Revisions

I don't know where you get your info but there is no translation by this name.

You are probably referring to the New American Standard Bible. In that case, your statement is incorrect. The NASB used versions of the original language texts that did not exist in 1901.

They followed the principles of translation behind the ASV and KJV.

In '95, Lockman released a revision of the NASB. There is absolutely nothing illegitmate about refining a translation to make it more accurate or more readable while maintaining accuracy.

Yes. It was authorized by the state church of England making all other translations within the kingdom illegal... to include the Geneva which was favored by the Baptists, Separatists, Independents, and Puritans.

They seem to have received the KJV the way we would receive the NIV if the US Gov't made it the official version in the US to the exclusion of all others. There is evidence that these good Christians for a time after had a black market for the Geneva. It was printed in Holland and smuggled into England.

A KJVO is asking this question?

 

> As a side note, the King James Bible was originally called the Authorized Version (AV).

how originally? in 1611?

> #7 - New International Version (NIV) - revised many times in the last 30 years (probably because the NIV uses 'Dynamic Equivalency' and nobody can agree on the proper wording since they are trying to read the thoughts of the writers instead of translating their words)

strikes me that someone doesn't understand a translation principle used at times, inconsistently, by the KJB translators themselves.

> #8 - When will the insanity end?

thankfully at no. 8!

 

The RV is not a REVISION of the KJB,it (the RV and it's clones)is a REVIVAL of the dark age Catholic bibles of Jerome(Vulgate) and the Douay-Rheims!

At the Judgement Seat!!!

 

Not really, because the ASV was from different mss if I'm not mistaken.

Not really, because the RSV is freer than the ASV. If this were true, the NLT would be a revision of the NIV to an extent, which is ridiculous.

Well, sort of, but the ESV is more literal and much more conservative. It goes beyond simple updating.

The NIV proper has been "revised" only once. The NT was released in 1973. The OT released a few years later. Both underwent a revision in 1984.

Far and away the most revised version is the KJV. Revised, what, about half a dozen times or more between 1611 and 1769, and there are I think four different versions of it floating around right now (Oxford, Cambridge, 21st Century, Scofield).

 

The King James translators did not think it was insanity...

From THE PREFACE TO THE KING JAMES BIBLE OF 1611

HankD

 

Like those dark age readings that found their way into the KJV from the good ole Latin Vulgate?

The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Neal

 

The Douay-Rheims English Catholic Bible's New Testament in 3/4 of the text is a virtual word-for-word duplicate of the KJV.

The fly in the ointment: The Douay-Rheims was published decades before the KJV.

Go figure

HankD

 

Good question.

[ May 22, 2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Alcott ]

 

When will the insanity end?

Probably when the English language stops evolving. Even among English speakers, there are major variations. A good example is between King's (or currently, Queen's) English of the UK, and American English. A "lift" has two completely different meanings, for example.

 

Actually, the NT of the DR was published in 1609, only 2 years before the KJV.

Here are some other revisions of the KJV that were not mentioned: the American King James Version; the Modern King James Version; the New King James Version; the Third Millenium Bible; KJ2000; the 21st Century King James Version...

I understand the next step is going to be to start revising the revisions...

 

from The Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm

HankD