I picked up a copy of the "New Authorized Version" New Testament earlier this week while shopping for bargains at Dollar Tree (a dollar store). I've visited their website, www.av7.org, and would like to know a little more about this new Bible version and it's translation/revision committee. Their website seems to have a FAQ section, but not all questions posed to them have been officially answered. From what I've read from the NT paperback book I have (which was only $1), I like the way in which it was translated (or, revised from the KJV). Is the organization behind the New Authorized Version KJV/TR-only?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
New Authorized Version
- Thread starter LRL71
- Start date
- Status
The NAV is the Third Millennium Bible being marketed under an easier name. [URL="http://www.tmbible.com/"]http://www.tmbible.com/[/URL]
Apparently the TMB/NAV is closer to the original 1611 KJV than what is sold now as the KJV. The TMB/NAV retains the Apocrypha while modern KJV editions do not contain that part of the original KJV. The TMB/NAV restores the KJV tradition that editors of the modern KJV editions have removed.
Forever settled in heaven
New Member
Keith M said:
some departures, though. such as:
1. its use of the Majority Text as opposed to Textus Receptus
strangely, it ignores the fact that the TR was based on a minority of texts when it goes on abt modern versions:
2. it's removed the original 1611 translators' Preface n inserted one fr the "updaters," just like modern versions have done. this means we'll again miss the excellent arguments of those original group of translators, who'd vigorously oppose the KJBOism of today, the LXX deniars, n possibly the existence of a Baptist Board even :laugh:.
3. this Bible seems to have a strong ecumenical agenda throughout, in statements like this one:
i doubt that King James I of England had any such motives; other than uniting his kingdom n his church, he wasn't too keen in currying the favour of Papists or Calvinists, for instance.
well, we'll see how this wannabe in the line of KJBs pans out. it'll be interesting to see what the Ruckmanites n the Waite-rs n the Riplingerers havta say.
Forever settled in heaven said:
From another portion of the TMB website, it states this specifically, "
In evaluating the reliability of almost all contemporary versions one must take into account some little-known history of Bible translations. The principal Greek New Testament text from which almost all contemporary translators worked is known as the Codex Sinaiticus, discovered by archeologist Konstantin von Tischendorf at the foot of Mt. Sinai in 1844. This manuscript is shorter than the text used in translating the Authorized Version by almost three thousand words. This shorter Greek New Testament text was unused and ignored for more than fifteen hundred years in the life of the church, and was reflective of Gnostic and secular influences of the Alexandrian and Hellenistic cultures of antiquity. It was never used in any English Bible translation until 1881. It is worthwhile to note that the New Testament of the Authorized Version finds its support in over five thousand ancient Greek manuscripts, more than any writing in the entire history of literature. By contrast, contemporary versions are supported by a mere handful of ancient manuscripts.
Contemporary Bible translators and publishers attempt to defend their use of the shorter text in their translations by arguing that theirs is more ancient than the manuscripts supporting the text used in the Authorized Version. But recent scientific examination of fragments of Greek manuscripts which are still more ancient casts much doubt on such claims.
Contemporary Bible translators and publishers attempt to defend their use of the shorter text in their translations by arguing that theirs is more ancient than the manuscripts supporting the text used in the Authorized Version. But recent scientific examination of fragments of Greek manuscripts which are still more ancient casts much doubt on such claims.
Considering the context in which this was stated, and from the above quotation from the TMB website, I believe this is in reference to the smaller number of papyrus and uncial manuscripts that the UBS4/NA27 Critical Greek NT texts were based upon. Although the TR (Stephanus' edition) used only a handful of manuscripts, mostly late, the same would apply to the primary basis of the Critical Greek NT texts, which were based on a handful of manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and papyrus manuscripts). The TMB website bases its assertion that the TR has its witnesses in a majority of manuscripts, which is the Byzantine family of Greek NT manuscripts.
Essentially, the preface to the TMB/NAV falls short on specifics. I say this because they clearly don't spell out that this is a revision of the English language of the AV (which AV? 1611 or 1769?). As stated above, their statements on the Greek NT text is ambiguous at best. I can understand your confusion as to whether they based it upon the Majority Text or the TR. The only problem I have with the aforementioned statement by the TMB revisionists is their criticism of Codex Sinaiticus. The reason why it wasn't "in use" was because it was found in a monastery in the middle of the Sinai peninsula. The fact that it was found just before it was going to be destroyed is a testimony to God's providence in preserving the Word of God.
Brother Bob
New Member
Who authorized it, Jesus?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
tinytim said:
I have read at multiple sources that there are historical reasons to doubt that King James actually approved (authorized) the finished translation of 1611... maybe it was just a clerical error.:laugh:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
TCassidy said:
TCassidy,
Are you sure these two are the one-and-the-same translation? LRL71's post was clear that what he had was an AV7.
I have an AV7: New Authorized Version of the Bible in Pesent-Day English™ and it is only available as a New Testament (DollarTree is the only retailer). It does have some "select" portions of the OT in the back, but in addition there are written statements which seem to indicate they may not ever translate the complete Old Testament. Meanwhile, the Third Millennium Bible® (TMB®), New Authorized Version™ (NAV™) is a complete Bible including the Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books (just like the original 1611).
The New Authorized Version Foundation (for AV7) is a private, not for profit organization registered in the state of Washington. It seems that Third Millennium Publications is a division of Deuel Enterprises, Inc. located in Gary, South Dakota. It seems that a version known as The 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21) is also sold from the same Gary, SD company.
My AV7 is in two columns with normal-weight superscript verse numbers. The Third Millennium Bible (TMB) is produced in a single-column format with bold verse superscript numbers.
The website says that the first printing of The New AV7 Bible was in April 2006. The preface from the Third Millennium website is dated 1998. I realize that this is not proof of anything.
This statement about the KJV is from the AV7: "Even so, while there are few significant errors in this traditional English text, there are some renderings that are curious and not literally accurate. For example, in Acts 12:4, the Greek word pasca, which is correctly translated as 'passover' in 26 other places, is incorrectly translated as 'Easter' in this verse." I found that the TMB does have "Easter" at this verse (conducted this search at Crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible).
I also compare John 1:2 here--
AV7_ He was, in the very beginning, with God.
TMB_ The same was in the beginning with God.
If the AV7 had some past connection with the TMB, it seems like there is a different publisher, a changed philosophy, a unique format, and new translation now.
Last edited by a moderator:
It looks like they have a website: http://www.av7.org/.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
At this point, this thread doesn't have very many posts so it is not very difficult to go back to the first post and follow the conversation. However, it may be a little confusing because there are two different translations being discussed: initially the AV7 with the TMB mixed in. Both make claim to the subtitle New Authorized Version. I'm a little surprised there isn't more interest about these on this forum.
It is not clear from LRL71's question whether he wonders about dual names for individual translations, or because these two versions have New Authorized Version in common. If the former, then we should recognize that many Bibles have long complete titles and subtitles. If the latter, then I would suggest that it is for marketing purposes.
There are several Bibles that have common or similar titles (and acronyms). For example, there are two or more versions known as an American Translation: Smith-Goodspeed's (1923) and Beck's (1976). In addition, there are the New American Bible (NAB) and New American Standard Bible (NASB); the New American Standard Bible is also sometimes referred to as the NASV (V for Version) or NASU (Updated in 1995). Beck's AAT went on to be edited by Giessler in 1990 and marketed under the title New Evangelical Translation (NET). More recently, both the New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press) and the New Evangelical Translation (NET Publishers) are also described as the NET! Finally, I will mention the New English Bible (NEB). So there are overlapping terms.
Another point I wanted to make (not aimed at any individual in particular) is that I think forum members need to both read and write carefully, accurately, and as specifically as much as possible. Ironically, members on this forum are often highly critical of Bible translators for being sloppy editors. I am not suggesting a scholarly forum; I like the casual atmosphere... but I feel we have a responsibility to the other folks that come and look to this forum as a source of factual information and advise.
I realize that sometimes 'facts' can be disputable (opinions) and that people will make mistakes (no human is perfect). But what I am addressing is what I have perceived as lack of effort to communicate effectively. I have witnessed errors and questions posted that could have been easily avoided by simply a quick web search.
I have the 'whatsoever ye do, do as unto the Lord' attitude in mind.
LRL71 said:
It is not clear from LRL71's question whether he wonders about dual names for individual translations, or because these two versions have New Authorized Version in common. If the former, then we should recognize that many Bibles have long complete titles and subtitles. If the latter, then I would suggest that it is for marketing purposes.
There are several Bibles that have common or similar titles (and acronyms). For example, there are two or more versions known as an American Translation: Smith-Goodspeed's (1923) and Beck's (1976). In addition, there are the New American Bible (NAB) and New American Standard Bible (NASB); the New American Standard Bible is also sometimes referred to as the NASV (V for Version) or NASU (Updated in 1995). Beck's AAT went on to be edited by Giessler in 1990 and marketed under the title New Evangelical Translation (NET). More recently, both the New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press) and the New Evangelical Translation (NET Publishers) are also described as the NET! Finally, I will mention the New English Bible (NEB). So there are overlapping terms.
Another point I wanted to make (not aimed at any individual in particular) is that I think forum members need to both read and write carefully, accurately, and as specifically as much as possible. Ironically, members on this forum are often highly critical of Bible translators for being sloppy editors. I am not suggesting a scholarly forum; I like the casual atmosphere... but I feel we have a responsibility to the other folks that come and look to this forum as a source of factual information and advise.
I realize that sometimes 'facts' can be disputable (opinions) and that people will make mistakes (no human is perfect). But what I am addressing is what I have perceived as lack of effort to communicate effectively. I have witnessed errors and questions posted that could have been easily avoided by simply a quick web search.
I have the 'whatsoever ye do, do as unto the Lord' attitude in mind.
Brother Bob said:
That was my question!
I have always found the title "Authorized Version" somewhat offensive as it implies that a king had authority over scripture. In a free society, aren't all bible versions authorized by someone?
But in line with the OP, why is it called the New Authorized Version. Who do they imply authorized it? Or is it just a turn on a common title?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Lagardo: //But in line with the OP, why is it called the New Authorized Version. Who do they imply authorized it? //
In the past I've seen this said by King James Version
Only (KJVO)-ists:
God authorized the Authorized Version of the KJV.
Of course, another KJVO type 5 also said:
The Bible (KJV1769 Edition ONLY) and Christ are one and the same.
Well, I (being KJVO type 2) say there is a difference between
the Written Word (Rhema): The Holy Bible (all faithful English translations)
and the Living Word (Logos): Messiah Jesus.
Both groups allow that the Bible is the main means whereby we
know about Jesus, the Christ.
In the past I've seen this said by King James Version
Only (KJVO)-ists:
God authorized the Authorized Version of the KJV.
Of course, another KJVO type 5 also said:
The Bible (KJV1769 Edition ONLY) and Christ are one and the same.
Well, I (being KJVO type 2) say there is a difference between
the Written Word (Rhema): The Holy Bible (all faithful English translations)
and the Living Word (Logos): Messiah Jesus.
Both groups allow that the Bible is the main means whereby we
know about Jesus, the Christ.
- Status