Fence on Bible Version
March 26, 2007
Once again i am on the fence regarding Bible versions.
I do really love the ESV and the KJV. I have looked into textual criticism and read different sides of the issue (reasoned eclectic, byzantine priority, pro textus receptus) . Once again i am going to read a couple of books that i just ordered that come from basically opposing views…
One Book Stands Alone, which is a pro-kjv book
One Bible Only?:…, which is a pro-eclectic book from what i understand.
If anyone has familiarity with these books please let me know what you think.
Also, if anyone has any good online references please let me know…i would love to read them.
March 26, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Apart from the “textual basis” question, here is a criticism of the ESV which I found insightful:
http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/webextra/march04_chappleesv.pdf
March 27, 2007 at 3:59 am
Thats a gem of a find, thanks Jim.
March 27, 2007 at 12:32 pm
That is a good one Gomarus.
Here is one that i found that also has some of the new ESV revisions listed…
http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/20061113_truth_unchanged_not_changed_that_much.html
March 27, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Larry.
Make sure you give us a book review when you are done…would be interested…
March 27, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Amazingly, someone stumbled across my blog having typed into a search engine ‘Is the ESV infallible’!
BTW, the One Bible Only book is good.
March 27, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I just started reading the One Bible Only book, and it is good.
March 27, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I must say the only thing i don’t like about the book is that they do deny verbal preservation. Pg. 158 states, “…verbal preservation (which the authors of this book do not affirm).” And it is obvious throughout that their stance is that God’s word had not been purely preserved.
The WCF 1:8 takes a different stance as it adheres to a “pure” preservation…
The Old Testament in Hebrew … and the New Testament in Greek … being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages; are therefore authentical
March 27, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Do you think that WCF 1:8 refers only to the Received Text? I thought they were just condemning the view that the right text has been preserved in one textual family.
March 27, 2007 at 10:19 pm
I think it would be reasonable that they looked highly upon the Byzantine text, and especially the TR since it is the underpinning of the entire confession.
But this statement in the WCOF definitely teaches that God’s inspired word has been kept “pure” in all ages. I don’t see how this can be anything other than verbal preservation, which the authors of the above book do not agree with.
March 28, 2007 at 11:43 am
For a good book which rejects TR-onlyism yet upholds verbal preservation see ‘God’s Word in our Hands’:
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Word-Our-Hands-Preserved/dp/1889893870/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3598092-1751953?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175082114&sr=8-1
March 28, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Actually i have read that…it’s an excellent book. It is better than the one that i just read posted above. I can’t quite recall, does that book ever defend a particular underlying text? I got the feeling while reading that it was pro-Majority…but i don’t think they actually said that. The book i posted about above is pro-reasoned eclectic.
Anyway, yes…an excellent book.
March 28, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I think the contributors to ‘God’s Word in Our Hands’ took a variety of views.