Questions About the English Standard Version

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION

Robert R. Taylor, Jr.

have received a number of inquiries created problem. Users of the ESV do! relative to the English Standard We likely would not suspect the IVersion (ESV), a twenty-first century genealogy section of Matthew 1 to find Bible version. name changes. If you have memorized the I did not buy this version when it first list of kings over Judah during the Divided came out in 2001 but did purchase a copy in Kingdom period of some four hundred years, April of 2007. I have not read all it has in the do you remember including Asaph as son of Old Testament but have read and studied Abijah and this same Asaph as father of closely what it has in the New Testament. Jehoshaphat? Asa fits; Asaph does not fit. With one exception, all my questions will Yet the ESV has Asaph in the text and Asa pertain to the New Testament. in the footnote. In 1 Kings 15, they have Asa Just because it is a new version does not consistently and not Asaph at all. Why this insure it is better than the KJV (King James name change? Truth, even with names, Version) or the ASV (American Standard belongs in the text and not just the footnote. Version) — versions which have brought the Not content with one name change in church to us in our lifetime. The NRSV (New Matthew 1, they have Amos as the son of Revised Standard Version) is not a superior Manasseh and Amos the father of Josiah. version, but flawed in many places. The NIV Yet this version has Amon in a footnote. (New International Version) has “new” in its Amon is used by the ESV in 2 Kings 22. name but that does not make it superior. Amon and Asa we know from Scripture, Brother Guy N. Woods told me in the 1970s but who are Asaph and Amos in this lineage that “as little as I think of the RSV, I prefer line of Matthew 1? You may be thinking, it over the NIV. The NIV is shot through why all this ado over name changes? We do with error!” His assessment is the same as not want our names changed nor names of mine has been for over thirty years. our ancestors changed. Names mean some- In Genesis 49:10, why did the ESV thing and should not have tampering hands (English Standard Version) change “Shiloh” on them! Even Kenneth Taylor in The in the text to “tribute” and yet injects into a Living Bible (TLB) did not tamper with footnote “until Shiloh comes?” Why put into these names. The NIV has Asa and Amon. a footnote what its translators did not allow Its translators did not opt for name changes. in the text? The KJV, ASV and the NKJV Like so many of its translational (New King James Version) do not tamper colleagues, the ESV leaves Matthew 5:17, with this text. Jacob, in this prophecy, does Ephesians 2:15 and Hebrews 10:9 in not have tribute or Shiloh the city in mind, translational shambles and contradictions. It but a person “and unto him shall the has Jesus to say in Matthew 5:17, “I have gathering of the people be.” “Him” refers to a not come to abolish them (Law and Prophets) person. Had it been a city under but to fulfill them.” Yet in Ephesians 2:15, consideration it would have been an “it!” The the ESV has “by abolishing the law of ESV does not do well with Genesis 49:10. commandments and ordinances....” Accord- With my KJV, I do not have to deal with this ing to the ESV, who is right — Christ in the

“Questions About the English Standard Version” by Robert R. Taylor, Jr. Page 1 This appeared in the February, March & April 2013 issues of “Seek The Old Paths.” www.seektheoldpaths.com Sermon on the Mount or Paul in the the Christian covenant, not patriarchal Ephesian epistle? In Hebrews 10:9 the ESV precepts or Mosaic mandates. There is not has, “He abolishes the first in order to an iota of justification for producing a establish the second.” Who is right — Christ glaring contradiction among these three in Matthew 5:17 or Paul in Hebrews 10:9? passages. Paul’s counsel in 2 Timothy 2:15 Christ did not come to shatter or destroy relative to dividing truth in a right way is Mosaic law and make it void of fulfillment. lost on people like this! He came to fulfill it or fill it full and then remove, annul, abolish or take it out of the WEAK RENDERINGS OF way in order to establish the second — His PORNEIA AND MOICHEIA covenant. The ESV translators were very inept in dealing with these crystal clear These Greek terms are used many times passages. Give me the task “any day” of in the Greek testament. In our older exegeting these passages from the KJV and versions, these are rendered fornication and ASV rather than the more difficult job of adultery. Has anybody across the years had trying to harmonize these three verses by that much trouble in understanding what usage of the ESV. Have its strong supporters fornication is and what adultery is? As a among us overlooked these three verses? If teenager, I knew what these terms meant. so, why? Yet so many of our modern versions opt for It is nothing short of inexcusable the way sexual immorality instead of precisely stated the ESV, plus so many of its predecessors, renderings like fornication and adultery. A makes shambles of this trio of verses. After man or woman may enjoy hearing sexy they finished Matthew 5:17 and arrived at stories, reading sexy stories or viewing porn- Ephesians 2:15 and later to Hebrews 10:9, ography which are sexually immoral and yet did it not occur to them that they had due to various constraints may never commit produced a contradiction between Christ and overt fornication or adultery. The ESV favors Paul? They have Christ to deny abolishing sexual immorality in Matthew 5:32; 19:9; the Mosaic law (covenant) only to have Paul Mark 7:21; Acts 15:20; 21:25; 1 Corinth- affirm His doing that very thing. The fault is ians 5:1; 6:9; 6:13; 6:18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corin- not to be laid in Christ’s speech and Paul’s thians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians written statement for they breathe perfect 5:3,5; Colossians 3:5; Hebrews 12:16; harmony. The fault lies with inept and Jude 7 and Revelation 2:20ff. Why use a incompetent translators who fail utterly to term that is not nearly as precise as are handle aright the word of truth or divide it fornication and adultery? The man in 1 aright. The old had to be removed before the Corinthians 5:1 was not just reading a filthy new could become operative. Hebrews 10:9 novel or viewing images of a woman makes this positively plain. If Mosaic law is immodestly arrayed. He was committing still in effect, as many religious leaders overt fornication with his own father’s wife. contend it is, and Christianity is now valid, We do not need to soften these atrocious and we are under two lawgivers, Moses and widely practiced sins with words less precise Christ. Yet Jehovah at the transfiguration than fornication and adultery. The world scene in Matthew 17:1ff said to hear Christ does this by calling such “affairs” instead of — not Moses and Christ, not Elijah and adultery or “meaningful relations” (of the Christ. James, the Lord’s half brother in the unmarried) instead of fornication. flesh and His full brother in the faith, affirmed one lawgiver (James 4:12). Children in my Sunday evening class prior to service time know that we are under

“Questions About the English Standard Version” by Robert R. Taylor, Jr. Page 2 This appeared in the February, March & April 2013 issues of “Seek The Old Paths.” www.seektheoldpaths.com TAMPERING WITH MATTHEW 19:28 denominations recognized him as such as well. He had these scholarly comments in his The ESV has “Truly, I say to you, in the Gospel Advocate Commentary On Matthew, new world, when the Son of Man will sit on “The baptism is to be done ‘into the name of his throne, you who have followed me will the Father and of the Son and of the Holy also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve Spirit.’ The name of the Father and of the tribes of Israel.” Why is “new world” in the Son and of the Holy Spirit means the text and in a footnote “Greek, in the combined authority of the Godhead. To be regeneration?” The 148 men who translated baptized into this is to be brought by the KJV (47) and the ASV (101) used baptism into actual subjection to the com- “regeneration,” not “new world.” The NKJV bined authority of heaven. To be baptized has regeneration. The RSV that came out in into the name of these three brings one into 1952 has “new world.” Were I a patron of covenant relationship with the Godhead. premillennialism, I would be happy with the Baptism is, therefore, not only a sacred act of “new world” rendering and would shy away obedience, but it brings one into the fullness totally from versions that use regeneration. of the blessings of the Father, Son and Holy Regeneration is a synonym for the “Gospel Spirit” (pp.564-565). It is my judgment that dispensation.” In Titus 3:5, Paul speaks of the ASV has the better and more accurate the “washing of regeneration” which is the rendering here. More accurate renderings excellent equivalent of “born of water” in belong in the text, not just footnote status. John 3:5. It would be interesting to know Here is another baptismal matter found how many premillennial people worked on in the early part of Mark. The ESV has in this translation. Religious “isms” are Mark 1:4, “proclaiming a baptism of welcomed into many of the modern versions repentance for the forgiveness of sins” now extant. (Emphasis added). The KJV has “the.” The Here is another matter about a word in ASV has “the.” In Living Oracles, published the text and the word for it in a footnote. In by Alexander Campbell and translated by Matthew 28:19, the ESV has, “baptizing the renowned George Campbell, James them in the name of the Father and of the Macknight and Philip Doddridge, we have Son and of the Holy Spirit” (emphasis mine). “the immersion of reformation for the The Greek word for in here is eis. The KJV remission of sins” (Mark 1:4, p.106). Why the and the NKJV both have in. In a footnote the indefinite “a” and not the much more definite ESV has “or into.” The ASV has into which is “the?” In the spring of 1922, the eloquent and my strongly preferred rendering and the way scholarly N. B. Hardeman preached his I quote it when I give Matthew’s account of first “Tabernacle Sermons” in Nashville, TN. the Great Commission. Why put in instead of One of his extraordinarily great sermons was into “the name of the Father and of the Son on baptism. In that sermon he quoted Mark and of the Holy Spirit?” A. T. Robertson, in 1:4 by stating, “John preached ‘the baptism his Word Studies of Matthew 28:19, of repentance for the remission of sins’” (Vol. preferred in and said it should not be into. I I, p.208). Brother Hardeman was a can understand why, as a Baptist, he opted grammatical scholar second to none. He for in and not into. The ASV has into and knew the difference between the indefinite had 101 Greek scholars behind that version. “a” and the definite “the.” It is true he was Robertson and the ESV translators were not quoting the KJV in Mark 1:4 but it was superior to these 101 in the aggregate. grammatically accurate. The ESV would The late and lamented H. Leo Boles was have done itself better on Mark 1:4 by a Greek-English scholar of wide reputation remaining with “the” as the scholarly KJV among churches of Christ and many in the and the highly accurate ASV had done long

“Questions About the English Standard Version” by Robert R. Taylor, Jr. Page 3 This appeared in the February, March & April 2013 issues of “Seek The Old Paths.” www.seektheoldpaths.com before. having Luke to say that he had “followed all Change is the translational trend of things closely for some time in the past...” modern versions. (Luke 1:3)? This is of close kin to how the New versions will not leave their RSV treated this passage and raised the ire tampering off Mark 16:9-20. The RSV of of conservative Bible scholars in the 1940s. 1946 left out twelve verses and left un- The KJV says he had “perfect understanding translated more than 160 Greek words. of all things from the very first....” The ASV Later, this modernistic version added them, used “accurately” here. One may follow but not before much literary damage had something closely and still not possess been done to the inestimable portion of inspired understanding and totally accurate precious Scriptures. knowledge of what he writes. Like the other The ESV placed these verses from Mark seven writers of the New Testament, Luke 16:9 to Mark 16:20 in brackets. Living wrote by Holy Spirit inspiration. His two Oracles did not do this early in the 19th books are verbally inspired — they are century. The KJV did not do this. The ASV of plenarily inspired. This means far more than 1901 did not place these twelve verses in following matters closely. It would be of questionable brackets. Neither did the interest to know what concepts of inspiration NKJV. all the ESV translators had. The NKJV has In my book, Challenging Dangers Of “perfect understanding.” Modern Versions, I devote a full chapter in Why is an important part of Luke 4:4 defense of Mark 16:9-20 and refuting the omitted in the ESV? The KJV and the NKJV highhanded and irreverent treatment do not omit this part of Jesus’ first answer to modernistic scholars give in assault to this the devilish tempter. chapter. In that material I have some very Why is the footnote of Luke 4:35 more significant and relevant observations by the accurate than what the ESV has in the late and lamented Thomas B. Warren. He beginning of this verse? “Let us alone” or knew more about the Bible in general and “leave us alone” are preferred over the “Ha” Mark 16:9-20 in particular than all the RSV in the ESV. translators in the aggregate did! He knew In Luke 10:1 and 17, why put the what belonged; they did not. ESV translators number 72 and not 70? They have 70 in the come up lacking on Mark 16:9-20. footnote. The KJV, the ASV, the NKJV and Years ago brother Noel Merideth and I even the RSV in 1952 did not opt for 72. had a discussion with a professor of Bible in Some of these will note that some manu- one of our schools. He said to us, “I cannot be scripts have 72. Why not put 70 in the text sure Mark 16:9-20 belongs in the Bible!” and 72 in the footnote instead of doing vice Both of us said, in essence, “We can be sure versa? and are sure it belongs.” The Holy Spirit and In Luke 14:5, is Jesus talking about “a Mark were sure it belongs. Reverent Bible son” or an ass (donkey) “that has fallen into scholars through the centuries have been a well on a Sabbath day” as we have in the sure it belongs. The ESV came up lacking on ESV or “an ass or an ox fallen into a pit...” as these twelve strategic verses. Are its we have in the KJV? The ASV has an “ass” defenders among us pleased with what ESV with a footnote that some manuscripts have translators did to Mark 16:9-20? If they are, “a son.” Why not put the “son” in the footnote they need some real help relative to and “ass” or “donkey” in the text as the KJV translational matters! or the NKJV did? Luke 1:3-4 in the ESV poses another In Luke 16:23, why change Abraham’s relevant question. Why does this version bosom to Abraham’s side? The KJV has make an attack upon Luke’s inspiration by “bosom.” The ASV has “bosom.” The NKJV

“Questions About the English Standard Version” by Robert R. Taylor, Jr. Page 4 This appeared in the February, March & April 2013 issues of “Seek The Old Paths.” www.seektheoldpaths.com has “bosom.” The NIV preferred “side.” ESV Greece operated a restaurant in Ripley. He does the same. and I became friends and he even came to hear me preach. I asked him one day, “How MONOGENES should monogenes be translated?” Minus even a moment of hesitation he stated, “only I was not surprised in the least to see begotten!” This is where ripe Greek and how the ESV dealt with the comprehensive English scholarship has stood for twenty and beautiful term of monogenes. This term, centuries and where reverent scholarship in referring to Jesus, occurs in John 1:14,18; still stands. The ESV did itself no real honor 3:16,18 and 1 John 4:9 — five times total. It by mutilating this marvelous and monu- is only Son in four of these passages and only mental word of monogenes! God in John 1:18 in the ESV. The mono Why do we have “God is spirit” in John portion of the word means only. What does 4:24 in a small “s” and not a capital one? It is the genes mean? It has to mean something. Spirit in the KJV, the ASV and the NKJV. The ESV translators evidently did not think Even the Jehovah Witness Version and it meant anything for they left it minus any Living Bible Paraphrased have it in an upper and all translation. Many of the modern cap. The ESV in John 4:24 joins company translations do the same such as the RSV with the RSV, the Reader’s Digest Bible and (Revised Standard Version) the NEB (New the NIV. Our readers need to be aware that English Bible) the NIV (New International translators, as a rule, translated the Greek Version), the Living Bible Paraphrased, word for Spirit or spirit with Upper Case Reader’s Digest Bible, etc. The KJV, the when the term references Deity and with ASV, Living Oracles, the NKJV and the Lower Case when the human spirit was NASB all translate the term as “only under consideration. God is “Spirit” should begotten.” have been retained since the Greek word In December of 1988, brother Noel refers to Deity. Merideth and I discussed monogenes with Why are the twelve verses in John brethren Hugo McCord and Ralph 7:53-8:11 placed in brackets in the ESV? Our Gilmore. Brother Merideth and I defended earlier versions like Living Oracles and KJV “only begotten.” McCord and Gilmore did not place them in brackets. Neither did opposed that rendering. For my preparation the NKJV. If this section does not belong in of that discussion, I visited a number of the Sacred Canon and in the exact place prestigious libraries, including the one at where we have it, we have John 7:52 ending Oklahoma Christian College where brother with “no prophet” and John 8:12 having McCord taught for so long. I read the works “Then spake Jesus again unto them....” of Greek scholars before A.D. 325, after 325, Something had to go in the gap. I agree with Reformation leaders and Restoration greats my very warm friend, J. Noel Merideth, who among us. I was overwhelmed with the said, in essence, “This section belongs in the unanimity of hundreds of these men who Bible and right where we have it!” called Jesus God’s only begotten Son. Since Why is Acts 8:37, in our reliable Bibles, only begotten is an accurate translation of omitted in the ESV from the text and placed monogenes, the term John employed, then in a footnote? If this verse does not belong, we have John, the Spirit that inspired him, the inquiring eunuch did not even get an plus the Father and Son who told the Spirit answer for the question he propounded. Look to use this term, all in favor of what our how awkward it is to go from verse 36 to accurate English translations have had all verse 38 in the ESV. I fault the ASV for along. doing the same. Luke was not an awkward Some years back a native Greek from penman. There is an abrupt gap, as brother

“Questions About the English Standard Version” by Robert R. Taylor, Jr. Page 5 This appeared in the February, March & April 2013 issues of “Seek The Old Paths.” www.seektheoldpaths.com McCord once explained it, if this verse is some of the newer translations have omitted. The Holy Spirit and the inspired barracks. Why the change? Castle allows the Luke did not resort to abrupt gaps. When I careful student to connect castle with the deal with the Ethiopian nobleman’s con- tower of Antonio which was located near the version I never leave out verse 37. The KJV temple and housed Roman soldiers from which I have preached for more than 63 appointed to keep order in the temple area. years, does not omit it. The NKJV does not It had been repaired at great expense by leave it out. If the verse does not belong, as Herod the Great and named in honor of his per the ESV, then the inquiring African did Roman friend, Marc Anthony. Castle comes not receive a response to his deeply much closer in connecting the place with important query. I cannot conceive of any Herod’s building at the northwestern corner sincere winner of souls ignoring a vital of the temple than “barracks.” Why is there question like this. Surely, an inspired soul such a yen for change in the new trans- winner like Philip would not have done so. lations when older renderings have done so The ESV comes up lacking relative to this well across the passing centuries? I realize verse. that the Greek word parembole can be Why, in the ESV, are Acts 13:24 and translated “barracks.” But it also can be 19:4 not in line with each other? In the translated “encampment.” Barracks or former passage it has Paul at Antioch in encampments can be located in tents or wide Pisidia to say, “A baptism of repentance to open places. Castle comes much closer in all the people of Israel” while it has Paul to picturing where Paul was to be taken — the say at Ephesus in Acts 19:4, “John baptized tower of Antonio. with the baptism of repentance....” It is the In Acts 24:24ff, why is convenient season same baptism in both passages. The KJV replaced with opportunity? The KJV has and the ASV consistently use the in both convenient season. The ASV has convenient passages. John’s baptism deserves all the season. The NKJV has convenient time. Even definitive words that can be given it. the NIV has convenient. Felix had the In Acts 19:14 at Ephesus, why is Sceva opportunity to obey the Gospel and become a styled “a Jewish high priest?” As I write this, Christian the very day Paul preached with I have a complete list of all high priests from power and pathos to him and Drusilla. But Aaron, the first one, to Phannis, the final one he did not deem it convenient for him to do in A.D. 70. Sceva is not on the list! During so. J. W. McGarvey was considered to be the the early 1980s brother Hugo McCord finest Bible scholar in his era as per the produced his own New Testament transla- London Times. Brother McGarvey presented tion. He asked me to be one of his consult- a very fine argument on this word con- ants and critique it. When he came to Acts venient. He said that if a man is called upon 19:14 he listed Sceva as high priest. I to do something toward which he has no disagreed with him on this and told him liking, he may say to the one requesting why. He listened to me and rendered it “a such, “When it is convenient I will do it,” Jewish chief priest” and not a high priest. meaning if it is ever as convenient for me to The ASV has “a chief priest.” There were do it as not to do it, then I will do it. Brother many chief priests who were never high McGarvey was of strong persuasion that priests. The ESV did itself no credit in this Felix was saying, “Paul, if it is ever as rendering. convenient out there in the future for me to Why in Acts 21:34,37, 22:24, 23:10,16,32 become a Christian as to remain a non- does the ESV have Paul taken into the Christian, then I will call or summon you.” “barracks” and not into the castle? The KJV Felix did not deem it convenient that day to has “castle.” The ASV has “castle.” I know become righteous, practice self-control and

“Questions About the English Standard Version” by Robert R. Taylor, Jr. Page 6 This appeared in the February, March & April 2013 issues of “Seek The Old Paths.” www.seektheoldpaths.com live in such a way that judgment day horrors unsaved prior to the confession in order to be did not produce terror for him. Such would saved at confession. But again, he would have demanded he give up his beautiful, have to become unsaved subsequent to the adulterous wife, his dishonesty, all bribe confession and prior to baptism in order to receptions and no more cruelties as he had be baptized into Christ. And, this is a good practiced in the past. Convenient season translation that we should begin to use? Not captures this much better than opportunity for me it is not! with its absence of preciseness. Why not stay Why in Romans 12:1 do we have with precise renderings that the older spiritual worship in the ESV text and translations did? rational service in a footnote? The KJV has Here are four renderings of Romans reasonable service and the ASV has spiritual 10:10. “For with the heart man believeth service. The NIV has spiritual worship. The unto righteousness; and with the mouth Living Oracles of the 1800s has reasonable confession is made unto salvation.” “(F)or service. with the heart man believeth unto righ- Were I an advocate that “all of life is teousness and with the mouth confession is worship,” I would be happy and elated with made unto salvation.” “For it is with your both the NIV and ESV on Romans 12:1. I heart that you believe and are justified, and would look no further for sustaining proof. it is with your mouth that you confess and “Service” is much broader than are saved.” “For with the heart one believes “worship.” I remember some years back and is justified, and with the mouth one when several of us at Sharon, Tennessee, confesses and is saved.” helped a fellow member, who was seriously The first two are alike and teach truth. sick, pick his cotton crop. This was before Neither one teaches justification at the point mechanical cotton pickers. We were of belief or salvation at the point of con- rendering him a service. But filling a cotton fession. Belief and confession are unto or sack, weighing it and emptying it into a traveling toward a desired attainment. wagon did not constitute worship such as The last two are very similar, each singing, preaching, prayer, Lord’s Supper teaching that justification is reached at and the contribution. belief and salvation is attained at confession. The ESV and the NIV are in the same The first two are the KJV and the ASV. translational bed on Romans 12:1. Neither The last two are the NIV and the ESV. Now, one did credit to a great passage of which two teach truth and which two teach Scripture. error? Saving truth is with the first two. The ESV misses the truth in 1 Damnable error is with the last two. To be in Corinthians 7:36-38 as much as the RSV company with the NIV is not commendable did in 1946 and the NIV did in the late at all for the ESV people and patrons. 1970s. All three of these speak of an engaged The ESV has one justified at faith, saved couple or the man toward his betrothed. The at the point of confession and yet in Romans KJV and the ASV treat the passage correctly 6:3 and Galatians 3:27 has people baptized as a man toward his virgin daughter — not into Christ! Just when is a person justified his betrothed or the one to whom he is or saved? At belief, at confession or when engaged. The ESV has, “If anyone thinks that hearing, faith, repentance, confession and he is not behaving properly toward his baptism have all occurred? According to the betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it ESV, one is justified at belief. But it has has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them people saved at confession and an entrance marry — it is no sin. But whoever is firmly into Christ is at baptism. If one is justified established in his heart being under no at faith, then he would have to become necessity but having his desire under control,

“Questions About the English Standard Version” by Robert R. Taylor, Jr. Page 7 This appeared in the February, March & April 2013 issues of “Seek The Old Paths.” www.seektheoldpaths.com and has determined this in his heart, to keep the time, in verse 26, plays a vital part in the her as his betrothed, he will do well.” The father’s decision. NIV also depicts here an engaged couple The late and lamented Guy N. Woods had with the man engaged and not to a father- no superior, and scarcely an equal, in daughter situation where the father senses Greek-English scholarship during the it better to keep his virgin daughter and not twentieth century. In his famed Questions give her in marriage. And Answers Open Forum of 1976, on pages The ASV upholds the view that we have 88-89, brother Woods deals with this very here a father-daughter situation, not a passage. Here are his seasoned and deeply betrothed or engaged couple. The KJV is less scholarly remarks on 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. clear than the ASV but is of the same view, First he quoted these verses from the ASV a father toward his virgin daughter. This is and adds, seen in that the father does not give his daughter in marriage. In the first century it “This passage thus translated, was the father who gave his virgin daughter readily yields itself to analysis, and for marriage, not the engaged man. The the meaning is obvious. Under engaged man is the receiver, not the giver. consideration is a father and his The KJV does not pervert this passage as unmarried daughter. The daughter some have contended. The RSV and the ESV has reached and has passed the age did pervert the passage. Translators of the when girls ordinarily marry. If the RSV and ESV acted as commentators on this daughter is to marry at all, it is time passage, not translators. that consent by the father be given Williams’ Translation has the father and the usual arrangements be made. and his virgin or single daughter in mind. This procedure is entirely in order The father does the deciding, not the suitor. and violates no rule of revelation. The ASV has virgin daughter with However, if the father (who in that daughter in italics. This means daughter has day arranged for the marriage of his been supplied. Brother Roy Deaver, a Greek children) chose to keep his daughter scholar in every sense of that term, deals single and at hone, in view of the with these verses in the fourth annual Fort trials soon to come, was now (not) Worth Lectures in 1981. Brother Deaver subject to criticism inasmuch as such sustains his argument for father and his a course would likely work out to the virgin daughter on gamidzo in verse 38. He advantage of the daughter. Either quotes Thayer as saying, “...to give a course was proper, perhaps the better daughter in marriage” citing 1 Corinthians one, because of impending perse- 7:38 as an example. He quotes Williams on cution and trial, would be for the this word (page 372 of his translation) saying daughter to remain unmarried. If the this word is the key in understanding verses American Standard Translation is 36-38. He quotes Robinson’s Lexicon saying correct, (and it is-RRT) the foregoing this word means “to give in marriage...e.g. is obviously the meaning of the one’s daughter in 1 Corinthians 7:38.” passage.” Strong’s Concordance on page 193 has father or guardian and his daughter in mind. He McGarvey (ripest Bible scholar of his age says the idea of a couple living in some sort in the late 1800s and early 1900s) and of relationship is untenable. The father, not Pendleton comment on this passage as the suitor, makes the decision touching follows, “Marriages in the East were then, as whether he will give his virgin daughter in now, arranged by the parents. If a parent marriage or keep her single. The distress of saw fit to marry his daughter he had a

“Questions About the English Standard Version” by Robert R. Taylor, Jr. Page 8 This appeared in the February, March & April 2013 issues of “Seek The Old Paths.” www.seektheoldpaths.com perfect right to do so, and was guilty of no Do not such contradictions in their sin, but if he heeded the apostle’s warning as translational product bother in the least to the coming trials and kept his daughter these makers of modern Bibles? Apparently free from alliance, he acted more wisely” not! (The Standard Bible Commentary: Thessa- In Revelation 1:4, 3:1 and 4:5 why did lonians, Corinthians, Galatians and the ESV leave “spirits” in small caps when it Romans, p.84). is very evident the fulness and perfection of The RSV and the ESV are strikingly the Holy Spirit is set forth with the perfect alike on 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. Brother numeral of seven? The KJV and ASV have Woods strongly objected to the RSV on this “Spirits,” not “spirits.” The ESV has “Spirit” passage and would do so today toward the in upper caps in Revelation 1:10 and 22:17. ESV were he still alive. The ESV takes the Why not the same in Revelation 1:4; 3:1 and ridiculous position that the suitor here, not 4:5? the father, controls the woman the rest of her life. He could decide on celibacy the rest CONCLUSION of his life and consign her, by his arbitrary will, to spinsterhood the rest of her life! Such While you have read this review, perhaps ineptitude is inexcusable on the part of the you have thought, “Why all this ado over ESV translators. Are its defenders among us words ‘here and there?’ Are the objections ready to accept such a reckless and totally really that valid and weighty?” The Bible is irresponsible rendering? If so, they need a word revelation and each one is important. more help on translational matters!! Jesus thought so. In Matthew 5:18, He spoke Why is “will worship” in Colossians 2:23 of the “jot and tittle.” “Jot” or “jod” was the of the ESV changed to “self-made religion?” smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. See Our older translations, like the KJV, The what it looks like right before the tenth Living Oracles and the ASV, have stayed section of Psalm 119. The “tittle” was a little with will-worship. It is worship based on the bend or point to distinguish Hebrew letters. human will and not the divine will. The It might be illustrated with the small “c” and NKJV opted for “self-imposed religion” and small “e.” Note how small the little marking did itself no real credit in so doing. Why such is. Jesus based an argument with skeptical a yen for change? The new Bibles overflow Sadducees in Matthew on “is” and “was.” with such! God “is” the God of Abraham, Isaac and In Hebrews 2:11 why have the sanctifier Jacob -- not “was.” These three still lived in (the Christ) and the sanctified (Christians) the spirit world. In Galatians 3:16 Paul as all having “one origin” instead of “all of based an argument upon “seed” (singular) as one?” The NIV did better here than the ESV. opposed to “seeds” (plural). Here, one letter It did not opt for origin. Neither did The is of vast value. Living Oracles, the KJV, the ASV and the I will not be vacating the KJV or ASV for NKJV. Here the ESV is in the same the ESV. There is nothing I need to know, translational bed as the RSV on the “origin” believe, obey, preach and defend to please rendering. Again I ask, “Why the change God that I cannot find in my beloved KJV from a rendering that has given us no and the time tested ASV. Thanks for trouble through the years? pondering these series of articles. Many, In Hebrews 10:9 the ESV has Christ many hours have gone into the research for abolishing the first covenant when in these articles and the writing of them. Matthew 5:17 they have Christ to say He will not abolish “the Law or the Prophets.”

“Questions About the English Standard Version” by Robert R. Taylor, Jr. Page 9 This appeared in the February, March & April 2013 issues of “Seek The Old Paths.” www.seektheoldpaths.com