English Standard Version Verse of the Day

[Jeremiah 23:23-24
23 “Am I a God at hand, declares the Lord, and not a God far away? 24 Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord.]

The Scriptures reveal the whole work of our merciful and faithful High Priest Jesus the Christ of the the God of Israel who will perform His Covenant promises to both Israel and the body of Christ despite what the world powers do to deny Him as He has said in the Holy Word of God.
Let God be true and every man a liar.

you know the ESV has major errors right?

“Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off?

“Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.”

There. Much better.

What major errors do you say are in the ESV translation?

All the usual ones! I've checked some of these with the ESV. They all seem to be present.

A brief outline of some problems with
popular newer translations of the Bible

	King James Version	New English Bible	New International	New American Standard	Good News Bible	New World Translation (The "Jehovah’s Witnesses" Bible)	Notes (the importance of these scriptures for any who aren’t sure!)
Mt 5:22	Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment	"without a cause" omitted. Footnote casts doubt	"without a cause" omitted	"without a cause" omitted	"without a cause" omitted	"without a cause" omitted	When Jesus is clearly angry at the commercialisation of the temple, is he in danger of judgment?
Mt 9:13	for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.	I did not come to invite virtuous people, but sinners.	For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.	For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.	I have not come to call respectable people, but outcasts.	For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.	Repentance & change is the intent, not Pied Piper-ism!
Mt 18:11	For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.	OMITTED. Footnote casts doubt	OMITTED	footnote casts doubt	OMITTED. footnote casts doubt	OMITTED	Why did Jesus come? A very important question.
Mt 19:17	Why callest thou me good?	"Why do you ask me about that?"	"Why do you ask me about what is good?"	"Why are you asking me about what is good?"	"Why do you ask me concerning what is good?"	"Wny do you ask me about what is good?"	A very important revelation about Jesus being God, yet man.
Mt 25:13	Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.	You never know the day or the hour.	You do not know the day or the hour.	You do not know the day nor the hour.	you do not know the day or the hour.	You know neither the day nor the hour,	Christ will come again. But the revisions obscure that fact.
Mk 10:24	how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!	"for those who trust in riches" OMITTED. Footnote casts doubt.	.how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!	how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!	how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God!	how difficult a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God!	These revisions say that entry to God’s kingdom is by works.
Lk 2:33	And Joseph and his mother,	The child’s father and mother	The child's father and mother.	His father and mother.	The child's father and mother	its father and mother.	KJV ref. would have been the expected way to refer to Jesus’ family. The revisions are more in-tune with Mariolotry
Lk 4:4	Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.	Man cannot live on bread alone.	Man does not live on bread alone.	Man shall not live on bread alone.	Human beings cannot live on bread alone.	Man must not live by bread alone.	But by a Big Mac and Fries, maybe?
Lk 4:8	Get thee behind me, Satan.	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	Jesus’ words have all authority over Satan.
Jn 6:47	He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.	the believer possesses eternal life.	He who believes has everlasting life.	He who believes has eternal life.	he who believes has eternal life.	He that believes has everlasting life.	Even the demons ‘believe’, and tremble.
Jn 8:9	And when they heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out.	"convicted by their conscience" OMITTED. Footnote casts doubt.	.those who heard began to go away.	.when they heard it, they began to go out one by one.	When they heard this, they all left, one by one,	OMITTED	Conviction and repentance is the point here. Why did they leave, according to the revisions? Would our children know, if we forgot to tell them?
Jn 9:4	I must work the works of him that sent me.	We must carry on the work of him who sent me	We must do the work of him who sent me.	We must work the works of Him who sent Me.	we must do the work of him who sent me	We must work the works of him that sent me.	The context clearly shows it is Jesus’ ministry which is being revealed here.
Jn 10:30	I and my Father are one	My Father and I are one. (note: this is the only good one!)	I and the Father are one.	I and the Father are one.	The Father and I are one.	I and the Father are one.	Jesus is the Son of God!
Ac 2:30	that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;	One of his own direct descendants should sit on his throne	.he would place one of his descendants on his throne.	.to seat one of his descendants upon his throne.	he would make one of David's descendants a king	.he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne.	Christ is the King who lives forever. We must never take that for granted.
Ac 8:37	If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.	OMITTED, footnote casts doubt	OMITTED	footnote casts doubt (some editions just omit it)	OMITTED, footnote casts doubt	OMITTED	Again, Jesus is the Son of God!
Ac 23:9	Let us not fight against God.	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	Ever since Babel, this has been the nature of man. An important scripture.
Rom 13:9	Thou shalt not bear false witness.	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	What an important scripture. It says that if you loved your neighbour, you would keep the law, doing which is summed up as loving your neighbour.
Col 1:14	In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.	in whom our release is secured and our sins forgiven.	In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.	In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.	by whom we are set free, that is, our sins are forgiven.	By means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.	Satan trembles at this. God was manifest in the flesh. And God’s blood saves us.
1Ti 3:16	God was manifest in the flesh.	He who was manifested in the body	He appeared in a body.	He who was revealed in the flesh.	He appeared in human form	He was made manifest in the flesh.	Again…
1Ti 6:5	Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.	"from such withdraw thyself" is omitted	"from such withdraw thyself" is omitted	"from such withdraw thyself" is omitted	"from such withdraw thyself" is omitted	"from such withdraw thyself" is omitted	The gospel is one demanding repentance and change.
1Pe 1:22	Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit.	by obedience to the truth you have purified your souls	you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth.	Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls.	by your obedience to the truth you have purified yourselves	Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth.	This particular revision is highlighted in red and bold.
1Jo 4:3	And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.	every spirit which does not thus acknowledge Jesus is not from God. (note: ‘thus’ does refer to ‘in the flesh’. this is the only good one)	But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.	And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.	anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the Spirit from God	But every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God.	Again, Christ came in the flesh. Such a very important part of Christianity.
1Jo 5:7	For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	OMITTED	Contrary to the popular belief which has been fostered, the trinity is clearly in the Bible. There is a large and clear body of research which supports the inclusion of 1 John 5:7.

(NIV 1984, NASB 1977, NWT 1984, NEB 1961, GNB bible.crosswalk.com 2005)

(The "New World Translation" is included for comparison. As is clear,
it is uniform with the new revisions. It predates all of the newer revisions)

I previously thought these ‘translations’ were helpful. I found problems in their gospel translations, but gave them the benefit of the doubt, and often referred to them for comparison. But seeing these changes has made me change my position on them.

What strikes me is the uniformity of the revisions, none of which are minor, or irrelevant to our faith. They are all key, very important parts of the revelation of Jesus. The way that every revision has consistently made these huge changes, with no fanfare, is enough to confirm that there is intent.

The reformation Bibles, of which the KJV was one, were written because of terrible errors that had been included in the Catholic scriptures. When he learned ancient Greek and discovered this, Wycliffe was shocked, "Either the scriptures have become corrupt, or I’m not a Christian". I would be interested to compare those errors against the modern ones, to see if any have been reinstituted.

"Paul the Mutilator"

Galatians 5:12, KJV:

I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
("troublemakers, begone")

Galatians 5:12, NIV:

As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
("troublemakers, cut your genitals off!")

Which one do you think the great apostle Paul said? Is wishing someone would cut off their genitals consistent with a godly, sold-out Christian like Paul? What a terrifying, bloody, horrible thing to say to someone. But you never know what you're going to get with the NIV--I almost couldn't believe this one. Last note: the NASB and the RSV say that the troublemakers should "mutilate themselves"!!! Do you really expect to read that in your Bible? Does that represent God?

NASV Committee Member denounces NASV in strongest possible terms

"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Hort and Wescott's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"

Dr. Frank Logsdon, Committee Member, New American Standard Version

More information: www.wayoflife.org/articles/logsdon.htm

What does "not found in earliest manuscripts" mean?

The vast worldwide new Bible version movement depends mainly for its credibility upon the character and integrity of two ancient Greek manuscripts. One is called "Vaticanus".

Vaticanus claimed by many to be the oldest and best Greek manuscript. VATICANUS OMITS:

All of first Timothy

All of second Timothy

All of Titus

Nearly all of Genesis (Gen 1 to 46:29)

The last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel. (Mark 16:9-20)

Our Lord's prayer on the cross. "Father forgive them..." (Luke 23:34)

Our Lord's agony and bloodlike sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane. (Luke 22:44)

The last four and a half chapters of Hebrews (Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25)

Thirty three of the Psalms (Psalms 106 - 138)

Plus many other omissions

Therefore, "not found in Vaticanus" is not particularly important for a given scripture.

The Westcott and Hort Greek

Much of the new translations are based on a Greek text by Westcott and Hort, which many say shows clear revisions and bias in doctrinal matters. Wouldn’t we all pray that translations of scripture were done honestly, by spiritual people, and by those who had no strange doctrinal bents?

However, Westcott and Hort had some very unusual, and unspiritual views, as their own writings show.

Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).

Westcott: "All stigmatise him (a Dr. Hampden) as a 'heretic,'...I thought myself that he was grievously in error, but yesterday I read over the selections from his writings which his adversaries make, and in them I found systematically expressed the very strains of thought which I have been endeavouring to trace out for the last two or three years. If he be condemned, what will become of me?" (Life, Vol.I, p.94).

Hort: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life, Vol.I, p.416).

Hort: "Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Life, Vol.I, p.430).

Westcott: "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles".

Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

Hort: "I wish we were more agreed on the doctrinal part; but you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist, and there is not much profit in arguing about first principles." (Life, Vol.II, p.86).

Which one do you think the great apostle Paul said?

The second. His point is that if the Judaizers think cutting off a little strip of skin brings them close to God, then they should cut the whole thing off and get even closer.

Hmm. I wondered about including that. So what about all the important stuff.

So what about all the important stuff.

When I've seen indisputable evidence that a non-KJV Bible actually teaches a bona fide doctrinal or factual error, then I'll consider the possibility that the usual KJV-only list of differences might be approaching the level of "important." Till then, they hover somewhere in the vicinity of "insignificant." Thanks for asking.

It’s not a “list of differences”. The significant doctrinal errors are clearly enumerated.

If you’re choosing to not respond to them, then that’s your business, but you can’t say they’re not there.

by the way if someone wants to fill in the details for the ESV, I’ll add it. I owned an ESV once. Threw it out before compiling the list. One of the worst “versions” I’d seen.

ping, see replied-to post. I also am a reformation fan.

It’s not a “list of differences”. The significant doctrinal errors are clearly enumerated.

I see the usual lengthy list of alleged "errors" with the usual biased choice of words (e.g. "omitted"), not a list of "significant doctrinal errors."

The only thing usually "omitted" from such lists is the reason why those differences exist, or that the significant doctrinal truths supposedly corrupted in these verses can be found elsewhere.

As I said: show me that the ESV actually denies the truth wholesale (and not just in an isolated pet verse or two), and I'll start to take KJV-only claims seriously.

Chuck, you operate from the unspoken assumption that the KJV was correct in its renderings.

Conservative Biblical scholars almost uniformly disagree with you.

The details are clearly listed for anyone who wants to read them.

“Conservative Biblical scholars almost uniformly disagree with you.”

The sky is almost uniformly red. See, anyone can make totally unfounded assertions!

"Unfounded assertions"? Your entire post was an unfounded assertion that, because the ESV, NASB, and NIV differ from the KJV, the KJV ipso facto must be the most accurate.

Never mind the explanations textual scholars have for textual variants - things like copyist errors such as a translocution from other, similar texts.

Never mind that a large percentage of the manuscripts the Greek New Testament behind the KJV is based on are generally from the 12th century or later.

The simple fact of the matter is that the translators of the ESV, NASB, NIV et al. made informed choices which textual variants to follow. Agree or disagree with them if you like, but intellectual honesty requires that you at least engage them. "Smear-quotes" of Westcott and Hort (who have been dead for over 200 years, and whose work has been checked by generations of believers) isn't an intellectually honest argument.

“entire post was an unfounded assertion that, because the ESV, NASB, and NIV differ from the KJV, the KJV ipso facto must be the most accurate”

That is intellectually dishonest. Anyone who reads it can see it is more than that.

The general trend of the errors is most important. They all point to an extremist liberal interpretation that liberal denominations like the Episcopals are more happy with.

They uniformly ignore the blood of Christ, the bodily manifestation of God in Christ, the imminent return of Christ, that Jesus is the Son of God, and other vital doctrinal points.

That consistency across the errors cannot be ignored. What is your contention? That modern “versions” are going to be better? How naive is that!?

The King James (and New King James) has a very obvious misinterpretation as well.

‘Thou shalt not kill’.

It is not what was written in the original text.

‘Thou shalt not murder’ is.

ESV is more to the original intent, or meaning, of the words than the KJV, or NKJV. However, I have multiple bibles, and when something doesn’t pass the smell test, when the small voice says ‘Wait a minute’, I check others. Online, as well as hard copy.

Personally, I like the ESV Bible over the American standard, and then the NIV and then the KJV.

Sure, I agree with that. It is not perfect.

But these modern “versions” (there cannot be new “versions” of the Bible, only translations. “version” should set alarm bells ringing anyway) have a clear trend to what they are trying to do.

There are actually many more, often quite subtle. There are many I caught back when I was reading those Bibles, but didn’t make a clear list of. The overall trend is very clear.

They uniformly ignore the blood of Christ

I'm assuming you say that because the ESV, NIV, and NASB omit "by his blood" in Col. 1:14. Note, however, that Ephesians 1:7 still retains that language. (E.g. "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, acccording to the riches of his grace which he lavished upon us." Eph. 1:7 ESV). It seems odd that a translation that "ignores the blood of Christ" would so translate Eph. 1:7.

If you dig into the textual criticism, you see that the reason for this reading is that very few (uniformly late) manuscripts have the "by his blood" reading. The textual commentary accompanying the UBS 4th Edition indicates their belief that the phrase was a scribal interpolation from Ephesians 1:7. Their reasoning was, "the Textus Receptus, following several secondary witnesses, interpolates from Ephesians 1:7 the words dia ton aimatos auton. If the phrase had been present originally, there would have been no reason for the scribes to omit it.

You may disagree with their reasoning, but it is intellectually dishonest to assert conspiracy theories to what were, in reality, their best attempts to create the best possible translation. This is just one example of how your innuendo is bogus.