THE ESV IS A PERVERSION OF THE WORD OF GOD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
In 1970 David O. Fuller asked the question in his book title – Which Bible? The question is still relevant! There have been many translations. The latest is the English Standard Version. Is this a reliable translation? I answer, a resounding, NO! Why do I say this when so many eminent theologians and pastors say yes? Read the following glowing ESV endorsements from the ESV web site (http://www.esv.org/about/endorsements.
Dr. R. C. Sproul, “The wait is over!… I am thrilled to finally possess a translation that excels for serious study, devotional reading, Scripture memorization, and the preaching/teaching event. The ESV truly is a Bible for all of life.”
Can so many Pastors, Theologians, and well-known Evangelicals and conservative scholars be trusted in their endorsement of the ESV? Is this a reliable translation, or a perversion of God’s word? Let’s see.
2. ESV CLAIMS
The ESV site claims under Trusted Legacy – “The ESV Bible carries forward the trusted legacy of the Bible in English—the legacy established first in the Tyndale New Testament (1526) and the KJV Bible (1611).” (If this is true, then why are so many words, sentences, and paragraphs removed, as we shall see? The ESV uses entirely different manuscripts than those used by the KJV, so this claim is false!)
It further states, “The words and phrases (of the ESV) themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work.” This is true for the RSV, but not for the Tyndale-KJV!
3. TRANSLATORS of the RSV
The RSV was translated by a host of unbelievers, who were from apostate seminaries and universities and was rejected by the Bible believing churches. Some of these translators were:
Luther A. Weigle, Yale University, Chairman.James Moffatt, Union Theological Seminary, Executive Secretary. (died 1944)
The ESV closely follows the RSV, which was produced by the apostate National Council of Churches, and was rejected by Bible believing Christians. The backside of the ESV title page includes the following statement: “The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.” Bible believing churches have previously rejected the RSV because it promoted heresy! Now the tide has changed. Now the RSV is acceptable to some Bible believing Christians. Should these Christians not examine the ESV more closely?
4. ESV FURTHER CLAIMS
“The ESV Bible carries forward the Trusted Legacy of the Bible in English—the legacy established first in the Tyndale New Testament (1526) and the KJV Bible (1611). With this legacy as the foundation, the ESV Bible (2001) reflects the beauty and majesty of the original languages.”
“As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language.”
“The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland, (MANUSCRIPTS USED IN TRANSLATING THE ESV).”
The ESV was compiled by what is known as Textual Criticism, which is the art/science (?) of attempting to reconstruct the oldest or original wording of a given text. In practical terms, textual criticism looks at the range of extant manuscripts and other evidence and, then, attempts to reconstruct the Biblical text from those clues.
5. TWELVE BASIC RULES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
(Taken from Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 275-276).
1. Only one reading can be original, however many variant readings there may be.
6. TEXTUAL CRITIQES DECEIVED AND THEIR DECEPTION OF OTHERS
As a seminary student and a very new Christian, I was taught textual criticism. I was amazed and bewildered! How could I, a sinner, a mere finite mortal, and a relatively new Christian decide what is the Word of God and what is not by merely observing these rules?? This would be pure arrogance and pride. My personal belief is that when it comes to the issue of the Final Authority of God’s Word today, if a Christian is not a Textus Receptus/King James Bible proponent, then he can be described as one of whom God said: – “every man did that which is right in his own eyes.” Each one then becomes his own scholar and makes up his personalized Bible version as he goes along.
The ESV claims to be faithful to the original manuscripts (see above in bold and the endorsements by conservative scholars), but, the problem with this is, we do not have the original text. Textual critics believe that they can get back to or at least approximate the originals. But can they? Let us ask, “Who was the first in the line of textural critics?” You might be surprised!!
From the very beginning Satan, his demons, and his people have sought to corrupt the original text. God said to Adam in the garden, And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. This was the original text given by God. Satan corrupted and changed it, saying to Eve, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? This was a lie and a perversion of God’s word. God said they could eat of every tree in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan changed the original text and then Eve changed it again by adding to it, saying, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die, Gen 3:1-3. These were the first acts of textual criticism.
Even Bible believers, as we have seen above, have been fooled and used by Satan. J. Gresham Machen, an otherwise stalwart of the faith, wrote: “The study of the manuscripts of the Bible is a wonderfully reassuring thing. The Greek text of the New Testament, for example, from which the Authorized Version (KJV) is taken, is based not (emphasis mine) upon the best manuscripts, but upon inferior manuscripts. Yet how infinitesimal is the difference between those inferior manuscripts and the best manuscripts—how infinitesimal in comparison with what they have in common!” (J. Gresham Machen, The Christian Faith in the Modern World 1936; reprinted, by Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965, pp. 43-44)
This is not true as we shall see further on in this paper. Let Christians, true Christians, beware, lest they are deceived by Satan. Against false accusations Paul protested, we have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God, 2 Cor 4:2. Again Peter wrote, our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you…in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest , as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness, 2 Peter 3:15-17.
7. FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS CAN BE DECEIVED
Note that Peter was deceived by Satan. (See Peter’s rebuke of the Lord, Matt 16:21-23; his professed allegiance to Christ, Matt 26:30-35; his fall, Jn 18:15-27; and his reclamation, Jn 21:15-19, and he was an apostle).
So, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall, 1 Cor 10:12. Let all Reformed and Presbyterians beware! Let us Reformed Christians consider the work and arguments of the mostly Fundamentalist, Dean Burgon Society. They are mostly Arminian Christians, but they are spot on here. One would do well to consult their website, http://www.deanburgonsociety.org.. Consider also the Trinitarian Bible Society, which endorses the received text (Textus Receptus), http://www.tbsbibles.org/ and the KJV.
There are many manuscripts of New Testament (over 5000 and almost all supporting the translation of the KJV). However, textual critics in the late 1700’s and 1800’s based their new theories on mainly two corrupt manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, translated the English Revised Version. This is also true of the English Standard Version. We read in the Preface of the English Standard Version, “To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original tet.” (Emphasis mine) This, however, is only an arrogant guess! Again, “The ESV is an ‘essentially literal’ translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text…letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.” This statement is preposterous and arrogant and swollen with pride! We do not have the original books penned by the writers of the Old or New Testaments. They are no longer in existence!!! The originals have passed away, but – but God’s words have not passed away.
The Lord Jesus said, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, Matt 24:35. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled, Matt 5:18. Again, If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken, Jn 10:35. 6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever, Ps 12:6,7. As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him, 2 Sam 22:31. Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it, Ps 119:140. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar, Prov 30:5,6. As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and forever, Is 59:21. This is clear; God’s words have been and shall be preserved!
The textual critics admit that we do not have the originals, but they teach that by applying the rules of Textual criticism, they can get back to the originals. If this is true, then man, not God, preserves the Word of God. TC’s will say that this is the way that God preserves his word. The question is Which Bible? Is it from the manuscripts, mainly Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, from which the RV, or the ASV, or the RSV, or the NIV, or the NASV, or the ESV, etc. are translated??? The truth is the originals have passed away!!
8. PRESERVATION OF THE WORD OF GOD
The Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly and the American Presbyterian Church reads:
SECTION VIII : “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto and interest in the Scriptures and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.”
God promises to preserve His words! The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times, Ps 12:6,7.
9. WHERE, THEN DID THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE KJV AND THE NEWER VERSIONS COME FROM?
Fredrick Nolan, 1784-1864, an Irish Anglican, spent years researching the Greek manuscripts (30 yrs), along with the various translations. He shows how additions and subtractions were made to the Scriptures by errorists and heretics. He shows how these perversions found their way into the manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. By the way it is noteworthy that his book,
AN INQUIRY INTO THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREEK VULGATE
IN WHICH THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS ARE NEWLY CLASSED, THE INTEGRITY OF THE AUTHORIZED TEXT VINDICATED, AND THE VARIOUS READINGS TRACED TO THEIR ORIGIN
published in 1915, is some 40 years before the rediscovery of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, foundational to the so-called Corrected Text! (Nolan’s book can be read on the website of the American Presbyterian Church (http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org.) Again, these corrupt manuscripts are the basis of the ESV, the RV, the ASV, the RSV, the NIV, and the NASV translations. Calvin and Beza, along with Luther, knew of this tradition, and translated from the Greek Vulgate, which is the Received Text, thus rejecting the so-called heretical “Corrected Text.” (By the way the work of Fred Nolan shows the misconception that the Textus Receptus is based on the work of Desiderius Erasmus. It is not! The Textus Receptus is the text that had been handed down from generation to generation by Bible believers and guided by God’s singular care and providence. It had its origination in the Apostolic era, when the New Testament was written. Erasmus brought together the tradition of these 5000 or so similar manuscripts, putting the result in print in A.D. 1516. Putting something in print does not mean that that text originated with the printer.
Dean Burgon approvingly quoted (Revision Revised, pp. 11-12) Bishop Ellicott (the Chairman of the English Revised Version of 1881).
“The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus . . . That pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them..”
Burgon then commented: “By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, at least, 1550 years old” (ibid., p. 390). How could the Erasmus Greek New Testament Text be the basis of the ‘Textus Receptus,’ which was in 1883 at least “1550 years old”?
Theodore Letis, A Missouri Synod theologian, writes in The Orthodox Protestant View of the Textus Receptus. “The defense of the Textus Receptus, therefore, is a necessary part of the defense of Protestantism. It is entailed by the logic of faith, the basic steps of which are as follows: First, the Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood (Deut. 31:24-26). Second, the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers by faithful Christians in every walk of life (1 Peter 2:9). Third, the Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers. Fourth, The first printed text of the Greek New Testament was not a blunder or a set-back but a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. Hence the few significant departures of that text from the Traditional Text are only God’s providential corrections of the Traditional Text in those few places in which such corrections were needed. Fifth, through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants God placed the stamp of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Textus Receptus (Received Text).
“Hence, as orthodox Protestant Christians, we believe that the formation of the Textus Receptus was guided by the special providence of God. There were three ways in which the editors of the Textus Receptus – Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs – were providentially guided. In the first place, they were guided by the manuscripts which God in His providence had made available to them. In the second place, they were guided by the providential circumstances in which they found themselves. Then in the third place, and most of all, they were guided by the common faith. Long before the Protestant Reformation, the God-guided usage of the Church had produced throughout Western Christendom a common faith concerning the New Testament text, namely, a general belief that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been preserved by God’s special providence. It was this common faith that guided Erasmus and the other early editors of the Textus Receptus.”
Nolan discusses among other passages Acts 20:28, 1 Tim 3:16, and 1 John 5:7, showing how heretics perverted these texts, which prove the deity of Christ, Chapter 4. In part he writes:
“Directing our attention in the first place, to the structure of the phrase, the tenor of the sense and language as fully declares for the received reading, as against the corrected.
“In Act. xx. 28. the apostolical phrase, evkklhsi,an tou/ Qeou/, is not only preserved, but its full force consequently assigned to the epithet ivdi,ou. This term, as used by the apostle, has an exclusive and emphatic force; an exclusive, in limiting the sense to “God,” the subject of the assertion;—an emphatic, in evincing the apostle’s earnestness in using so extraordinary an expression. “Feed the Church of God, which he purchased with no other blood than his own,” is the literal meaning of the phrase; and this meaning is not more clearly expressed, than we shall see it was required by the object of the apostle, in writing.
“In 1 Tim. iii. 16. there can be little doubt that the “Great Mystery,” of which the apostle speaks, and that whereby someone “was manifested in the flesh,” must be the Incarnation. If we take the account given of this “mystery” in John i. 1. 1, it marks out “God” as the divine person who “was manifested.” And putting this term into the letter of the text, it renders the apostle’s explanation answerable to his purpose and to the solemn mode of his enunciation. For, as the manifestation of no person, but the incomprehensible and divine, can be a mystery, any “manifestation” of “God,” as “in the flesh,” must be a “Great Mystery.” So far, the apostle’s phrase is as just as it is sententious.
“1 John v. 7. the manifest rent in the Corrected Text, which appears from the solecism in the language, is filled up in the Received Text; and opath,r( o lo,goj, being inserted, the masculine adjectives, trei/j oi` marturou/ntej, are ascribed suitable substantives; and by the figure attraction, which is so prevalent in Greek, every objection is removed to the structure of the context. Nor is there thus a necessary emendation made in the apostle’s language alone, but in his meaning. St. John is here expressly summing up the divine and human testimony, “the witness of God and man;” and he has elsewhere formally enumerated the heavenly witnesses, as they occur in the disputed passage. In his Gospel he thus explicitly declares, “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me; and when the Comforter is come, even the Spirit of truth, he shall, testify of me.” And yet, in his Epistle, where he is expressly summing up the testimony in favor of Jesus, we are given to understand that he passes at least two of these heavenly witnesses by, to insist on three earthly; which have brought the suppressed witnesses to the remembrance of almost every other person who has read the passage for the last sixteen centuries! Nay more, he omits them in such a manner as to create a gross solecism in his language, which is ultimately removed by the accidental insertion, as we are taught, of those witnesses, from a note in his margin. Nor is this all, but this solecism is corrected, and the oversight of the Apostle remedied, by the accidental insertion of the disputed passage from the margin of a translation; the sense of which, we are told, it embarrasses, while it contributes nothing to amend the grammatical structure! Of all the omissions which have been mentioned respecting this verse, I call upon the impugners of its authenticity to specify one, half so extraordinary as the present? Of all the improbabilities which the controversy respecting it has assumed as true, I challenge the upholders of the Corrected Text to name one, which is not admissible as truth, when set in competition with so flagrant an improbability as the last. Yet, on the assumption of this extravagant improbability as matter of fact, must every attack on the authenticity of this verse be built, as its very foundation!
“In order to determine the question before us, it is still necessary that we should acquire a precise knowledge of the fundamental tenets of those heretics whom the apostles opposed. St. John has very expressly declared, that they ‘denied the Father and the Son;” having disputed that “Jesus was the Son of God,” and that “he was come in the flesh.’ With this representation, exactly accords the account which we receive of the tenets of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians; those heretics whom the apostles expressly opposed. They ‘denied the Father,’ not merely disputing his paternity, in denying his only-begotten Son, but representing him as a being who was removed from the care and consideration of earthly things; who had permitted the creation of the world by beings of an inferior and angelical nature, and had consigned it to their superintendence. They ‘denied the Son,’ as disallowing his eternal filiation, and degrading him into the order of secondary and angelical existences. Thus far the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians agreed. They agreed also in ‘denying that Jesus was the Christ;’ though they maintained this doctrine under different modifications. The Cerinthians, dividing the person of Jesus Christ, considered Jesus a mere man; born in the natural manner from Joseph and Mary; but mystically united with the angelical being Christ, who descended upon him at the time of his baptism. This union, they conceived, was dissolved at the time of the crucifixion; the man Jesus having suffered on the cross, while the impassible Christ ascended into the heavens. The Nicolaitans, ‘denying that Jesus was come in the flesh,’ considered Jesus Christ a mere phantasm, having a form which resembled flesh, but which consisted of an ethereal essence. At the time of the crucifixion, they held that he secretly withdrew himself, while Simon the Cyrenean suffered in his likeness.
“While these heretics thus denied the Divinity and rendered void the Incarnation and Redemption of Christ, they seemed not to have erred so grossly on the doctrine of the Trinity. As they were respectively descended from the Jews, though their notions were warped by the peculiar opinions of Simon Magus, they must have derived from both sources some knowledge of this mystic doctrine. Hence it is of importance to observe that the Jews expressed their belief in this doctrine in the identical terms which occur in the suspected passage; ‘and the three are one.’ It is likewise observable, that as these notions had descended to the heretics; the Nicolaitans, in particular, expressed the same belief in similar language. And the Hebrew Gospel, which was used by the Ebionites, if not by the Cerinthians, both of which sects were opposed by St. John, not only retained the same doctrine, but inculcated it in the terms which were used by the Jews. It is therefore indisputable, whatever becomes of the text of the heavenly witnesses, that the doctrine which it inculcates was forcibly obtruded upon the attention of St. John, in the very words in which the suspected passage is expressed.
“From viewing the state of the subject as before the apostles, let us now consider the manner in which they have discussed the points at issue between them and the heretics. The determination of this matter is decisive of the true reading of the contested passages. With respect to the heretics who were opposed by St. Paul, as it has been already observed, it was not only a fundamental article of their creed to deny the divinity of the Logos, and to degrade him into the order of secondary and angelical existences; but a leading doctrine to deny that Christ became incarnate and suffered; otherwise than in appearance, for the redemption of mankind. The opposition of these notions to the explicit declarations of St. Paul, in the contested verses, must be directly apparent; and they appositely illustrate the strong emphasis with which the apostle insists on the Incarnation and Redemption in both passages: ‘God,’ he declares, ‘was manifested in the flesh;’ and ‘feed the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.’ But what is more immediately to our purpose, those heretical tenets evince the obligation which was laid on the apostle to assert the divine nature of our Lord as strenuously as he asserted his human. This we observe to be as effectually done in the Received Text, where the term God is expressly introduced; as the contrary is observable in the Corrected, where that term is superseded by ‘the Lord,’ or ‘he who was manifested.’ Of consequence, the circumstances under which those verses were delivered as fully confirm the reading of the one, as they invalidate that of the other. The apostle expressly undertakes to warn the Church against those heretics whose errors he is employed in refuting. ‘Therefore watch,’ he declares to the Ephesian pastors, ‘and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.’ To Timothy he declares, ‘If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ.’—‘Take heed unto thyself,’ subjoins the apostle, ‘and to thy doctrine; continue in them’, &c. But if we omit ‘God,’ with the Corrected Text, St. Paul is so far from delivering any warning on the subject of those heretics, even while he expressly alludes to the doctrines which they had corrupted, that he rather confirms their errors by passing them over in silence. And this is the more inadmissible, as it is contrary to the usual practice of the apostle, who on similar occasions when he was less imperatively called upon to deliver his sentiments, asserts the Divinity of our Lord in terms the most strong and explicit.
“These conclusions are further supported by collateral evidence. St. Ignatius, an auditor of St. John, who impugned the errors of the Nicolaitans respecting the divinity of the Logos, adopts the identical expressions of St. Paul in an Epistle addressed to the same church at Ephesus, and insists on the divinity, incarnation, and passion of Christ, in language the most full and explicit. Had all antiquity been silent on the subject of these contested verses, which are supported by the most full and unexceptionable evidence, the single testimony of this apostolical father would determine the genuine reading beyond controversion.
“With respect to 1 John v. 7,8 it has been already observed, that it was directed against the peculiar errors of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians. Of those sects it has been likewise observed, that they respectively denied that Jesus was ‘the Son of God,’ and ‘came in the flesh,’ though they mutually expressed their belief in a Trinity. Such are the fundamental errors which the apostle undertakes to refute, while at the same time he inculcates a just notion of the Trinity, distinguishing the Persons from the substance by opposing trei/j in the masculine to e]n in the neuter.
“Against those who denied that ‘Jesus was the Son of God,’ he appeals to the heavenly witnesses; and against those who denied that he ‘was come in the flesh,’ he appeals to the earthly. For the admission of the one, that the ‘three,’ including the Word, were ‘one’ God, as clearly evinced the divinity of Christ, as identifying him with the Father; as ‘the spirit’ which he yielded up, and ‘the blood and water’ which he shed upon the cross, evinced his humanity as proving him mortal. And this appeal to the witnesses is as obvious, as the argument deduced from it is decisive; those who abjured the Divinity of our Lord, being as naturally confuted by the testimony of the heavenly witnesses, as those who denied his humanity by the testimony of the earthly. Viewed with reference to these considerations the apostle’s argument is as full and obvious, as it is clear and decisive; while it is illustrated by the circumstances under which his epistle was written. But let us suppose the seventh verse suppressed, and he not only neglects the advantage which was to be derived from the concession of his opponents, while he sums up ‘the witness of men,’ but the very end of his epistle is frustrated, as the main proposition is thus left unestablished, that ‘Jesus is the Son of God.’ And though the notions of the heretics on the doctrine of the Trinity were vague and unsettled, the Church was thus left without any warning against their peculiar tenets, though the apostle wrote with the express view of countervailing their errors. Not to insist on the circumstances of the controversy, the object of the apostle’s writing, not less than the tenor of his sense, consequently require that the disputed passage should be considered an integral part of his text.”
“The peculiar doctrines of the Marcionites are summed up in a narrow compass by St. Irenaeus and St. Epiphanius. They agreed with the followers of Cerdo in acknowledging two principles; one of these they called the good God, conceiving him to have his residence above the heavens; and the other they termed the just God, considering him the author of the works of the Creation. The former they considered inscrutable, and wholly unknown, until the advent of Christ, who first revealed him to the world; the latter they supposed the God, who had revealed himself to the Jews, who had delivered the Law by Moses, and had spoken by the Prophets. Between these personages they conceived that there was some opposition of will and nature; the one presiding over the immaterial spiritual world; the other over the material visible creation. Christ, as the Son and legate of the good God, came to abolish the power and dominion of the Creator. He was not however made in the flesh, but appeared merely in the likeness of man; the object of his appearance on earth having been to abolish the Law and the Prophets; to save the souls, not the bodies of men; for the Marcionites agreed with the Nicolaitans and other Gnostics in denying the resurrection. In order to justify these notions, the founder of the sect had framed antitheses between the Law and the Gospel, in which he endeavored to show that the one was contrary to the other.” Ch 6
Check out these verses in the ESV. Acts 20:28 reads church of God, but the footnote reads some manuscripts of the Lord. 1 Tim 3:16 reads He was manifested in the flesh, instead of God was manifested in the flesh. 1 Jn 5:7,8 the ESV leaves out the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. As Nolan pointed out, the heretics of the early church brought damnable heresies into some manuscripts and the textual critics are deceived in following them.
Again Nolan writes, “The most remarkable of those passages in which the Palestine and Byzantine texts differ, are Matt. xix. 17, Luke. xi. 2, 4, 13. It will not appear extraordinary, that the former edition should agree in these passages with the peculiar readings of Origen; when it is remembered, that it was revised by Eusebius, the admirer and apologist of the father of sacred criticism. But it is particularly deserving of remark, that the Palestine text, in coinciding in these passages with Origen, also corresponds with the peculiar readings of Valentinus and Marcion. When we take into account the nature and tendency of that tract, in which the extraordinary readings of those passages are preserved; that it inculcates heterodox notions, and quotes other apocryphal texts; there will not be much reason to doubt, that the alteration of the text in those places must be ultimately referred to those hereticks, whom Origen in his riper judgment, has accused of corrupting the text.
“These opinions, which had been broached by Marcion, near the times of Hyginus, bishop of Rome, until those of Pope Damasus; had maintained their ground against the opposition of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Rhodon, Origen, and Epiphanius; and had produced the different sects of Lucianists, Tatianists, and Apelleians. The Valentinians were a kindred sect which sprang from that common source of heresy, the school of Simon Magus; agreeing in their fundamental tenets with the Marcionites, though they differed essentially from them in their notions of celibacy, which, they held in no high estimation. Of the important light in which they were held, we may form some idea from the Rule of Faith, and the description of heresy, which are given by Origen; both of which are framed expressly with a view to the Valentinian and Marcionite notions.
“One great object of that indefatigable writer (Origen) was to oppose the growth of these heresies, and we clearly discover the source of that unfortunate bias which his theological opinions took, in the influence which this controversy had upon his mind. As the hereticks had depressed the Creatour, representing him as inferior to Christ, he was driven into the opposite extreme and in asserting the transcendent glory of God, too incautiously depreciated the Son’s co‑equality with the Father. Though, he very successfully combated the fundamental errors of his opponents; their reasonings, particularly when seconded by the speculations of Plato, seem to have had so far an influence upon his sentiments as to induce him to embrace some very extraordinary notions relative to the constitution of Christ’s body, and that of the human frame, after the resurrection. Some of these notions he adopted from Tatian, by whose peculiar opinions he confesses himself to have been once influenced; and from whom he obviously imbibed that extraordinary attachment to a state of celibacy, which he professed in numberless places.”
“As the founders of those different sects had tampered with the text of Scripture, and the Marcionite heresy had extended itself through the Egyptian, Palestine, and Italick dioceses, it cannot be deemed extraordinary that the particular texts which prevailed in these regions should have insensibly undergone some changes, from the influence of the editions revised by the hereticks. In some instances the genuine text had been wholly superseded by the spurious editions. In one diocese of the Oriental Church, the Diatessaron of Tatian had been generally received to the exclusion of the vulgar edition. As it has been customary with the disputants, who were engaged in defending the orthodox and the heretical side of the question, to reason from the concessions, and to quote from the Scriptures acknowledged by their adversaries, the distinctions between the pure text and the corrupted revisal, were at length wholly confounded in their writings. In a country where there was little stability of religious opinion, and where great liberties had been taken with the sacred text, little confidence could be reposed in any edition. The works of approved writers furnished the only standard by which they could be tried; but they now afforded but a fallacious criterion, as containing quotations which were drawn from various equivocal sources. A difference between these quotations and the sacred text become a sufficient evidence of the corruption of the latter; and the next object was to amend the text by accommodating it to the quotation.” Ch 6
Again, “The fact, however, is, that so enlightened was that age, and so intimately are we acquainted with its history, that we can give a clear and consistent account of every considerable change, which the sacred text underwent, at the same period. Christianity then assumed a new form, under the Emperour Constantine, in becoming the established religion. Under the auspices of this monarch, a new revisal of the sacred writings was published by Eusebius; to the influence of which we must impute almost every considerable change which the text underwent in the original or in translations. The extension of Christianity about this period, added to the list of Versions, a Gothick and Ethiopick, if not an Armenian and Arabick, translation. Revisals of the Old Italiek and Syriack, undertaken in the same century, produced the Latin Vulgate and Jerusalem Syriack. The agreement of these versions with each other, and with the Greek manuscripts, imported into the West from Palestine, and divided by the sections of Eusebius, enables us very clearly to determine his edition, which was authorised, from the reign of Constantine to that of Theodosius. As the Syriack and Italick provinces were exposed to the same casualties, which destroyed the sacred books as far westward as Britain; the versions which were generally received in those regions, most probably underwent some change at this period. But this change proceded not from the Byzantine, but the Palestine text. And we consequently find that the revisal of Eusebius, has had some influence on the Old Italick and Syriack; as both versions agree with the Palestine text, in omitting some remarkable passages. But this consideration does not affect the main point in dispute; that those versions are wholly free from the influence of the Byzantine text: admitting which to be the case, it must follow, that they are separate, as we have seen, they are antient witnesses.”
“As the influence of Eusebius’s text, and the authority of those Emperours who favoured the Arian heresy, render it next to impossible that the Byzantine text should have had any effect on the Old Italick and Syriack versions, at this early period the history of those versions, and the state of the Latin and Syrian Churches, render it wholly impossible, that the vulgar Greek should have attained, at a subsequent period, such influence over the Oriental and Western versions, that it should be taken as the standard by which they were corrected.” Ch 5
Eusebius, the historian, was a compromiser who wished to bring the Arians, who did not believe in the Trinity, and the Athanasians, who did, into the same body.
Again Nolan writes, “With respect to the Manuscripts which may be cited in favour of this system, it remains to be observed, that the weight of their testimony does not depend on the age of the copies, but on their number and coincidence, as witnesses, and the antiquity of the text, which they support by their concurring evidence. From the conspiring testimony of manuscripts, versions, and fathers, it appears that this text must have existed at least at the close of the fourth century. But no manuscript with which we are acquainted, possesses internal evidence which will warrant our placing it higher than this early period. The testimony of none of course can be cited, as disproving the priority of the text which exists in the most modern of those manuscripts that conform to the vulgar edition. To establish the integrity of this text, is the main object of our endeavours; and if it be not evinced, by the concurrence of those innumerable witnesses who agree in a testimony, which has been perpetuated for fourteen hundred years; the labour must be unavailing, which endeavours to prove it, by the coincidence of a few manuscripts, of which we cannot certainly know the origin.” Ch 5
“With respect to the evidence of Manuscripts, on which our main dependence is rested, it is not disputed, that they are faithful to the tenour and testimony of tradition, as far as it extends. Through the fourteen centuries, for which the vulgar text has confessedly existed, they agree with one another; and though their number is proportionally multiplied with the progression of time, at the end of this immense period, this agreement is preserved. Among the many concessions which are made us, this is not the least important to the establishment of the conclusion for which I contend. It is indeed true, that the Egyptian and Palestine texts are almost wholly preserved, in manuscripts which are of greater antiquity than any which preserve the Byzantine; the Alexandrine, Vatican and Cambridge manuscripts coming to the former editions instead of the latter. But while it can be never inferred from the antiquity of these manuscripts that the Egyptian or Palestine text is prior to the Byzantine; it may be concluded from their preservation for so long a time, that the manuscripts have not been in use; and that the text which they contain is of course unsupported by the uninterrupted testimony of tradition. From their antiquity, in fact, we can only infer that they were written at a period and in a country wherein the Egyptian or Palestine texts respectively prevailed; and from their preservation, that they have been regarded as relicks in the monasteries, in which they have been preserved. Yet, waving these considerations, the testimony of two of these manuscripts, and those which are apparently the most antient, may be fairly cited in favour of the vulgar text. With this text the Vatican manuscript is found to coincide in the opening chapters of St. Matthew, and the Alexdrine in the whole of the Gospels: whatever be the antiquity of these manuscripts, it is consequently subsequent to that of the Byzantine text. Such being the case with the oldest manuscripts with which we are acquainted, the Greek Vulgate has nothing to apprehend from the testimony of the Codex Cantabrigiensis. As this manuscript is divided by the sections of Euthalius, it cannot be older than the middle of the fifth century; but that the Byzantine text existed previously to this period, is fully allowed us: by this concession, of course, the testimony of the Cambridge manuscript is left little weight, when cited against the Greek Vulgate.” Ch 5
This is just a sample of Nolan’s work! Do not be deceived by the textual critics.
John Burgon, the defender of the Received text writes, “We venture to assure [the reader] without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph [א] B D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:— exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:— have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of GOD.” J. Burgon, “The Revision Revised” p.41
10. HISTORY OF THE NESTLE-ALAND EDITIION, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE ESV
“In 1898 Eberhard Nestle published the first edition of his Novum Testamentum Graece. Based on a simple yet ingenious idea it disseminated the insights of the textual criticism of that time through a hand edition designed for university and school studies and for church purposes. Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time by Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth as a basis. (After 1901 he replaced the latter with Bernhard Weiß’s 1894/1900 edition.) Where their textual decisions differed from each other Nestle chose for his own text the variant which was preferred by two of the editions included, while the variant of the third was put into the apparatus.
“The text-critical apparatus remained rudimentary in all the editions published by Eberhard Nestle. It was Eberhard Nestle’s son Erwin who provided the 13th edition of 1927 with a consistent critical apparatus showing evidence from manuscripts, early translations and patristic citations. However, these notes did not derive from the primary sources, but only from editions.
“This changed in the nineteen-fifties, when Kurt Aland started working for the edition by checking the apparatus entries against Greek manuscripts and editions of the Church Fathers. This phase came to a close in 1963 when the 25th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece appeared; later printings of this edition already carried the brand name “Nestle-Aland” on their covers.
“The 26th edition, which appeared in 1979, featured a fundamentally new approach. Until then the guiding principle had been to adopt the text supported by a majority of the critical editions referred to. Now the text was established on the basis of source material that had been assembled and evaluated in the intervening period. It included early papyri and other manuscript discoveries, so that the 26th edition represented the situation of textual criticism in the 20th century. Its text was identical with that of the 3rd edition of the UBS Greek New Testament (GNT) published in 1975, as a consequence of the parallel work done on both editions. Already in 1955 Kurt Aland was invited to participate in an editorial committee with Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, Alan Wikgren, and at first Arthur Vööbus, later Carlo Martini (and, from 1982, Barbara Aland and Johannes Karavidopoulos) to produce a reliable hand edition of the Greek New Testament.
“The first edition of the GNT appeared in 1966. Its text was established along the lines of Westcott and Hort and differed considerably from Nestle’s 25th edition. This holds true for the second edition of the GNT as well. When the third edition was prepared Kurt Aland was able to contribute the textual proposals coming from his preliminary work on the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland. Hence the process of establishing the text for both editions continued to converge, so that eventually they could share an identical text. However, their external appearance and the design of their apparatus remains different, because they serve different purposes. The GNT is primarily intended for translators, providing a reliable Greek initial text and a text-critical apparatus showing variants that are relevant for translation. In the case of the passages selected for this purpose the evidence is displayed as completely as possible. The Novum Testamentum Graece is produced primarily for research, academic education and pastoral practice. It seeks to provide an apparatus that enables the reader to make a critical assessment of the reconstruction of the Greek initial text.
“The text of the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland was adopted for the 27th edition also, while the apparatus underwent an extensive revision. The text remained the same, because the 27th edition was not “deemed an appropriate occasion for introducing textual changes”. Since then the situation has changed, because the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) of the Catholic Letters is now available. Its text was established on the basis of all the relevant material from manuscripts and other sources. The ECM text was adopted for the present edition following approval by the editorial committee of the Nestle-Aland and the GNT,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece
In the nineteen-fifties Kurt Aland started working for the edition by checking the apparatus entries against Greek manuscripts and editions of the Church Fathers. In 1955 Aland was invited to participate in an editorial committee with Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, etc. to produce a reliable edition of the Greek New Testament. The first edition of the GNT appeared in 1966. Its text was established along the lines of Westcott and Hort and differed considerably from Nestle’s 25th edition. This was the basis of the 27th edition used to translate the ESV.
Its claim to be in the tradition of the KJV is simply false.
11. WHO WERE BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT AND FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT?
Let their own words testify who they were!!
Hort: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one may be proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more. (Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p.413).
Hort: “I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that ‘the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself’ is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…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 and Letters, Vol. 1, p.430).
Hort: “The fact is, I do not see how God’s justice can be satisfied without every man’s suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins.” (Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p.120).
Westcott: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did – yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.” (Life and Letters, Vol. 2, p.69).
Hort to Westcott: “Also – but this may be cowardice – I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.” (Life and Letters, Vol. 1, p.445).
These two Church of England heretics, who were lovers of the Roman Catholic Church, are the fathers of the following perversions: RV of 1881, ASV of 1901, RSV of 1946, NASV of 1971, 1995, NIV of 1978, 1984, 2011, ESV of 2001. With these men as revisers of Scriptures how can any Christian use these translations? Would any Bible-believing pastor allow these men to preach in their pulpits???
12. VATICANUS AND SINIATICUS
Matthew 19:17 KJV – And he said unto him, Why callest th me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Matthew 19:17 ESV – And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.
”The most remarkable of those passages in which the Palestine and Byzantine texts differ are Matt. xix. 17, Luke. xi. 2, 4, 13. It will not appear extraordinary that the former edition should agree in these passages with the peculiar readings of Origen, when it is remembered that it was revised by Eusebius, the admirer and apologist of the father of sacred criticism. But it is particularly deserving of remark that the Palestine text, in coinciding in these passages with Origen, also corresponds with the peculiar readings of Valentinus and Marcion. When we take into account the nature and tendency of that tract, in which the extraordinary readings of those passages are preserved, that it inculcates heterodox notions and quotes other apocryphal texts, there will not be much reason to doubt that the alteration of the text in those places must be ultimately referred to those heretics whom Origen, in his riper judgment, has accused of corrupting the text, Nolan ch. 6.
“These opinions, which had been broached by Marcion near the times of Hyginus, bishop of Rome, until those of Pope Damasus, had maintained their ground against the opposition of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Rhodon, Origen, and Epiphanius, and had produced the different sects of Lucianists, Tatianists, and Apelleians. The Valentinians were a kindred sect which sprang from that common source of heresy, the school of Simon Magus, agreeing in their fundamental tenets with the Marcionites, though they differed essentially from them in their notions of celibacy, which, they held in no high estimation. Of the important light in which they were held we may form some idea from the Rule of Faith and the description of heresy which are given by Origen, both of which are framed expressly with a view to the Valentinian and Marcionite notions.
“One great object of that indefatigable writer was to oppose the growth of these heresies, and we clearly discover the source of that unfortunate bias which his theological opinions took in the influence which this controversy had upon his mind. As the heretics had depressed the Creator, representing him as inferior to Christ, he was driven into the opposite extreme and in asserting the transcendent glory of God, too incautiously depreciated the Son’s co-equality with the Father. Though he very successfully combated the fundamental errors of his opponents, their reasonings, particularly when seconded by the speculations of Plato, seem to have had so far an influence upon his sentiments as to induce him to embrace some very extraordinary notions relative to the constitution of Christ’s body, and that of the human frame after the resurrection. Some of these notions he adopted from Tatian, by whose peculiar opinions he confesses himself to have been once influenced, and from whom he obviously imbibed that extraordinary attachment to a state of celibacy, which he professed in numberless places, Nolan
John 1:27 KJV – He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
John 1:27 ESV – even he who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”
“Of the texts next in importance to those which have been specified, John i 27 relates to the preexistence of Christ, and Luc. ix 55 to the cause of his advent. The Arian tendency of the reviser of the Palestine text, and the Origenian tendency of the reviser of the Egyptian, respectively occasioned the suppression of both passages.” Nolan ch 6
Nolan shows how the perversions, contained in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, came from.
13. THE ESV “TAKETH AWAY” 17 COMPLETE VERSES
As we go through this material, get your ESV Bible and please check me out. Most of these examples of perversions are found in the vast majority of all the new versions. The reason they all carry these corruptions is that they are all built upon the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text. And the W&H text carries these thousands of distortions and deletions. Remember they’re not simply updating the King James “English” text, but they are built upon a drastically different corrupt Greek text, produced by these two “admitted” heretics.
The ESV completely removes the following 17 verses:
Matthew 12:47 – Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 17:21 – Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Matthew 18:11 – For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Matthew 23:14 – Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Mark 7:16 – If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Mark 9:44 – Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 9:46 – Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Mark 11:26 – But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Mark 15:28 – 28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Luke 17:36 – Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 22:44 – And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Luke 23:17 – (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
John 5:4 – For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Acts 8:37 – And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 15:34 – Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Acts 24:7 (note half of Acts 24:6 and 24:8 is also removed) – 7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
Acts 28:29 – And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
Romans 16:24 – The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
14. MORE VERSES REMOVED
After Mark 16:8 the ESV states, “Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20.” Puff, there goes another 12 verses. And by the way, that is absolutely untrue! The book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over 400 pages of documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never been refuted, nor ever will!
After John 7:52, the NIV, reads, “The earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11” Puff, There goes another 12 verses! The ESV states “The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11.”
2 Corinthians 4:2- But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. KJV
15. WARNING FOR THOSE WHO TAKE AWAY OR ADD TO GOD’S WORD!!!!!
The Lord has warned people against subtracting and adding to his words. In all the ESV take away 33,000 words from the New Testament alone. The fact is, the new version people are LIARS because they claim that they are just updating the language to make it “easier”, but what they have done is used the corrupt W&H Greek text that corrupts doctrines and alters the precious words of God. Let me ask you a question? What did the Lord Jesus say about those who add or subtract from his word?
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star…18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:…19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Rev 22:16,18,19 What is the textual critics answer to the Lord’s stern warning here? There is no answer that could be given. Let me ask you, dear reader, What would you say to the Lord??? Have you accepted a version of the Scriptures that takes away God’s words? Are you in danger? Read these verses before you answer!
Deuteronomy 4:2 (KJV) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Revelation 22:18,19 – If any man SHALL ADD unto these things..And if any man shall TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life… KJV
Mark 13:31 – Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. These are the words of the Lord Jesus!!!
Those of you who are using the ESV and other newer versions beware of these warnings.
God is not the author of the ESV! The spirit behind the ESV comes from that evil one who wants to take the word of God from you. This is a very serious matter. Please beware.
Notice what Matthew 18:11 says? For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. KJV This verse is removed in the ESV. What a verse to take completely out!
The ESV takes out the name “Jesus” 18 times, “Jesus Christ” 51 times, “Christ” 39 times, “Lord” 66 times and “God” 38 times. The ESV attacks our Lord Jesus Christ! The ESV also removes the word “Hell” 40 times, the words “devil” and “devils” 83 times.
In Matthew 5:22, the ESV makes Jesus Christ a sinner by removing the phrase “without a cause”. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
The ESV takes out the precious Blood of Jesus Christ in Colossians 1:14
The ESV denies the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in Philippians 2:6,
In 1 Timothy 3:16, the ESV attacks the deity and incarnation of Jesus Christ by replacing “God” with “He”
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” KJV
We know that there are many sons of God in scripture, such as Adam(Luke 3:38), the angels(Job 1:6) and Christians(Philippians 2:15). With that in mind, the ESV changes (John 3:16) into a lie by removing the word “begotten”.
The ESV gives Lucifer one of the names of the Lord Jesus Christ in Isaiah 14:12, which is “Day Star”(1 Peter 1:19).
The Lord’s Prayer is changed into the Devil’s Prayer by removing the phrases “which art in heaven”, “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in the earth” and “deliver us from evil”. The “father” of the ESV is not in heaven and does not want to deliver us from evil because it is Satan who is behind this corrupt translation!
Luke 11:2 “And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. 3 Give us day by day our daily bread. 4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” KJV
The Virgin Birth is attacked by the ESV in Isaiah 7:14 by replacing “virgin” with “young woman”.
…then again in Luke 2:33 by saying that Joseph was the father of Jesus!
So, what have we learned? The ESV flat out lies by saying it is just an update of the KJV and is “easier” to read. The ESV people talk about the “originals” without ever even seeing them. The ESV uses the corrupt Greek manuscript of W&H that are based upon the Vaticanus and Siniaticus manuscripts, which include the Catholic Apocrypha IN the Old Testament. Finally, they take out complete verses and words, while corrupting major doctrines and attacking our Lord Jesus Christ.
16. THE ESV “TAKETH AWAY” OVER 33,000 WORDS IN JUST THE NEW TESTAMENT!
A word comparison with the New Testament of the KJB and the ESV reveals the ESV removes over a staggering 33,000 words! And that is nothing to sneeze at. That equals removing all the words of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Jude – combined!
That’s a huge part of your Bible that someone decided you didn’t need! And that’s just the words ripped from the New Testament! So much for the Lord’s stern warning against adding and taking away from His Words.
In case you think the ESV simply removes insignificant archaic words. The ESV removes “key” words and phases from hundreds of verses. The following are some examples of words “taken away” in the ESV. The words underlined are removed in the ESV.
Mathew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. KJV
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. ESV
Mark 9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. For everyone will be salted with fire.
Luke 9:55-56 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. KJV
Luke 22:64 And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? KJV
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. KJV
John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. KJV
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. KJV
1 Corinthians 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: KJV
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? KJV
Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, KJV
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. KJV
17. THE ESV AND THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
Among the changes in the new versions is the deliberate assault on the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord and Christ are sometimes removed, the virgin birth is assailed, his identity as God is removed. Most people reading only the ESV never realize this venomous attack on the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Bible says in Acts 4:12, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Philippians 2:10 says about the name of Jesus, That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; KJV
And the ESV removes the name of “Jesus” 18 times! And it removes “Jesus Christ” 51 times, and the designation “Christ” 39 times, the “Lord” 66 times, and “God” 38 times.
In Matthew 5:22, the ESV removes “without a cause” making Jesus Christ, who got angry, as recorded in Mark 3:5 and other places, in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. KJV
Colossians 1:14 The ESV removes the words through his blood, in spite of what Paul wrote in Heb 9:22 – and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 1:3 again attacks the blood atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ by removing the words “by himself,” by this invalidating his vicarious sacrificial death. The ESV obscures the incarnation of the Lord Jesus by changing “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person” to the vague “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature.”
The ESV in Philippians 2:6-7 changes the clear, definitive statement of Christ’s deity in the KJV, “thought it not robbery to be equal with God” to the exact opposite “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped”!
1 Timothy 3:16 is the clearest assertion in the scriptures that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh, while the ESV clearly denies the deity of Jesus Christ!
Every person was “manifested in the flesh,” but only Christ was God manifested in the flesh!
1 John 4:3 provides us a sure sign to identify the spirit of the antichrist.
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. KJV
The antichrist would delight in corrupting this verse and the ESV grants his demonic wish by removing the key words “is come in the flesh.”
The ESV corrupts John 3:16 by removing the word “begotten.” Adam is called the “son of God” in Luke 3:38; there are “sons of God” in Job 1:6; and Christians are called “sons of God” in Philippians 2:15, I John 3:2. However, Jesus Christ is the “only BEGOTTEN Son.” By removing the word “begotten,” the ESV perverts John 3:16 into a lie. The ESV also removes “begotten” in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:18 and 1 John 4:9.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. KJV
Dear Friends, would you desecrate the Lord Jesus by using the ESV?
18. ESV AND SALVATION
Paul warns the Christians in 2 Corinthians 11:3 of Satan’s attempt to corrupt your minds “from the simplicity that is in Christ.”
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. KJV
And the ESV successfully carries out the serpent’s beguiling desire by corrupting “the simplicity that is in Christ.” The ESV’s corruption and confusion of the simplicity of Christ injects the deadly venom from the subtle serpent of Genesis 3:1, “Yea, hath God said. . .?”
Remember Hort despises the blood atonement of Jesus Christ labeling it “an almost universal heresy.” He also adds that the doctrine of substitution, is “an immoral and material counterfeit”:
Oct. 15th – Hort: “I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that “the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself” is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…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).
The ESV carries forth Hort’s malicious attack on Christ’s “substitutionary atonement.” In Acts 3:47 salvation is a one-time finished salvation, but in the ESV it is a process. It’s not “saved,” but a continual process of “being saved.” In the ESV’s and Hort’s twisted salvation, at what point does someone actually become “saved” and no longer “being saved”?
Notice Act 2:47 in the KJV, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Then notice Acts 2:47 in the ESV praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Notice the same perversion in 1 Corinthians 1:18, For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. KJV
See also 1 Corinthians 15:2, 2 Corinthians 2:15, Colossians 2:10
19. THE ENGLISH SUB-STANDARD VERSION
The English Standard Version should have been correctly named The English SUBStandard Version. In every conceivable way: easy of reading; accuracy; doctrine; honoring the Lord Jesus; truthfulness – it is SubStandard. Would any sincere Christian trade their trustworthy King James Bible for such a pitiful phony?
Knowing that the corrupt manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, are the basis from which the ESV is translated, would any truly faithful Pastor allow it to be used in a Christian Church. Knowing that Westcott and Hort with their unbelief are purveyors of the perverted ESV, should any Pastor permit the ESV to be read and preached from the pulpit, and would any Bible believing Christian trust the corrupt, deceitful, perverted ESV? Would any Christian support a Christian College or Seminary that promotes such a heresy? Should any Christian Seminary or Christian College teach Textual Criticism? I would hope not!!! I would hope that none that reads this paper would be in danger of having the words of Revelation 22:18,19 applied to him!!! Instead let the reader be set for the defence of the Gospel, Phil 1:17, and earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, Jude 3.