in the series Bible Versions<\/a><\/div>
\n

The ESV changes more than 2,800 words to make it a gender-neutral<\/strong> bible (Gnostics believe in a both gender or androgynous god).<\/p>\n

Many bible verses<\/strong> are completely missing from the New Testament of the ESV, the RSV & all modern bible versions, including the Jehovah Witness’ version “New World Translation” NWT (except the Modern English Version<\/strong> MEV which uses the Majority Text) : Matthew 12:47, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, Luke 24:40, John 5:4, Acts 8:37<\/strong>,\u00a0Acts 15:34,\u00a0Acts 24:7,\u00a0Acts 28:29,\u00a0Romans 16:24.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

But there are many more changes, you can see some tables of comparison, ( remember ERV is the basis for ESV,\u00a0 with only 5%-10% of changes from original ERV): differences<\/strong><\/a>. Altered Verses<\/a>,\u00a0 Another Bible – Another Gospel<\/a>,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Bible Version Comparison<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

A quick test that we can do to find out is: Any version of the Bible which omits Acts 8:37<\/strong>, “<\/em>Philip said, \u201cIf you believe <\/strong>with all your heart<\/strong>, you may.\u201d (be baptize) He answered, \u201cI believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God<\/strong><\/em>.<\/strong>\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>and that also omits the words “through his blood<\/em><\/strong>” in Col. 1:14<\/strong>\u00a0 “In whom we have redemption through his blood, <\/span>even the forgiveness of sins:<\/span><\/em>”\u00a0 then evidently has for its foundation a corrupted manuscript.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

We will talk more about the Textus Receptus (or Majority Text) in future posts. But for now it is very important to understand that there are many antique bibles found, many are older than the Greek Alexandria texts<\/strong> (Sinaiticus & Vaticanus dated 4th century AD) and that follow closer the Textus Receptus, but are not<\/strong> been considered by modern translations, only because they are in a different language than Greek. Examples:<\/p>\n

Syrian bibles<\/strong>, with some major versions: The Peshitta, with more than 350 manuscript some as early (A.D. 145) but some others as old as 5th century (the Peshitta is considered the third & last stream<\/a> of family manuscripts, an Aramaic translation that even it is close to Textus Receptus it has significant<\/strong> variations ).\u00a0 The Diattessaron<\/a>, Syriac Bible (A.D. 165-175), the Old Syriac (A.D. 400), the Palestinian Syriac (A.D. 450), and the Philoxenian (A.D. 508) This last one was revised by Thomas of Harkel, in A.D. 616, and because of that it’s also known as the Harclean Syriac.<\/p>\n

The Old<\/span> Latin<\/span> Vulgate or Italia<\/em> 157 A.D<\/strong>. (this is not Jerome’s Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. but this translation was made for the young churches established in the northern Italian Alps & was one of the manuscripts used by Erasmus<\/a>), notice it was made two hundred years <\/span>before<\/span> the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus<\/strong> were produced, & a full century before the theorized “Lucian Recension”),.<\/p>\n

The Waldensian<\/strong> (A.D. 120 & onwards), The Gallic Bible<\/strong> A.D. 177 (Southern France), The Gothic Bible<\/strong> (A.D. 330-350), The Armenian Bible<\/strong> (A.D. 400) There are around 1,244 copies of this bible version still in existence today! But if all these wasn’t enough, the New Testament quotations of the writings of the early church, Chrysostom, the early Fathers of Antioch in Asia Minor, etc.\u00a0 (more than 86,000 citations from Scriptures) agree with the Textus Receptus manuscripts .<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The King James Bible is one of the most well known translations in the English language that uses the Textus Receptus. But other Bibles translated from the Textus Receptus or Received Text<\/strong> (Majority Text) are also good, the only problem is there are just few bibles left today . Example: \u2018The Interlinear Bible\u2019 by Jay P. Green Sr. ; The George Ricker Berry, Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, the World Publishing, 1997, 1999 ; The \u2018New King James\u2019 Bible (even it has a few changes, uses Textus Rec.) & also the \u2018Modern English Translation\u2019.<\/p>\n

I’m sure there are Bibles in other languages that use Textus Receptus or Received Text. In Spanish we have the Reina-Valera 1960 & older versions like la Biblia del Oso- RV 1569<\/a>, etc.<\/p>\n

If you want to find out that your Bible is a good translation, then just look if omits Acts 8:37<\/a>, and\/or the word \u201cthrough his blood<\/strong>\u201d in Col. 1:14<\/a>\u00a0 or any of this verses Matthew 12:47, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, Luke 24:40, John 5:4, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24. Also check Basic steps to Bible Study.<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Related Articles:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Does it Really Matter?<\/a><\/p>\n

Problems with the Scofield Bible<\/a><\/p>\n

Is the ESV a Trustworthy Translation?<\/a><\/p>\n

ESV vs. KJV<\/a><\/p>\n

ESV owned by National Council of Churches<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Common English Bible<\/a><\/p>\n

What About the NASB, NIV & Other Translations?<\/a><\/p>\n

The English Standard Version Exposed<\/a><\/p>\n

The Semitic New Testament<\/a><\/p>\n

The History of English Bible Revision<\/a><\/p>\n

NIV Test<\/a><\/p>\n