I have heard from a Gideon's rep that when they originally switched from The KJB to the New Berkeley, they found that they didn't have the same soul winning success as what they previously had with the King James,which does contradict modern notions of readability being necessary for conversions & seems to put the argument on a more Faith & Providential Preservation basis.
As that would mean that God has blessed that what He Knows to be His Infallible & Verbally Reserved Text base,which just happens to be The Received Text in this case as the Berkeley used the critical text apparatus.
Robert, I don't know if you're trying to be amusing or not but you continue to cast aspersions on any other translation or text besides that which you yourself support, and with anecdotal evidence? That type of logic works against you as well since one could make the case that since translations other than the KJV have been blessed to convert sinners in recent years, that they must be based on what God "knows to be His Infallible & Verbally Reserved Text base". Support the KJV and TR by all means, but please try to refrain from casting aspersions on everything else.
I found what appears to be a
list of the changes from the ESV to the Gideon ESV. It does not appear that 1 John 5:7 is included.
Logan , I relayed some Information that I received from a Gideon's Rep here in Sydney and you wish to turn this personal, could you please refrain from that & not make a false accusations out by saying that "I'm to cast aspersions or trying to be amusing"
yes there may well be conversions from from the use of Critical Text translations so what? I don't deny this
I am an unabashed supporter of The Received Text/King James Textual Base, I don't deny I have a bias in this area,you have admitted to having bias' yourself in a recent thread !
I have the right as much as yourself to post my views on this Forum, If you don't like them then ignore them or right a reply to them,thank you. The Berkeley Translation is C.T. (as well as the ESV for that matter)
& therefore not in the Westminster Confession's view of an Infallible & Providential Preserved Textual base, only The Received Text fits the bill their,this is not an aspersion this is FACT.
What I find amusing is that Gideons have just ditched a Translation based on The Received Text in the main N.K.J.V. and embraced one based on the C.T. (ESV) and have then gone and restored Received Text readings back into the Translation
I cannot see the logic in this quite frankly,this is a concession to the R.T.! which textual Apparatus do they view as Authoritative or Superior? or rather what do they view as Words of God, seems all rather confusing to me though a good thing they
have restored the readings of 1 John 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16 & Acts 20:28 major Christological verses & other important ones like Colossians 1:14, Acts 8:37 & Luke 2:43 why change the Text base & translation only to go back to its readings ?