ESV Erases Jesus' Miracle Escape

ESV Erases Jesus' Miracle Escape

I was wondering how long it would be before this contentious issue got raised again. Well, here goes...

The video presents yet another fallacious argument based on the a priori assumption that the KJV is the standard against which all other translations should be measured. It isn't, and never was. All that such a comparison can accomplish is to show differences. It can't demonstrate which is "the" correct version, and anyone who argues from that assumption isn't presenting a logically defensible argument.

The KJV is simply one translation. It's not "the true Bible" any more than any other translation. An equally valid argument would be, "The KJV has words added that are not in Scripture and so has corrupted the word of God".

If you want to learn about this issue, please consider reading some non-KJV-only material on the subject. I recommend James White's The King James Only Controversy (2nd edn.). Also read the Preface to the Reader written by the KJV translators themselves.

By all means, read the KJV if that's what you prefer. Just don't propagate fallacies and foster divisive debates about it.

Yes, by all means read James White(sarcasm, sorry), the Calvinist, a man who has no authority but himself. James White is his own final authority on what God has said.

Inspiration without preservation is worthless.

What do you mean by preservation?

And yes; Im aware that this isn't a KJBO site.

The KJV is my go-to Bible, but I read other translations also.

But, if I could only own one version, the KJV would be the one.

I have worn out 3 King Jimmy's and the one I have now I have to super glue the pages in...a Cambridge Berkshire Leather wide margin black letter edition......but.....I always study every word form the Greek and Hebrew to gain a full understanding of that the words meant when they were penned......

I listened to the video again; just now, to try to be absolutely sure. I'm going to have to ask; is there a reason that the ESV does delete; what the KJ, says? Or are you saying; the answer to that, is in those books you recommended? Please know; I'm not trying to be a jerk in my question. I'm being very honest and genuine in my question.
I do see the sensitivity in this issue on genuine vrs counterfeit.
I see the very importance of the KJB; and don't do much comparisons myself in absolutely every verse as Dave Flang reveals; or SEEMS to reveal.
The very fact that KJ says something further for John 8:59; that the ESV DOES delete, means what?

God inspired every word...God has preserved every word. God can preserve His very words in any language He so chooses.

Ditto!

My view exactly.

KING JIMMY is the best. Because that form of english HATH some authority and punch to it.

I like it because when someone quotes KJV, you can instantly know "OK this is scripture" because it sounds different from every day speech.

What God says about His word:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Jeremiah 26:2 Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:

Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

with that said...

Matthew 18:11
KJV For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
ESV missing

Is Matthew 18:11 Scripture? If it is, then all versions not containing it should be condemned. If it's not Scripture, then the KJV should be condemned.

Many people assume the KJV is "the true Bible" not because of any objective reason, but because of familiarity with it. They are familiar with and may have memorized the wording of many of its passages. Someone comes along and reads a different translation, and those familiar with the KJV will compare the new version to the KJV. Any difference from the KJV may be perceived as "incorrect" or even "corrupted". Now consider the reverse: someone grows up with the ESV, becomes familiar with it, and memorizes many passages. Then someone comes along and reads a familiar passage from the KJV. The ESV reader will have every reason to think that the KJV is "incorrect" or even "corrupted". The flaw with this reasoning is in overlooking the fact that both the KJV and the ESV are translations, and not the originals as penned by Paul, Peter, and the others.

The KJV was translated primarily translated from seven printed Greek editions, not directly from manuscripts. The translators checked then-available materials such as earlier English versions (from which the KJV draws heavily), and some foreign-language versions. Now, there are almost 6,000 manuscripts available for the Greek NT, and a great many in other early languages, that were simply not available for examination in 1611. Most modern translations, including the ESV, were translated with reference to this much larger body of source material.

Where a passage contains certain words in the KJV that aren't found in the ESV, you can be certain that there is a good reason why, even though you may not agree with the reason. Most of those "missing" words can likely be found in footnotes. The reality is that they aren't "missing" at all; the translators made a decision that those words don't belong because they probably weren't in the original text. There are words and entire passages whose provenance is questionable; there is scholarly debate on whether such words were actually written by the author of that text. 1 John 5:7 is in this category. The KJV also contains a great many words that weren't in the original languages; the translators added them for one reason or another. Most of these are printed in italics today. Should we toss the KJV because there is so much "added" to the text?

Instead of assuming that words not present in the ESV were "deleted", assume that there are differences in source material and that the scholars who do the challenging work of translation are doing their best to present a sound, accurate, and reliable text. Differences are just that - differences. You'd have to look to the JW's and Mormons to find intentional corruption of the biblical text.

Or, you can be easily deceived by someone quoting Shakespeare and passing it off as Scripture.

It's best to be familiar with the text itself, not merely with the language.

Yawn. I'm not going to bother to refute an argument that is fundamentally flawed.

How do you support these assertions from Scripture?

Never! I dont read shakespeare or any of that fancy stuff.

THE CARAVAN RIDES ON!

That's not true. The KJV was the standard English Bible for over 300 years. All you have to do is check out all the Bible study tools and conservative commentaries from the 17th to the 20th century. The ESV is just another corrupt modern version, and people should wake up.

Fallacy: false equivocation.

Different =/= corrupt.

yon Cassius hath a lean and hungry look . . .

why are you picking on ESV? a dozen other major versions which came before ESV don't have 'through the midst' either.

even Darby:

brackets this phrase.