I just wanted to say that the “bad internet translator” line cracked me up. I guess I’ve had so many students turn in papers that they obviously wrote in English (or maybe Korean) and had the computer translate for them instead of actually writing them in Spanish. I can almost always tell . . . some of the things they write are pretty funny.

I can’t comment on whether that assessment of the NASB is accurate or not, because I’ve never actually read it. I’m pretty comfortable with the KJV, and also the SRV, so those were the main Bibles I used until Mike bought me my ESV. Although I’ve used several others for cross-reference, NASB was never one I had on-hand.

This is a very interesting website from a Muslim apologist arguing against Biblical integrity. I found his critiques helpful in my debates with KJV only people.

I hope this debate of yours is an actual debate and that truth has been sought and not simply winning an argument has been sought. I stopped having this debate about 3 years ago because I realized I wasn’t having a debate: because debates seek truth (at least philosophical and theological ones - not political- ). Most moderns who are not aware of philosophy swallow materialism whole and materialism doesn’t allow for truth seeking, only brainwashing. Don’t get discouraged if your debate turns out to not be a debate. Jesus told the Pharisees that he didn’t come to heal the healthy but the sick. At that point he stopped debating them.

I miss you Mike! I am looking forward to the coming year! When I get to share what I learned this summer with you, you will love it!

It cracks me up about the KJV-only crowd that they have so much more confidence in the Holy Spirit’s ability to control 17th Century scholars, yet so little confidence in His ability to control the efforts of modern scholars.

I do respect the KJV for it’s essentially literal translation philosophy, and it’s historical influence on Christianity in the English Speaking world. I just don’t understand it. I also respect KJVers for their commitment to preserving the integrity of the Scripture. That is something that is incredibly important. I just trust God to be a little more sovereign and the Holy Spirit to have a little more power over the translation process than they seem to give Him credit for. I don’t think that moving to the ESV would at all compromise the integrity of the Bible.

I certainly agree with your assesment of the NIV. There have been several times where I’ve wondered what they were thinking. That was my first experience with a dynamic equivalence text. Now don’t get me wrong the NIV is good - especially for teens - and not a defilement. Also, paraphrases like The Message and the New Living Translation can be very impactful when read. They cause intriguing insights into the text. They’re great for “reading through the Bible in a year” or for when you’re looking at the overall context of a passage and how it flows together instead of individual Greek words. I just don’t see them as very useful for deep exegetical study.

I think the ESV is a great balance between literal translation, readability and literary excellence.

First, I agree with you in general. The ESV is as fine a translation as is available; and although I am a lifetime KJV user, I read a lot of other versions. I try to respect the KJVers for sticking to their guns.

I have a couple of questions that I have asked others who seemed to know something about manuscripts, and I seldom get clear answers.

Given that we don’t have “the originals”:
Is it always correct to assume that older manuscripts are more accurate than newer manuscripts?
Does the majority reading guarantee the most accurate reading?
If not, how do scholars decide?

I often enjoy using the NIV, but find the explanatory footnotes irritating where there are omissions because they don’t satisfy my curiosity about the decisions made by the translators. I find myself thinking of them as editors instead of translators. What do you think?