Faith and Knowledge

[Bible Versions : introduction & strength/weakness]







■ King James Version
- 1604, completed until 1611
-- Translation by 47 of the most learned scholars and clergymen in Britain at that time, divided into 6 companies: 2 at OXford, 2 at Cambridge, and 2 at Westminster; revised in 1881 with magisterial authority; 1901 by the American Revision Committee
 
- Strength : Marvel of English literature, excellent formal equivalence translation; meet neesds of the church; bestseller
 
- Weakness: Based on inferior Textus Receptus; antiquated English expressions; "KJV only" movement
 
 
■ Revised Standard Version
 
- RSV, full bible in 1952, revision of ASV(1901)
-- ASV : American Standard Version is a revision of the RV; Revised Version(1881), which was a major rev. of KJV
-- Freer renderings that the ASV; Largely rejected by conservatives, but NT was better acceptied.
 
- Strength: Revision that stayed close to JFV
- Weakness: Revision that stayed close to KJV; famously rendering Isaiah 7:14 - "a young woman shall conceive"
 
 
■ New American Standard Bible
- NASB(1971), revised in 1995(NASU)
--New revision of ASV against the perceived liberal bias of RSV
-- Funded by the Lockman foundaion in california
-- Preseves literalness of ASV, but influenced by RSV interpretations(Christology in Rom 9:5)
 
-Strength: Literal renderings make original language strong
-Weakness: "Strong in Greek, weak in English; sometimes incomprehensible.
 
 


■ New king James Version
 
 
- NKJV(1982) IS A DIRECT REVISION OF kjv, RATHER THAT THRU ASV or RV
-- initiated by conservative Baptist Arthur Farstad and sponsored by Thomas Nelson Pubishers.
- Strength; Preserves KJV strength with
 
 
 
 
■ New Revised Standard Version
 
NRSV(1990) , a connissioned revision of RSV by the National Council of Ch.
-- Committee chairman of was Bruce Metzger, NT Textual scholar
-- Tried to preserve the formal equivalence model of RSV
-- First major ET(english translation) to us "gender inclusive" language(e.g. Rom 8:19-23)
 
- Strength: Scholarly and accurate translation that reads well
- Weakness: Gender inclusive language has limits and is largely rejected by the church(2 Cor 6:18)
 

 
■ English Standard Version
 
- ESV(2001) by permission of National Council of Ch. Revised RSV to reflect more conservative and evangelical readings
-- Largely rejected NRSV's inclusive language, but moderately uses; NASB too literal, slightly more litter than RSV
-- "Corrects" liberal bias of RSV (Isaiah 7:13; Romans 3:25)
 
- Strength : Literal yet readable ; increasingly preferred by conservatives
- Weakness: Inconsistency in use of gender inclusive language; some sections of literal incomprehension
 


 
■ New International Version
- Sponsored by the New York Bible Society by a tea of 1- interdenominational scholars
--Fresh translation using the functional equivalence tethod , but also deferential to KJV and formal equivalence
-- Revised as TNIV(2005) with gender inclusive language(1996 NIV inclusive Lang. Ed.); largely rejected by conservatives in the US
 
-Strength : Highly readable with higher degree of accuracy than most functional equivalence translations; widely used in Eng world
- Weakness: Over-interpretations(e.g. "Flesh" in Rom 8:3; Propitiation" in Rom 3:25)
 
 



■ British Translations
NEB(New English Bible 1970)
 
REB(Revised English Bible 1989)
 


 
■ Catholic Translations
- Jerusalem Bible(1966) JB
- New Jerusalem Bible(1985) NJB
- New American Bible (1970; rev.1991) NAB
 


 
■ Pharaphrase versions
LB the Living Bible(1972)
NLT the New Living Translation(1996)
the Message
 




■ Other Significant Versions
GNT, CEV, HCSB, NET Bible(First online Bible translation sponsored by bible. org)