Thanks for your review of the ESV Study Bible. While watching another review I learned that contributors to notes of all the books of the bibles are all considered experts on the particular book whose notes they wrote.
Absolutely, thank you for your comment on that. Many of these contributors helped in the translation work on the ESV and more than a few were my professors in seminary.
Man why didnt i go get babtized in your church lol id love a bible like that, i was just babtised at City View babtist church today brother here in Wichita Falls Tx ... That's awsome brother :)
English speaking people didn’t need a Bible for 1600 years? What about bibles prior to the KJV were those bibles or was God unconcerned with preserving his word and spreading the gospel to English speaking people until 1611? I have to ask what version of the KJV is the Bible? Is it the 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769 edition. I’m assuming not the 1611 as it contained the apocrypha. I grew up reading the KJV 1769 Oxford edition, the one I’m assuming you mean when you reference the KJV. It is a fantastic translation, and a literary masterpiece, I still read it to this day, nothing is as poetic and it just sounds wonderful. I grew up in a church that held this position on the KJV being the only Bible in English that was not a “perversion”. I challenge you to do actual research on the different editions of the KJV as well as other translations. The best argument for the KJV, while I’m not convinced by it is the source texts and their origin. The counter argument for newer translations is that modern translations have older manuscripts (Alexandrian). The KJV supporter will argue that Textus Receptus is better because of its origin because the churches around Alexandria were not as strong as others. My whole point of replying to this is that I was taught at an early age that the KJV was the only Bible and that it is a hill that you must die on as a faithful Christian, you can not worship or do ministry with anyone that uses anything else. I was taught “if it ain’t King James it ain’t Bible” but was never shown why this was the case it was just taught as an article of faith. I know I may have seemed aggressive in the beginning of this response, this is because coming from my background and being taught this in the absence of evidence I now am rather hostile to this position as I think that it creates division among Christian’s for no reason and plays into Satan’s plan to keep the church ineffective. Understand no one who doesn’t use the KJV will attack you and tell you you aren’t a real Christian because you use the KJV, it’s is only the KJV onlyist that will attack the person using another version with the accusation of not being a real Christian.
Thanks for your review of the ESV Study Bible. While watching another review I learned that contributors to notes of all the books of the bibles are all considered experts on the particular book whose notes they wrote.
Absolutely, thank you for your comment on that. Many of these contributors helped in the translation work on the ESV and more than a few were my professors in seminary.
Man why didnt i go get babtized in your church lol id love a bible like that, i was just babtised at City View babtist church today brother here in Wichita Falls Tx ... That's awsome brother :)
I brought this bible on eBay love this bible
If it’s not the KJV bible it’s not a Bible
*sigh* Thank you for your insight and contribution, Jeremi.
English speaking people didn’t need a Bible for 1600 years? What about bibles prior to the KJV were those bibles or was God unconcerned with preserving his word and spreading the gospel to English speaking people until 1611? I have to ask what version of the KJV is the Bible? Is it the 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769 edition. I’m assuming not the 1611 as it contained the apocrypha. I grew up reading the KJV 1769 Oxford edition, the one I’m assuming you mean when you reference the KJV. It is a fantastic translation, and a literary masterpiece, I still read it to this day, nothing is as poetic and it just sounds wonderful. I grew up in a church that held this position on the KJV being the only Bible in English that was not a “perversion”. I challenge you to do actual research on the different editions of the KJV as well as other translations. The best argument for the KJV, while I’m not convinced by it is the source texts and their origin. The counter argument for newer translations is that modern translations have older manuscripts (Alexandrian). The KJV supporter will argue that Textus Receptus is better because of its origin because the churches around Alexandria were not as strong as others. My whole point of replying to this is that I was taught at an early age that the KJV was the only Bible and that it is a hill that you must die on as a faithful Christian, you can not worship or do ministry with anyone that uses anything else. I was taught “if it ain’t King James it ain’t Bible” but was never shown why this was the case it was just taught as an article of faith. I know I may have seemed aggressive in the beginning of this response, this is because coming from my background and being taught this in the absence of evidence I now am rather hostile to this position as I think that it creates division among Christian’s for no reason and plays into Satan’s plan to keep the church ineffective. Understand no one who doesn’t use the KJV will attack you and tell you you aren’t a real Christian because you use the KJV, it’s is only the KJV onlyist that will attack the person using another version with the accusation of not being a real Christian.