Ιακοβ Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 (edited) Do they have some divine insight that makes them believe no new manuscripts will be discovered that are significant enough that the majority of scholarship will agree on amendments? Edited August 14, 2016 by Ιακοβ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukfraser Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I think its just that it takes a lot of time and effort to carve them into stone and despite modern technology, there isnt a sort of 'whitepaper correction fluid' for marble. ;o) Stone tablets are Not the easiest things to carry or store though! ;o( 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Mansfield Posted August 15, 2016 Author Share Posted August 15, 2016 Rick, not all of the changes listed from Crossway match up with the Accordance text. For example 1 Kings 8:48. Randy, are you sure you've updated? Mine look the same in 1 Kings 8:48 unless I'm am just overlooking something. See attached screenshot, which is from ESVS 5.1, although I just saw that 5.2 has been released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Palmer Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Randy, are you sure you've updated? Mine look the same in 1 Kings 8:48 unless I'm am just overlooking something. See attached screenshot, which is from ESVS 5.1, although I just saw that 5.2 has been released. Screen Shot 2016-08-15 at 11.45.18 AM.png The Permanent Text version is the left column. So in this instance, Randy is right ... our text still shows the "old" version. I cannot, however, speak to the source file from which our updates came. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allison Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 My fault. Fixed the script that adds the key number tagging, but missed the text itself. It will be fixed in 5.3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Mansfield Posted August 15, 2016 Author Share Posted August 15, 2016 The Permanent Text version is the left column. So in this instance, Randy is right ... our text still shows the "old" version. Ah, I wasn't paying attention. When I compare texts, I always put the older one on the left, so I guess I expected the rest of the world to be like me, too :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Cue Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Thanks Julie, Mark, and Rick for looking at this. It is interesting that the Crossway list of changes does not include spelling changes, addition of quotation marks, and versification changes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanHuber Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 (edited) Do they have some divine insight that makes them believe no new manuscripts will be discovered that are significant enough that the majority of scholarship will agree on amendments? Leaving the text as is for now is not the same as saying the text is perfect and set for all time. It just means that the committee is done with the planned revisions. If something significant happened like discovery of important manuscripts that justified further revisions, I'd bet multiple translation committees would at least consider it. Edit: I hadn't yet read Crossway's statement. It looks like they plan to leave the text forever after all. There's a reason we're not all using the KJV. Edited August 18, 2016 by JonathanHuber 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukfraser Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 KJV permanent text edition + x years = NKJV ESV permanent text edition + y years = NESV ;o) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbgroover Posted August 18, 2016 Share Posted August 18, 2016 Hey Rick, Can you repost that PDF with the text differences? It looks like it has been taken down. Gavin You can find the official statement and list of the changes on Crossway's esv.org website. Very interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbcvida Posted August 20, 2016 Share Posted August 20, 2016 I upgraded to ESV permanent text, but lost the ESVS - the new permanent edition does not contain Strong's Numbering system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Simpson Posted August 20, 2016 Share Posted August 20, 2016 (edited) I upgraded to ESV permanent text, but lost the ESVS - the new permanent edition does not contain Strong's Numbering system? No, the ESVS is updated to the latest ESVS which is the permanent text edition. If you have lost the ESVS (check by searching your library) then just reinstall via easy install - it will install the permanent text edition. Yes it has Strong's numbers. Edited August 20, 2016 by Ken Simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Cue Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 (edited) My fault. Fixed the script that adds the key number tagging, but missed the text itself. It will be fixed in 5.3. Mark is as good as his word. 5.3 is here, and it is fixed. Thanks Mark. Edited August 29, 2016 by Randy Cue 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimpleTheist Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Hey Rick, Can you repost that PDF with the text differences? It looks like it has been taken down. Gavin Ironically the ESV website has a list of the changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now