The most Liberal?

The only textual variation I can see in Luke 1:37 is "para tw thew" ("with God") vs. "para to theou" ("of/from God"). Thus the "impossible/power/possible" difference has nothing to do with Westcott and Hort, but rather the translators.

But I thank Jim, for most on this thread are simply stating which versions they think are "liberal", without stating why.

In my opinion, it is not necessarily the texts that are "liberal", but rather interpretations that can be, regardless of the text.

 

Jim,
It was not my intent to start a debate. I had just never heard of anyone referring to the ASV a liberal before.

As to the question of which translations I find liberal:

All paraphrases, Good As New, New World Translation, I think the new version coming out (tniv) will be awful.

 

Clarification - the ASV (1901) is an Americanized version of the English Revised Version (1881-85).
The RSV (1946 for NT and 1951 for OT, revised in 1971 and again as the NewRSV in 1989) is a revision of the ASV.

The ASV is hardly liberal, in fact it is so literal that it is often-times hard to read!

 

Clarification - the ASV (1901) is an Americanized version of the English Revised Version (1881-85).
The RSV (1946 for NT and 1951 for OT, revised in 1971 and again as the NewRSV in 1989) is a revision of the ASV.

The ASV is hardly liberal, in fact it is so literal that it is often-times hard to read! </font>[/QUOTE]That was my understanding as well.

 

My fault for not checking my initials accurately. Sorry! It was indeed the 1881 RV that I was refering to.
That being said, go2church's post makes it clear that the ASV is the daughter of the RV. And the RSV is the daughter of the ASV. And the NRSV is the daughter of the RSV.
All of which are related and liberal. And all of which seek to supplant the KJV.
Therefore, though I was amiss in my Initials, and it did confuse the issue a bit, I still think all 4 "versions" are liberal for the reasons I stated in the post in question.
In HIS service;
Jim

 

I see

 

Yeah, don't allow yourself to be confused by the facts.

 

go2church:
Facts? What on earth are you talking about?

Rather than act like a jerk, perhaps you could elaborate?

In HIS service;
Jim

 

You called the ASV and RSV liberal, they are not. For years the ASV was the bible of choice by those within the IFB. Only those married to the false doctrine of KJV only would even state such nonsense. Translations are not made to "supplant" the KJV, they are made to bring clearer understanding.

 

Clarification - the ASV (1901) is an Americanized version of the English Revised Version (1881-85).
The RSV (1946 for NT and 1951 for OT, revised in 1971 and again as the NewRSV in 1989) is a revision of the ASV.

The ASV is hardly liberal, in fact it is so literal that it is often-times hard to read! </font>[/QUOTE]go2church, I have to agree with you. I know of absolutely NO connection between the ASV and RSV. The RSV and ESV, yes, but the ESV corrected most of the RSV problems. IMHO