A critique and review (book Review) of the Errant and Sloppy Evangelical Standard Version of the Bible -
The E.S.V.
Emergency Sloppy Version ?
Introduction to the Article Below
There are several things to keep in mind as you read the Article below. Some background information is needed to help with the article that follows. You are worth investing this time in yourself. After all, its Your Spiritual Life.
The Changing Definitions of the words "Dead Sea Scrolls"
The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of parchments and manuscripts that were found in the Middle East, in Israel in 1947/48. Many Christians are under the impression that these Dead Sea Scrolls were all Christian Scrolls dealing only with the Old Testament. That is not the case. The Dead Sea Scrolls - at that time - already were a collection of scrolls from at least 3 sources:
1. Occult scrolls - Scrolls containing material related to occult activity
2. Material purporting to come from the Essenes. This very point is still controversial. But it is clear that the Dead Sea Scrolls do appear to contain material from the Essenes. This is a group of Renegades who rejected the teachings of the Old Testament. They were not Christian and there is Zero basis to think that they were (though Textual Critics keep hoping we will all be deluded into thinking that they have discovered "true" Christians...anything except Jesus Christ - ...)
3. Material that was part of the Hebrew Old Testament. These are Old Testament books that were dated to 200 B.C. They are significant because they are the oldest copies of the Old Testament ever discovered. Those copies were demonstrated to have been written before the time of the Christians. Therefore this demonstrates that Christians did NOT tamper with the Old Testament [which also - was a charge made by Bible-Attacking Textual Critics]
These Old Testament Books were written in Hebrew. The Old Testament of the King James Version agrees 100% with the Hebrew Massoretic Texts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
That is very different from the Other versions of the Old Testament used by Modern Bibles. Those Modern Versions use the Hebrew Text of Ben Asher (Leningrad Codex) which is a corrupt Manuscript and proven to be dated to more than 1200 years AFTER the Massoretic Texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls - that the King James Version Agrees with.
The Problem for the term Dead Sea Scrolls comes where this term is being used to justify serious changes made to the Old Testament, and then sold to Evangelicals either as an "improvement" or as a "clarification".
The Problem is that the meanings of the verses and the passages of the Old Testament (& New) in the Modern Versions are being errased and altered. This presents the initial problem of the attack on the Bible, and is a demonstration that Textual Critics are very much still around and certainly hard at work...on the Bible.
But the additional problem is HOW the Bible is being attacked. You can notice - in the following article, that DATES and NUMBERS are being changed. This may seem insignificant. But what happens is that First the Textual Critics (Bible Attackers) change the Dates used in the Bible. And then, Second - they use the Fact of the New Dates {which they are responsible for changing} as the basis to assert that the Old Testament cannot be relied upon, and that the manuscripts have been altered.
The implications by the Bible Attackers is that the Bible was changed long ago. But when we follow the paths of the Textual Critics, and when we read, study and learn the Bible as we need to, we come to understand that the changes being made to the Old Testament are changes that have taken place in the past 150 years, and many of them within the past 40 years.
Those changes are not the product of confusion nor of textual ambiguity. No, the Bible knows what it says, and was clear in the meaning that the passage originally has had, and has retained for 2000 years. In the King James Version, this meaning is STILL retained.
But in the new Modern Versions, the text is being changed and actually MADE Confusing, in such a way that exegetical or in-depth study becomes impossible...using the English Versions. This is the goal of those Textual Critics: To ensure that despite your wishes, that you come to understand, and accept the delusion that the Bible cannot be relied upon.
It turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy: the Modern Bibles become unreliable, not [only] because they were based on unreliable manuscripts, but because they have been Made to be Unreliable.
Many Changes have been introduced and continue to be introduced ...in the modern versions...using the term "Dead Sea Scrolls" as the justifying basis for the change. It is important to keep in mind that when this term is being used, it often - these days - no longer refers to the Dead Sea Scrolls discoverd in 1947/48. Since that time, Many OTHER Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered. And it is according to these new Corrupted Manuscripts - that the Modern Editors of Modern Versions of the Bible are presently Referring to.
We need to be very careful in referring to the Dead Sea Scroll. Textually Speaking all ancient manuscripts are Catalogued and Assigned a Name & Number. That is standard procedure in dealing with Textual Criticism and with Ancient Manuscripts & Papyrology.
It is worth remembering that we - the Public - are NOT being given Access - to the exact number or name of which Parchments & Scrolls were used...to make the changes that Will - has described below. That is not accidental either.
After all, one of the goals of those who subvert history, is to destroy the historical record. It is not that they do not know what History actually says or records. It is only that they wish to make sure that you don't.
The Changing Definitions of the word "Septuagint"
This word - SEPTUAGINT - use to refer to the manuscripts of the Old Testament, that were written (supposedly) in Greek, and translated before the time of Christ. However, Westcott & Hort - with their version in 1881 and the help of Kittel later, altered the meaning of this word.
The Connotation when you are reading this word "Septuagint" in the margins or notes of a Bible, are that you are supposed to think that the terms or usage or explanations being used or refered to...are coming from the Actual Real and Authentic Genuine Septuagint.
The Problem is that this is NOT the case. When these notes are mentioning the word "Septuagint", they no longer mean the original Septuagint. What they INSTEAD mean...is the Septuagint of Westcott & Hort. The Septuagint of Westcott & Hort means Codex Sinaiticus & Codex Vaticanus.
No one knows today what the text of the Real and Genuine Septuagint is supposed to have looked like. And while many are willing to concede that a Greek Translation of some of the Old Testament was actually done, the problem is that no one is able to conclusively prove or demonstrate...what Books of the Bible that Septuagint contained.
The Answer is bleak for the Septuagint, but hopeful for Christians. If God wanted us to have the Septuagint, he would have preserved it. No 2 scholars nor manuscripts can agree on almost any point about the Septuagint.
And there are no copies of the Septuagint which exist today. IT was Westcott & Hort who began to refer to Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus AS being the Septuagint. But this was purely an artificial device of their own choice. The Reason is simple: they wanted to imbue their own invented Greek text with the illusion of Authenticitity.
In order to do this, they simply started referring to their invented Versions of the Bible and Cited "The Septuagint". As Kinney demonstrates below, even the R.V. (of 1881) which IS the actual version of Westcott & Hort used word "Septuagint" to validate itself, but when this is tested, the R. V. [Revised Version & Ancestor to the E.S.V] falls flat on its face over and over.
It is usefull to remember that Codex Sinaiticus has a nice name. But it has only existed for the public since Tischendorf, a german Textual Critics who does not appear to have been saved in any sense of the word, brought this back from an Orthodox monastery where it had been previously discarded and was being thrown out. Students of the Bible had previously studied the manuscripts, but the Orthodox of the 1800s knew that it had to be corrupt because it did not follow their Byzantine manuscripts of the New Testament Greek Text (which agrees with the Textus Receptus and the King James Version).
Tischendorf obtained this text with the help of the Pope and then used this for his last edition of the Bible. Kittel and other Textual Critics then used this NEW version of the Bible, and cited it for their own Bible, as the Septuagint. Westcott & Hort constantly praised Tischendorf's work, because they knew that it contradicted the Bibles used for 1800 years, and this fit with their purposes.
Conclusion: when you read the word "Septuagint", remember it is only the Fake Septuagint of Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These texts have Nothing to do with any original or authentic Septuagint.
The E.S.V.
The so-called 2001 English Standard Version is now heavily being promoted by many churches. It is a revision of the old Revised Standard Version, which earlier met with almost universal condemnation by evangelicals as being "liberal". Yet in the last few decades the church has been "softened up" by numerous conflicting bible versions like the NASB and NIV to now be ready to accept with open arms what it once rejected. In fact, the ESV is so close to the NASB & RSV that it had to obtain copyright permission for its english text, just to make sure that it was not accused of wholesale plagiarism.
John Piper of Desiring God Ministries says: "When I turned 15 my parents gave me a beautiful, leather-bound King James Bible. I loved it....God met me in this book day after day when I was a teenager...Three and a half years later as a freshman at Wheaton I picked up the first Bible I ever bought for myself, a Revised Standard Version. It was close enough to the King James so that I felt at home, but its English was not Elizabethan; it was my English. This became my reading, meditating, memorizing Bible for the next 37 years... I would be happy to see the NIV sail into the sunset if it could be replaced by the ESV as the standard preaching, reading, memorizing Bible of the English-speaking church... I have longed that there be something more readable than the NASB and more literal than the NIV. The NIV is a paraphrase with so much unnecessary rewording and so much interpretation that I could not preach from it...I am simply arguing that the ESV is the best balance available of readability and literalness. I hope that it becomes the standard for the church."
(Comment: There are numerous and profound differences between the KJV and the RSV. After studying this issue for several years now, I certainly am not of the opinion that the RSV is "close enough")
It is interesting that Piper bases some of his books on earlier books of the Reformation, but he can't quite bring himself to use the Bible that were good enough for them.
Doug Kutilek - a pro Modern-Version advocate - said in a recent "As I See It", that he'll probably make the ESV his version of choice replacing the NIV.
Alan Jacobs, professor of English at the "always liberalizing" Wheaton College, writing in the December 2003 edition of First Things magazine says: "It is the ESV’s balance of thorough, up-to-date scholarship and deference to the elders’ wisdom that makes it the best available English Bible. What this means, further, is that the ESV is the best candidate yet for the long-hoped-for “replacement” of the KJV, the translation that bridges denominational gaps and strikes the right balance among the virtues of clarity, correctness, and grace."
Sadly, some big name Christians listed on the ESV website as giving glowing recommendations of this version include: R.C. Sproul, Max Lucado, Joni Eareckson Tada, John F. Walvoord, and Erwin Lutzer.
The Truth - as we will see - is that the ESV New Testament is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text which differs from the Traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Bible; it omits some 5000 words, including 18 entire verses in the New Testament alone. The Old Testament of the ESV is a "random mixture" of texts from the Hebrew Masoretic tradition, many readings from the alleged pre-Christian Greek Septuagint ( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ), Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and the Roman Catholic Vulgate. It is the old RSV in a new garb.
I firmly believe God has preserved His infallible, inspired, pure and complete words in the King James Version. Without exception, on a personal level, I have never met a modern version promoter who believes that any text, be it Hebrew or Greek, or any Bible in any language is the actual & infallible Word and words of God that he would not change, alter or correct according to his own understanding, if only given the chance. By that point, Each one then becomes his own scholar and makes up his personalized bible version as he goes along.
To do this on the basis of actual research would be one thing. But to do this on the basis of an arbitrary selection is something else entirely. This begs the question: if we are truly not going to be arbitrary in our choice of which words to include or which ones to omit, then should we not simply and finally accept Gods Word, as God's Words - and treat them with the Holiness and Reverence that they deserve, and that the historical record supports ?
As you read through these few examples, keep in mind what God Himself says of His words. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it." Deut. 4:2; "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6; "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35.
The examples in this study are just a small portion of all that could be given of where the ESV departs from the Hebrew Masoretic texts and follows the [false & invented] Septuagint (LXX)( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ), poor Syriac texts, Samaritan Pentateuch, the Roman Catholic Vulgate, or some of the Dead Sea Scrolls that are clearly apocryphal and/or false.
Not to leave any basis for uncertainty unrequited, this same ESV will footnote the readings of the Septuagint, Syriac, or Dead Sea Scrolls, but then not follow them. The inevitable result is confusion for the reader and uncertainty regarding what God has said to us.
To avoid writing a 40 page essay on this subject for the moment, I will only cover some of the more blatant examples found in the 2001 English Standard Version from Genesis through Second Samuel. This should be enough to show there are very real and substantial textual differences between the historic King James Version and the Greek texts from which it is derived and the ESV and the 1% of false greek texts which it is based upon.
Genesis 47:21 "And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof." So read the Hebrew text, the NKJV, and NASB.
The NIV, ESV, RSV read: "As for the people, HE MADE SERVANTS OF THEM from one end of Egypt to the other." Footnote: Samaritan, Septuagint, Vulgate; Hebrew "he removed them to the cities".
Genesis 49:10 "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, UNTIL SHILOH COME: and unto him shall the gathering of the people be."
The ESV reads: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples." Footnote tells us to compare the Syriac, and Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads: "until Shiloh comes". "Shiloh" is found in the NASB, NKJV, but the NIV also omits the word and reads as the old (W & H) RSV: "until he comes to whom it belongs".
Exodus 14:25 Speaking of the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites as they crossed the Red Sea, the KJV and the Hebrew text says that the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians: "And TOOK OFF their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily."
So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, and even the NIV, but the RSV, ESV say God was "CLOGGING their chariot wheels". The NASB also rejects the Hebrew reading and says "He caused their chariot wheels TO SWERVE". Now, I have had my car wheels swerve on ice, but not yet have they come off. The ESV at least informs us in a footnote (the NASB never does), that "clogging" comes from the Samaritan, Syriac and [fake] LXX, but that the Hebrew reads "removed the wheels". Actually they are fibbing just a bit when they refer to what the so called Septuagint (LXX)( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ) says. The copy I have reads: "The Lord looked forth on the camp of the Egyptians....AND BOUND THE AXLE-TREES of their chariots."
Deuteronomy 11:14, 15. Here Moses is speaking for God and he says: "... I will give you the rain of your land...And I will send grass in thy fields...". So read the NKJV, ASV, RV, and even the NIV. The NASB at least up through the 1972 edition also followed the Hebrew texts and read this way, but in 1977, and again in 1995 the NASB decided to "adjust" [read: Change] and follow the Samaritan, the Roman Catholic Vulgate and the [fake] LXX, and reads as do the RSV, and ESV with: "HE will give you the rain...and HE will send grass...". ESV footnote: "He - Samaritan, Septuagint, Vulgate" ;Significantly, the Hebrew says "I".
Deuteronomy 30:16 The KJV, NASB, NIV, and Hebrew texts read: "In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God..." However the RSV, and ESV add a bunch of words not found in any Hebrew text. The RSV, ESV say: "IF YOU OBEY THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD YOUR GOD that I command you today by loving the LORD your God..." The Justifying Footnote remains unclear and fails to disclose ALL that is being omitted: The Footnote States: LXX; Hebrew lacks "if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God".
Deuteronomy 32:8 "When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children OF ISRAEL."
So read the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RV, ASV. But the RSV and ESV say: "he fixed the borders of the people according to the number of the SONS OF GOD." Then footnotes: Compare Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint [ i.e. which is the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ]; Masoretic Hebrew text "Israel". I don't know how the Dead Sea Scrolls read, but the ESV doesn't even read like the Septuagint. The LXX (Septuagint) reads "angels of God", not "sons of God".
This looks like just another attempt to muddy the waters on the meaning of the term "Sons of God". In turn, that would lay the groundwork for a re-interpretation of what that term means...even though it is found nowhere in the original Hebrew of this passage.
And it is more confusing in that this is an omission of which Children are being Referred to. According to the Hebrew, the Original designation is the "children" OF ISRAEL.
Deuteronomy 32:43 "Rejoice, O YE NATIONS, WITH HIS PEOPLE." So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV. However the ESV is - to be kind - really messed up. Keep in mind that the ESV is itself a revision of the older liberal RSV {supervised by 9 Jesus-denying Textual Critics}, and the RSV says: "PRAISE HIS PEOPLE, O YOU NATIONS."
Then the NEW RSV came out in 1989 and it says: "PRAISE, O HEAVENS, HIS PEOPLE, WORSHIP HIM ALL YOU GODS."
And finally the ESV comes out in 2001 and it says: "REJOICE WITH HIM, O HEAVENS; BOW DOWN TO HIM ALL GODS." As you can see, neither the RSV, NRSV, nor ESV agree even among themselves, let alone with the King James Versions and all the others that follow the Hebrew texts.
The ESV now has a footnote that tells us their reading of "Rejoice with him, O heavens; bow down to him all gods" comes from "Dead Sea Scroll, Septuagint", but that the Hebrew reads as does the King James Bible. The Septuagint copy I have ( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ) does not agree with the ESV reading either but says: "Rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him."
Deuteronomy 32:43 part 2 :"For he will avenge the blood of his SERVANTS, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people." This is basically the reading found in the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and even the RSV. However beginning with the NRSV, and continuing with the ESV we now read: "For he avenges the blood of his CHILDREN, and takes vengeance on his adversaries. HE REPAYS THOSE WHO HATE HIM and cleanses his people's land."
Then the ESV, NRSV footnote admits that the word "children" comes from the Dead Sea Scroll and the fake Septuagint, but the Hebrew Masoretic text reads "servants"; and that the Masoretic text lacks "He repays those who hate him".
It would be interesting if verses like this become the basis to ban the Bible as "hate-speech", especially as we can understand that this is simply an ESV rendering that is found nowhere in the original Hebrew text of this passage.
Judges 14:15 "And it came to pass ON THE SEVENTH DAY, that they said unto Samson's wife..." So read all Hebrew texts and the RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Geneva, Spanish, Diodati, and many others, but the RSV, ESV, NASB, and NIV all say: "on THE FOURTH DAY". Footnote: 4th day comes from Syriac and [fake] LXX ( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ), but the Hebrew says "the 7th day".
[For an explanation of this apparent contradiction see forthcoming article]
Judges 16:13 Here the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV all unite in adding these 17 words "and fasten it with a pin. Then I shall become weak and be like any other man." This reading comes from the fake Septuagint, but is not found in any Hebrew manuscript nor in the RV, ASV, NKJV, Syriac, Young's, Geneva or Darby.
1 Samuel 1:24 "And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, WITH THREE BULLOCKS, and one ephah of flour..." So read all Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, Geneva Bible, NKJV, Young's, and others. But the NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV unite in reading: "she took him up with her, along with A THREE-YEAR-OLD BULL". Footnote tells us this comes from the Syriac and LXX( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ), but the Hebrew reads "three bullocks".
1 Samuel 2:33 "And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume THINE eyes, and to grieve THINE heart." So read the NKJV, NASB, NIV, but the RSV, ESV say: "to weep HIS eyes out to grieve HIS heart", then tell us in a footnote that this reading comes from the LXX( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ), but that the Hebrew reads "your" (thine).
I Samuel 6:19 "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN MEN (50,070): and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
Agreeing with the KJV reading of 50,070 men slain are the RV, ASV, NKJV, Geneva Bible, the JeWISH translations, Spanish, and even the NASB AND also the Septuagint! However the NIV, RSV, and ESV tell us that the LORD "struck 70 men of them". They just made up this number because they want to think the texts have been corrupted. (it gave them more liscence to make additional changes) Not even the Syriac agrees with the ESV because it says 5000 and 70.
[Article about the above passage forthcoming]
1 Samuel 9:25 When Saul went to Samuel and he was anointed king of Israel we read: "And when they were come down from the high place into the city, SAMUEL COMMUNED WITH SAUL UPON THE TOP OF THE HOUSE."
So read the Hebrew texts, and even the NASB, NIV, NKJV. However the RSV, ESV say: "And when they came down from the high place into the city, A BED WAS SPREAD FOR SAUL ON THE ROOF, AND HE LAY DOWN TO SLEEP." Then in a footnote the ESV confesses to us that this reading comes from the Septuagint ( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ), but that the Hebrew reads like the KJV, NASB, NIV, and NKJV. The meaning is not at all the same. The RSV, ESV also change the Hebrew texts in verse 24 where the Hebrew says: "I have invited the people", but the LXX ( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ) says "that you might eat with the guests".
Then just two verses later in 1 Samuel 10:1 the RSV, ESV add a whole bunch of words not found in the Hebrew texts nor in the NASB, NIV, NKJV. The KJV, as well as the NASB, NIV, says: "Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?" BUT, the RSV, ESV say: "Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, Has not the LORD anointed you to be prince over HIS PEOPLE ISRAEL? AND YOU SHALL REIGN OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE LORD AND YOU WILL SAVE THEM FROM THE HAND OF THEIR SURROUNDING ENEMIES. AND THIS SHALL BE THE SIGN TO YOU THAT THE LORD HAS ANOINTED YOU TO BE PRINCE OVER his heritage."
All the words in capital letters are not found in the Hebrew, but they are brought in from the Septuagint version of Westcott & Hort which is wildly different than the Hebrew texts in hundreds and hundreds of passages.
In 1 Samuel 13:1 the KJV says: "Saul reigned ONE year: and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel...." Agreeing with the KJV reading are the RV, ASV, Geneva Bible, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, Hebrew Names Version, Young's, NKJV, Diodati, Webster's, and the Third Millenium Bible.
However the RSV, ESV say: "Saul was ....years old when he began to reign, and he reigned ....and two years over Israel." The NASBs from the 1960s through 1972 and 1977 said: "Saul was 40 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 32 years"; but the 1995 NASB Update now agrees with the NIV and says: Saul was 30 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 42 years." Hey, they all mean the same thing, right? "He was .....years old = he was 40 years old = he was 30 years old = he reigned one year".
[Article about this verse forthcoming]
1 Samuel 13:15 "And Samuel arose, and gat him up from Gilgal unto Gibeah of Benjamin. And Saul numbered the people that were present with him, about six hundred men."
So read the Hebrew texts as well as the NASB, NIV. However the RSV, and ESV add a whole bunch of words from the LXX ( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ). The RSV, ESV read: "And Samuel arose and went up FROM GILGAL. THE REST OF THE PEOPLE WENT UP AFTER SAUL TO MEET THE ARMY; THEY WENT UP from Gilgal to Gibeah of Benjamin."
1 Samuel 14:41 Again, in this verse all the words in capital letters have been added to the RSV, ESV from the LXX (so they say) but they are not found in the NASB, NIV, NKJV.
The KJV, as well as the NASB, NIV, says: "Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped."
The RSV, ESV read, adding all these words, "Therefore Saul said, O LORD God of Israel, WHY HAVE YOU NOT ANSWERED YOUR SERVANT THIS DAY? IF THIS GUILT IS IN ME OR IN JONATHAN MY SON, O LORD, GOD OF ISRAEL, GIVE URIM. BUT IF THIS GUILT IS IN YOUR PEOPLE ISRAEL, GIVE THUMMIN. And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped."
Then in a footnote the ESV admits that these additional words inserted into the Old Testament come from the Septuagint. However my copy of the Septuagint does not read like the ESV says it does. It says instead "Lord God of Israel, give clear manifestations; and if the lot should declare this, give, I pray thee, to thy people Israel, give, I pray, holiness. And Jonathan and Saul are taken..." Quite different from them all, isn't it?
2 Samuel 7:16 Here God is speaking to David and He says: "And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before THEE: thy throne shall be established for ever."
"Before THEE" is the reading of all Hebrew texts, as well as the Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby, Young's, Geneva and others, but the NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV follow the Septuagint ( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other )instead of the Hebrew and say: "your kingdom shall be made sure before ME".
2 Samuel 15:7 "And it came to pass after FORTY years, that Absalom said unto the king..."
There is no question that the Hebrew texts all read FORTY years and so do the Jewish translations, the KJV, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, Young's, Darby, Geneva, Douay, Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and the Third Millenium Bible.
I know of at least three explanations as to what the "40 years" may be referring. Number One - the 40 years refers to the time since David was originally anointed to be king, as recorded in 1 Samuel 16:13, which occured several years before he actually began to reign as king. Number Two - it could refer to the age of Absalom at this time. Number Three - Absalom's mother was Maachah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur. Years before, David had invaded the Geshurites and killed many of their people, perhaps 40 years had passed, and now Absalom sought vengeance on behalf of his mother and her people.
In any case, the NIV, RSV, ESV all change this number to "after FOUR years", and the ESV says this reading comes from the Septuagint and Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads 40 years. Again, this is misleading. The copy of the Septuagint that I have ( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ) says 40 years, and the NIV footnote says "SOME Septuagint copies say 4 years".
2 Samuel 21:8-9 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah...and the five sons of MICHAL the daughter of Saul, whom she BROUGHT UP FOR Adriel...and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD; and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest..."
MICHAL is the reading of all Hebrew texts and the reading of the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Geneva, Spanish, and Third Millenium Bibles. But the RSV, NASB, NIV, and ESV all change this to MERAB the daughter of Saul, instead of MICHAL, based they say on two Hebrew manuscripts, the Syriac and the Septuagint (which is not from the Hebrew since the current one is from the Greek of Origen)( the "septuagint" i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ), even though most Hebrew manuscripts read Michal. However, again, there is still a problem with the above explanation - because the copy of the Septuagint I have STILL - in this case - says Michal, as does the KJV. The NIV footnotes says "SOME LXX mss. read Merab".
The simple explanation is that though Michal had no children of her own, she did bring up these five children, possibly as a step-mother after her sister had died. Always give the benefit of the doubt to the truth of Scripture rather than altering the text just because you don't understand its truth.
2 Samuel 23:18, 19 "And Abishai, the brother of Joab...was chief among THREE...Was he not most honourable of THREE?"
So read the KJV, NKJV, NIV, RV, ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby, AND the Septuagint. However the RSV, NASB, and ESV say "THIRTY", based on two Hebrew manuscripts and the Syriac. The simple explanation is that the "three" refers back to verse 13 where we read that "three of the thirty chief went down, and came to David in the harvest time unto the cave of Adullam."
2 Samuel 24:13 "So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall SEVEN years of famine come unto thee in thy land?"
So read all Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, NASB, Jewish translations, Geneva, Darby, Young's, and even the Syriac. However the NIV, RSV, and ESV change this number to THREE years, based on the Septuagint versions ( i.e. the 1% - sinaiticus & vaticanus that contradict each other ). In 1 Chronicles 21:12 the number recorded is three years, yet there is a simple way to explain this apparent contradiction. Instead of believing the infallible word of God and asking Him to open our understanding, these modern version editors prefer to assume there is a scribal error in all the Hebrew texts because "they" don't understand how to reconcile the apparent discrepancy.
[Article about this verse which offers a logical explanation forthcoming]
The ESV New Testament - No Better
In the New Testament, the ESV are missing the following whole verses:
- (This is easily verifiable. Either the verses are there - or they are not):
Matthew 12:47 (though the NASB, NIV have it, but omit or bracket the others)
Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14;
Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:18;
most of Luke 9:55-56;
all of Luke 17:36; 23:17;
John 5:4, Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29;
Romans 16:24, and most of 1 John 5:7.
So, we can all see that just How the ESV is "close enough" to the King James Version, right?
None of the modern Bible versions agree with each other in both texts and meaning in literally hundreds of verses. Did God really preserve His Word & words as He promised, or do we no longer have any Bible that we can call the complete, infallible, inspired words of God? I know where I stand, by God's sovereign grace, on this most important issue. Can you say the same ?
"Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way." Psalm 119:128
Emergency Sloppy Version
FREE GENEVA BIBLE NEW TESTAMENT (1560) IN PDF
FREE For WINDOWS P.C. - MAC - VISTA - LINUX -
FREE EBOOKS
[
CFree
Ebooks
P
]
- DOWNLOAD
EBOOKS
IN PDF 
FORMAT
We would love to hear from you at our E Mail Address HERE
We also Offer some books on Textual Criticism and what has happened with New Testament Manuscripts. You may want to check these out:
Support this Ministry - Buy a Book !
Purchase one of the books we offer and support this ministry !
____________________________________
•
____________________________________