New Anabaptist Traditional Text Bible Project

[ohio jones]

My understanding is that Keystone requires KJV-only for public reading, and that when other versions are referenced in a church service, they are restricted to NKJV and Traditional Text. I hope I have that nuanced correctly.

The actual action that was communicated to the ministry only covered public reading. It did not mention references to other translations. I occasionally reference 1984 NIV and 1995 NASV and from what I have seen that is still acceptable. So yes and no to what you have heard. I have always been a “Majority Text “ advocate.

Thanks for that clarification. I do prefer the MT and have been enjoying Boyd's Byzantine Text Version.

[Bootstrap]

Is it based on the KJV, or on the same textual tradition?

Yes, the same textual tradition as the KJV.

On the Byzantine tradition, e.g. in Robinson-Pierpont, or in some reconstruction of what people think the KJV used, or what?

[eccentric_rambler]

Is it based on the KJV, or on the same textual tradition?

Yes, the same textual tradition as the KJV.

On the Byzantine tradition, e.g. in Robinson-Pierpont, or in some reconstruction of what people think the KJV used, or what?

I'm not involved, the website says Byzantine.

The textual basis is the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the traditional Byzantine text for the New Testament.

Based on the rest of the website and literature I've seen, I'm assuming that "traditional Byzantine" means Byzantine slanted toward the KJV reading.

[mike]

If you should purchase a copy, please do post your feelings. I would like to know what others think. To be honest, at first I thought somewhat negatively, but I have since changed by mind.

One of our ministers said he was given a copy of one of the translations of the gospels and I think he liked it. I dont' have high expectations for a new version of the Bible produced by conservative Anabaptists, but even if it was just a variation of the KJV with the archaic language updated, it would maybe be a good thing.

I don't really understand why we don't trust other modern versions of the Bible because of supposed translator biases, but we would produce our own with our own biases. I wonder how that would be any better. And I wonder about the translators' qualifications in biblical languages. Maybe they're not actually doing a new translation from the ground up, but rather an update of the English verbiage. I also wonder about the argument for using the same texts as the KJV, when there are good arguments to be made that older and more authentic texts exist.

The bigger problem, however, is that none of this work will probably matter all that much anyway, as I don't see very many CAs changing from the KJV at least for another generation or two. And for those inclined to change, I am not sure why they would choose this one above all the others. I would be amazed if there is a market for it.

[Soloist]

If you should purchase a copy, please do post your feelings. I would like to know what others think. To be honest, at first I thought somewhat negatively, but I have since changed by mind.

One of our ministers said he was given a copy of one of the translations of the gospels and I think he liked it. I dont' have high expectations for a new version of the Bible produced by conservative Anabaptists, but even if it was just a variation of the KJV with the archaic language updated, it would maybe be a good thing.

I don't really understand why we don't trust other modern versions of the Bible because of supposed translator biases, but we would produce our own with our own biases. I wonder how that would be any better. And I wonder about the translators' qualifications in biblical languages. Maybe they're not actually doing a new translation from the ground up, but rather an update of the English verbiage. I also wonder about the argument for using the same texts as the KJV, when there are good arguments to be made that older and more authentic texts exist.

The bigger problem, however, is that none of this work will probably matter all that much anyway, as I don't see very many CAs changing from the KJV at least for another generation or two. And for those inclined to change, I am not sure why they would choose this one above all the others. I would be amazed if there is a market for it.

I know one of the Hebrew guys at least and he is at least very honest. He's highly educated but I don't know his bias.
I've been a little leery of the project but its not targeted at outsiders, its about the old order/amish groups from what I was told. That explains how it felt stilted and more awkward then the KJV in my opinion.

[Bootstrap]

A little more information is available in these places:

https://traditionaltextbiblepublishers. ... update.pdf

https://traditionaltextbiblepublishers.org/sample-text/

https://traditionaltextbiblepublishers.org/about-us/

[Bootstrap]

I don't really understand why we don't trust other modern versions of the Bible because of supposed translator biases, but we would produce our own with our own biases. I wonder how that would be any better. And I wonder about the translators' qualifications in biblical languages. Maybe they're not actually doing a new translation from the ground up, but rather an update of the English verbiage. I also wonder about the argument for using the same texts as the KJV, when there are good arguments to be made that older and more authentic texts exist.

In general, I think we have plenty of good English translations, and it's hard for a new one to make much of a difference because the market is so crowded. But it's for a specific audience.

There are two approaches they might be taking to the Greek text. If they are using a modern Byzantine Greek text like the Robinson-Pierpont, it is a serious Byzantine text based on real, disciplined scholarship.

If they are trying to replicate the KJV, they are relying on the texts that the KJV introduction mentions, which are nowhere near as reliable.

I'm fine with either Byzantine or NA28, there are good reasons to like each.

[mike]

I don't really understand why we don't trust other modern versions of the Bible because of supposed translator biases, but we would produce our own with our own biases. I wonder how that would be any better. And I wonder about the translators' qualifications in biblical languages. Maybe they're not actually doing a new translation from the ground up, but rather an update of the English verbiage. I also wonder about the argument for using the same texts as the KJV, when there are good arguments to be made that older and more authentic texts exist.

In general, I think we have plenty of good English translations, and it's hard for a new one to make much of a difference because the market is so crowded. But it's for a specific audience.

There are two approaches they might be taking to the Greek text. If they are using a modern Byzantine Greek text like the Robinson-Pierpont, it is a serious Byzantine text based on real, disciplined scholarship.

If they are trying to replicate the KJV, they are relying on the texts that the KJV introduction mentions, which are nowhere near as reliable.

I'm fine with either Byzantine or NA28, there are good reasons to like each.

I should have used a different phrase rather than 'more authentic,' because I don't think it is a question of authenticity. I think that the various texts we have access to today are all authentic. It's not my field, but I think there are better texts than others.

[mike]

A little more information is available in these places:

https://traditionaltextbiblepublishers. ... update.pdf

https://traditionaltextbiblepublishers.org/sample-text/

https://traditionaltextbiblepublishers.org/about-us/

Thanks. From the About Us page:

The project is being approached initially from the standpoint that the Bible has already been translated, numerous times, and that “we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation.” Therefore, it is primarily a linguistic update towards current English. However, this is done only with a close eye to the original languages of Hebrew and Greek as the basis and final authority.

So it does appear to be simply an update of verbiage as opposed to an actual full translation.

The arguments that they make about archaic language are good, but they primarily make the case that we should have been willing to change from the KJV a long time ago, because its language has been out of date for quite a while.

[Neto]

I may catch some flak for saying this, but if they would at least correct the glaring textual additions, like I John 5:7b-8a, then I'd be fine with it. I'm not aware of a single commentary after the mid 1700's that considers those phrases as being authentic. Actually, none of the other textual additions bother me at all. I think that the rest are all cases where a phrase from a similar context was added into places where that phrase did not (from actual textual evidence) appear in the original text. Also, those cases do not interfere with the context of the passage, although they may slightly draw the reader's attention away from the writer's particular intent in each case. But there is no theological "interference" going on, as there is in the passage in I John.