Modern Bible Translations Should Stay in the King James Stream

[Twisted]

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/robert-alter-modern-bible-translations-stay-king-james-stream/

 

[Ransom]

No shortage of English Bible translations in the King James family tree.

• Revised Version
• American Standard Version
• Revised Standard Version
• New American Standard Bible
• New King James Version
• New Revised Standard Version
• English Standard Version

 

[Izdaari]

I'm partial to the NRSV or RSV2CE, though my compact carry bible is ESV.

 

[prophet]

No shortage of English Bible translations in the King James family tree.

• Revised Version
• American Standard Version
• Revised Standard Version
• New American Standard Bible
• New King James Version
• New Revised Standard Version
• English Standard Version

More intellectual dishonesty.
Now you're going to claim that Wescott, Hort, and Farstad were fanbois of the TR...
Soak your head.

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 

[Walt]

No shortage of English Bible translations in the King James family tree.

• Revised Version
• American Standard Version
• Revised Standard Version
• New American Standard Bible
• New King James Version
• New Revised Standard Version
• English Standard Version

What? Several of these followed by critical text, not the received text.

 

[Ransom]

More intellectual dishonesty.
Now you're going to claim that Wescott, Hort, and Farstad were fanbois of the TR...
Soak your head.

The intellectual dishonesty is yours. The article in the OP is advocating for a particular literary style in translation, and does not even mention textual criticism. You are the one changing the subject.

All the Bibles I listed are updates or revisions, either of the KJV itself, or another Bible on the list, and to varying extent, reflect the KJV's literary style. If you know the history of the English Bible, you can actually draw out their family tree. By contrast, the new International Version is not part of the KJV/Tyndale line of Bibles.

 

[Ransom]

All the Bibles I listed are updates or revisions, either of the KJV itself, or another Bible on the list, and to varying extent, reflect the KJV's literary style.

To expand on this a bit, now that I've got some free time:

• Revised Version: This 1885 Bible was commissioned by the Church of England to revise the Authorized Version, in order to bring it up-to-date with both current English usage, and biblical scholarship. Heck, it's right there in the name: "Revised Version.
• American Standard Version: Thirty American scholars assisted with the RV and offered suggestions for it, of which only a few were used. The ASV, the full name of which is Revised Version, Standard American Edition, is a 1901 editiion of the Revised Version that employed American English usage and incorporated the American scholars' suggestions.
• Revised Standard Version: Published in full in 1952, the RSV is a revision of the ASV intended to simplify its English while retaining its literary style. This Bible was also the first version to make use of new biblical information from the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls.
• New American Standard Bible: This revision of the ASV was completed in 1971. In a sense it is an evangelical response to the RSV, which was widely considered to be too liberal.
• New King James Version: A 1982 update to the KJV. Unlike other versions in this list, the translators made use of the same Greek and Hebrew textual traditions that the KJV had used, rather than changing to the Nestle-Aland text (although it notes major variants in the footnotes).
• New Revised Standard Version: This 1989 revision of the RSV is notable (and controversial) for its use of inclusive language. It retains much of the style of the RSV (eliminating the generic "he," of course), but with an ear toward how the text sounds when read aloud. Like the RSV before it, the NRSV is favoured by mainline denominations.
• English Standard Version: The first major English version of the 21st century is an evangelical revision of the RSV. It was published as a response to the New International Inclusive Language Edition of 1997, which was criticized by many conservative theologians for being ham-handed with its gender-neutral language (even when it was clear a man was indicated). The ESV incorporates some gender-neutral language, though it claims to be "gender-accurate," doing so only when both men and women are intended. The ESV is also unusual in that it is probably the only evangelical translation published in an edition that includes the Apocrypha, intended for use by divinity students (who make use of the deuterocanonical books in academic study).

There you go. As I said, the genealogy of these versions, as revisions within the Tyndale/KJV family of Bibles, is beyond dispute.

 

[IFB X-Files]

All the Bibles I listed are updates or revisions, either of the KJV itself, or another Bible on the list, and to varying extent, reflect the KJV's literary style.

To expand on this a bit, now that I've got some free time:

• Revised Version: This 1885 Bible was commissioned by the Church of England to revise the Authorized Version, in order to bring it up-to-date with both current English usage, and biblical scholarship. Heck, it's right there in the name: "Revised Version.
  
  There you go. As I said, the genealogy of these versions, as revisions within the Tyndale/KJV family of Bibles, is beyond dispute.

• 
  
  I do not, and will not, get into a debate with someone who's worldview is that black and white are the same because they are in the same stream as colors.
  
  I will admit that black and white are both colors, but that there are obvious differences.
  
  I will also admit that all the versions he listed, contain inspired scripture.  Where my agreement ends is that there are obvious differences.
  
  I hold in my green hands an original RV of 1881 NT.  It says right on the title page:
  
  TRANSLATED OUT OF THE GREEK
  
  Being the version set forth A.D. 1611
  Compared with the most ancient authorities and revised
  A.D. 1881
  
  It says in the first paragraph of the Preface:
  
  The English Version of the New testament here presented to the reader is a Revision of the Translation published in the year of Our Lord 1611, and commonly known by the name of the Authorised Version.
  
  So, if this is true, it would appear to be of the same "stream" as the AV.  That's what it says.
  
  However, as anyone who wants to know can know, and I know, that this is a deception.  Does it contain "holy, inspired Scripture"?  I would say it does.  But we know that W&H used their own Greek text, and did not revise the 1611, but created a new translation.
  
  John Burgon handled this issue in "The Revision Revised".
  
  So to claim that the RV and the lineage of the RV are of the same "stream" (whether the stream of readability or text) as the AV is either ignorance or deception.
  
  People make translations for various reasons.  Doctrine, promotion of heresy, the almighty dollar, ego, etc.
  
  I do not argue that they do not contain "inspired Scripture", but I would argue that they are corrupted. 
  
  I do not argue that they are not helpful.  Anyone reading any version listed can benefit from it and God will use it and get glory from it.
  
  I care not if anyone agrees with me or not.  I'll answer at the Judgement Seat for myself, not for you.
  
  Ya'll have a nice day.

 

[Ransom]

However, as anyone who wants to know can know, and I know, that this is a deception.  Does it contain "holy, inspired Scripture"?  I would say it does.  But we know that W&H used their own Greek text, and did not revise the 1611, but created a new translation.

Who's this "we" of whom you speak?

You realize Westcott and Hort were but two members of the translation committee, right?

So to claim that the RV and the lineage of the RV are of the same "stream" (whether the stream of readability or text) as the AV is either ignorance or deception.

So basically, since you ignored the context of the OP (which is talking about the [i[literary[/i] stream, and doesn't mention textual matters at all), I can safely ignore this uninformed rant of yours.