Why The Need?

[Keith M]

Aside from the bizillion versions, why does there have to the constant updating of the same version? For example, I have the NASB 1977 edition. About 20 years later an "update" (NASBU) came out that is certainly no better than the '77 edition, only a tad bit different in a few places. What changed since 1977? It seems this is just an attempt to keep up with the competetion and the latest and greatest version. Just marketing for profits.

The Lockman Foundation might not agree with you, Amy...

In 1995 the NASB was updated, increasing clarity and readability. Vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure were carefully reviewed for greater understanding and smoother reading. Trust, discover and enjoy the NASB for yourself today.
- from the Lockman Foundation web site New American Standard Bible/Readable, Trusted, Literal & Timeless/Background & History
http://www.lockman.org/nasb/

It seems to me the NASB95 isn't quite as wooden as the original NASB. Of course some may say a little of the accuracy of the original NASB was sacrificed in order to publish the NASB95. I have both the original NASB and the NASB95 in the Ryrie Study Bible. All I can say is I love 'em both.

:love2:

 

[Keith M]

Is it that there are newer "revelations" so to speak on language translation? Or maybe something was translated somewhat clumsily and they need to fine tune it a bit? I know the ESV already has 2 "editions" and there are a few differences including one "goof" similar to one of the goofs in the KJV at one time. Genesis 30:35 is the verse:

2001 edition: "But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped and spotted, and all the female goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white on it, and every lamb that was black, and put them in charge of his sons."

2007 edition: "But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped and spotted, and all the female goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white on it, and every lamb that was black, and put them in the charge of his sons."

LOL

It's amazing onlyists hasn't jumped on this one. Or have they? The 2001 edition makes it sound as if the goats were in charge of Laban's sons. The 2007 edition clarifies that Laban's sons were in charge of the goats. Of course this is just an example of the imperfection of Bible translations. God's word was originally perfect, but, alas, translations and translators are not perfect. My ESV is the 2001 edition, so I would have always thought the goats were in charge of Laban's sons if you hadn't pointed this out, Ann. Thanks!

(Now I have to remember to remove my tongue from my cheek before I bite it. Ouch! To late!)

 

[annsni]

It's amazing onlyists hasn't jumped on this one. Or have they? The 2001 edition makes it sound as if the goats were in charge of Laban's sons. The 2007 edition clarifies that Laban's sons were in charge of the goats. Of course this is just an example of the imperfection of Bible translations. God's word was originally perfect, but, alas, translations and translators are not perfect. My ESV is the 2001 edition, so I would have always thought the goats were in charge of Laban's sons if you hadn't pointed this out, Ann. Thanks!

(Now I have to remember to remove my tongue from my cheek before I bite it. Ouch! To late!)

It was so hard to find out that was an error. My entire theology was based on that one verse and now I just don't know what to trust. Goats? God? My Bible? My mailman? What do I do now. :tear: It's just so hard....

 

[TC]

The Geneva Bible was last updated in 1599, yet the KJV project was launched in 1603 and completed in 1611. Was it necessary? No, but translators have been making and updating English Bibles from the beginning of English. Why was that OK way back then but wrong today? Why do so many deride the work of others and automatically ascribe negative motives for what they do? I am glad that there are many good English translations to chose from. If you do not like it, then use what you like and leave the rest of us alone. When I am sitting alone in Starbucks sipping coffee and reading my NIV, do not come over and tell me I am not reading a real Bible and that I need to get a real Bible so I can get saved. Mind your own business. It is you that is causing division and other problems over Bible versions. I do not push my choices onto others and you need to stop trying to push your choices onto us.

 

[Keith M]

It was so hard to find out that was an error. My entire theology was based on that one verse and now I just don't know what to trust. Goats? God? My Bible? My mailman? What do I do now. :tear: It's just so hard....

I can feel your pain, Ann. Or is what I'm feeling the result of biting my tongue while it was in my cheek? Whatever...

 

[Keith M]

The Geneva Bible was last updated in 1599, yet the KJV project was launched in 1603 and completed in 1611. Was it necessary? No, but translators have been making and updating English Bibles from the beginning of English. Why was that OK way back then but wrong today? Why do so many deride the work of others and automatically ascribe negative motives for what they do? I am glad that there are many good English translations to chose from. If you do not like it, then use what you like and leave the rest of us alone. When I am sitting alone in Starbucks sipping coffee and reading my NIV, do not come over and tell me I am not reading a real Bible and that I need to get a real Bible so I can get saved. Mind your own business. It is you that is causing division and other problems over Bible versions. I do not push my choices onto others and you need to stop trying to push your choices onto us.

You can afford Starbuck's in today's economy? That must be a good job you have, TC! Where can I apply?

 

[Amy.G]

God's word was originally perfect, but, alas, translations and translators are not perfect.

So if this is true, why keep making more and more translations that will still be filled with errors?


Re: the NASB's, I have done some comparison and the differences are so slight they don't even matter. (Regardless of what the translators say )

 

[Marcia]

Aside from the bizillion versions, why does there have to the constant updating of the same version? For example, I have the NASB 1977 edition. About 20 years later an "update" (NASBU) came out that is certainly no better than the '77 edition, only a tad bit different in a few places. What changed since 1977? It seems this is just an attempt to keep up with the competetion and the latest and greatest version. Just marketing for profits.

Hi, Amy,

The updated NASB modernized some language and changed the "Thees" and "thous" to just "you," which I prefer. In fact, the only thing I do not like about my NASB Thompson-Chain is that it is not updated and does not come in an updated NASB version.

 

[Amy.G]

The Geneva Bible was last updated in 1599, yet the KJV project was launched in 1603 and completed in 1611. Was it necessary? No, but translators have been making and updating English Bibles from the beginning of English. Why was that OK way back then but wrong today? Why do so many deride the work of others and automatically ascribe negative motives for what they do? I am glad that there are many good English translations to chose from. If you do not like it, then use what you like and leave the rest of us alone. When I am sitting alone in Starbucks sipping coffee and reading my NIV, do not come over and tell me I am not reading a real Bible and that I need to get a real Bible so I can get saved. Mind your own business. It is you that is causing division and other problems over Bible versions. I do not push my choices onto others and you need to stop trying to push your choices onto us.

I don't think anyone who has posted on this thread has said the NIV wasn't a "real" bible. Those kinds of remarks are what get people riled up. This thread isn't KJVO. The question was "why does there have to be so many versions?" I think it's a valid question. I'm sorry you see that as being "divisive".

 

[Amy.G]

Hi, Amy,

The updated NASB modernized some language and changed the "Thees" and "thous" to just "you," which I prefer. In fact, the only thing I do not like about my NASB Thompson-Chain is that it is not updated and does not come in an updated NASB version.

Yes. I know Marcia. I like the thees and thous better. :laugh:

Other than that, there is virtually no difference. But that is my opinion. I'm sure they'll come out with another update someday and it will be even better.....and better....and better. See my point?

 

[Keith M]

So if this is true, why keep making more and more translations that will still be filled with errors?


Re: the NASB's, I have done some comparison and the differences are so slight they don't even matter. (Regardless of what the translators say )

I believe most translators have the right motivation - to bring the word of God to modern readers in the best translation they can produce. I also believe those who produce various study Bibles have good intentions. As far as some of the publishers...??? It's just an educated guess, but I would say that once the work of translation is finished those on translation committees probably don't make much more money from their efforts. My guess is that the publishing houses are the ones who rake it in after publication. I may be wrong. I think I was wrong once before...or is that just my memory failing?

Oops! There's that tongue-in-cheek thing again!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Keith M]

Duplicate post - sorry!

 

[Amy.G]

My guess is that the publishing houses are the ones who rake it in after publication.

That's my point.

Oops! There's that tongue-in-cheek thing again!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Be careful. It's gonna get stuck in there.

 

[Priscilla Ann]

....as I said before, it doesn't get much EASIER or PLAINER than an NIV. I believe the NIV is one of the EASIEST, and SIMPLEST to read and understand. I just don't see much need for any more translations. I think it's causing great division in the Body of Christ! Just read some of these threads. And no matter how much people say it does, it really doesn't have much to do with the KJVO crowd, these threads are arguing over translations, really.



To me, there are just TOO many translations (in the ENGLISH language, anyway). Enough is enough already.

I agree completely. The number of translations is overwhelming, especially for a new Christian who has never read the bible. When I was a new Christian, I read the NIV...it was the easiest for me to read and understand. As I have become more mature in my faith, my desire was for a more literal version, so I have recently been reading the NASB and love it. I don't find the NASB at all awkward to read; in fact, I like it better than the ESV. The HCSB doesn't seem that much different than the NIV, so I'm not sure why the necessity for that translation.

Perhaps it really is all about $$$$$....

 

[franklinmonroe]

... My question is this: The biggest argument I get FOR the MV's is "the KJV is antiquated and hard for a modern speaking person to understand" or something close to that, so WHY does there need to be SO MANY different MV's?...

Yes, Baptist4life, that is probably the reason most often given; but most translations do not exist to satisfy that particular need. Obviously, some versions exist for purely sectarian reasons (NWT, Inspired Version, Clear Word, etc.). Some were created to address readers with lower levels of comprehension or vocabulary (CEV, NCV, BBE, etc.). Some are based on different underlying texts (think Wycliffe, Lamsa, etc.). Some utilize a different translation methodology (The Message vs. Young's, for example). Some probably were created to address a financial need (Smith's and HCSB, for example). Some sound better read aloud than others. Some are British in style (NEB, REB), some American (ASV). Some are ridiculous (think Cotton Patch, Klingon, etc.). Some are out of date (when it comes to idioms, spelling, etc.). Knowledge has increased (archaeology, philology, etc.) with a demostratable affect on Bible translation ("pim" for example). If you think about it, there are many legitimate (and illegitimate) reasons to explain multiple English versions.

Many versions have been developed by individuals (Moffat, Wymouth, Goodspeed, Darby, etc.) clearly for their own reasons (not necessarily $); the aim of most is to further expand our understanding of the Scriptures. How can you complain of too many Bibles? If anything, its a good 'problem' to have (as opposed to the alternative).

 

[Thermodynamics]

My ESV is the 2001 edition, so I would have always thought the goats were in charge of Laban's sons if you hadn't pointed this out

I am an ESV1EDBIBCSLOist (English Standard Version 1st Edition Bound in Black Calf Skin Leather Onlyist) so I believe the goats were in fact in charge of Laban's sons.

 

[Askjo]

Why?

Here's why..........................

That is true. I agree with you.

 

[Askjo]

Everyone knows I PREFER the KJV. YOU may prefer the NKJV or the NIV or maybe the NASB. My question is this: The biggest argument I get FOR the MV's is "the KJV is antiquated and hard for a modern speaking person to understand" or something close to that, so WHY does there need to be SO MANY different MV's? A local Bible website lists at least TWENTY different versions in English! If you cannot understand God's Word in an NIV, then another version won't help. The NIV puts it about as plain and simple as I've seen. I truly believe that all these versions does nothing but cause problems and fighting amongst Christians. THAT is the reason I'm against so many MV's.

Many Christian bookstores in order to survive for one reason: CHANGE. The marketing demands the profits. These businesses require making money – the PROFITS! In fact, the entire publishing industries are travelling this road to riches use of continuous revisionism of their copyrighted editions of the Word. Why should profit-making become confused with the scared job of producing faithful editions of Scripture?

 

[franklinmonroe]

It's amazing onlyists hasn't jumped on this one. Or have they? The 2001 edition makes it sound as if the goats were in charge of Laban's sons...

Actually, the RSV had the same wording.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Why?

Here's why..........................

That's the exact same reason they print multiple kinds of the KJV.

The "KJV Bible Store" has over 50 different kinds of KJV Bibles.

So what's the big deal? Just another 'red herring' to use against MV's.