New Anabaptist Traditional Text Bible Project

[Soloist]

The KJV also went through a phase of "constant changes" in its early years. It is just that we are now very far removed from that time, and very few of us (if any) have read the earlier texts.

The 1611 KJV is readable if you have a lot of familiarity with the modern KJV but it is uphill for most.

Might as well learn Latin in that case…

[barnhart]

The KJV also went through a phase of "constant changes" in its early years. It is just that we are now very far removed from that time, and very few of us (if any) have read the earlier texts.

The 1611 KJV is readable if you have a lot of familiarity with the modern KJV but it is uphill for most.

Might as well learn Latin in that case…

Or maybe Greek and Hebrew...

[Soloist]

The 1611 KJV is readable if you have a lot of familiarity with the modern KJV but it is uphill for most.

Might as well learn Latin in that case…

Or maybe Greek and Hebrew...

In terms of difficulty, Greek and Hebrew are much much harder to learn and then everyone argues over meanings still anyway. Generally speaking, no one is arguing over the meaning of a Latin word.

That being said my whole argument about the Latin text being superior, discovered the whole Trinity verse is very complicated to say the least… apparently the Jerome version included it, and the more modern does not.

[barnhart]

In terms of difficulty, Greek and Hebrew are much much harder to learn and then everyone argues over meanings still anyway. Generally speaking, no one is arguing over the meaning of a Latin word.

That being said my whole argument about the Latin text being superior, discovered the whole Trinity verse is very complicated to say the least… apparently the Jerome version included it, and the more modern does not.

I understand the difficulties of the originals but I don't find it compelling to backstop uncertainty by claiming special authority for Latin. That seems similar to the KJV only claims that the 1611 translation itself is inspired above earlier documents.

[JohnH]

I have only used two such translations (those based on the older texts) extensively, the 1978 and 84 NIV, and the NASB. Both of these include the later textual additions, either in the text itself (marked as of questionable provenance), or in footnotes.

An ongoing problem with the niv is it keeps changing and the myriads of editions like “teen bibles” tend to have completely different notes in terms of what is present and not present.

The KJV also went through a phase of "constant changes" in its early years. It is just that we are now very far removed from that time, and very few of us (if any) have read the earlier texts.

Right. We haven’t had to deal with constant churn since 1769. The NIV is a clown show.

[Soloist]

I understand the difficulties of the originals but I don't find it compelling to backstop uncertainty by claiming special authority for Latin. That seems similar to the KJV only claims that the 1611 translation itself is inspired above earlier documents.

It’s a personal view, not one I’m really pushing on others.
It was more or less a way to deal with the uncertainties when I started to briefly looking into textual criticism and how much debate there is over all the scripture texts.

Even if I learn Greek it still wouldn’t answer the questions… so I just decided the first complete Bible was enough for me. It was good enough for over 700 years.
But I’m not looking to argue with someone.

[ohio jones]

An ongoing problem with the niv is it keeps changing and the myriads of editions like “teen bibles” tend to have completely different notes in terms of what is present and not present.

The KJV also went through a phase of "constant changes" in its early years. It is just that we are now very far removed from that time, and very few of us (if any) have read the earlier texts.

Right. We haven’t had to deal with constant churn since 1769. The NIV is a clown show.

The English language is constantly churning, and in order to remain vernacular, the translation ought to be updated periodically as well. If the KJV had not remained unchurned for so long, we might have a single updated KJV instead of the proliferation of modern texts in the KJV tradition: RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NRSVue, NASB, NASBxx, NKJV, ESV, etc. Which approach is butter?

[barnhart]

The KJV also went through a phase of "constant changes" in its early years. It is just that we are now very far removed from that time, and very few of us (if any) have read the earlier texts.

Right. We haven’t had to deal with constant churn since 1769. The NIV is a clown show.

The English language is constantly churning, and in order to remain vernacular, the translation ought to be updated periodically as well. If the KJV had not remained unchurned for so long, we might have a single updated KJV instead of the proliferation of modern texts in the KJV tradition: RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NRSVue, NASB, NASBxx, NKJV, ESV, etc. Which approach is butter?

I don't know but butter makes nearly everything better.

[JohnH]

The KJV also went through a phase of "constant changes" in its early years. It is just that we are now very far removed from that time, and very few of us (if any) have read the earlier texts.

Right. We haven’t had to deal with constant churn since 1769. The NIV is a clown show.

The English language is constantly churning, and in order to remain vernacular, the translation ought to be updated periodically as well. If the KJV had not remained unchurned for so long, we might have a single updated KJV instead of the proliferation of modern texts in the KJV tradition: RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NRSVue, NASB, NASBxx, NKJV, ESV, etc. Which approach is butter?

The English language hasn’t changed in a significant way since the NIV was published, though, and neither has our understanding of the authenticity and authority of various source texts.

[Neto]

Right. We haven’t had to deal with constant churn since 1769. The NIV is a clown show.

The English language is constantly churning, and in order to remain vernacular, the translation ought to be updated periodically as well. If the KJV had not remained unchurned for so long, we might have a single updated KJV instead of the proliferation of modern texts in the KJV tradition: RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NRSVue, NASB, NASBxx, NKJV, ESV, etc. Which approach is butter?

The English language hasn’t changed in a significant way since the NIV was published, though, and neither has our understanding of the authenticity and authority of various source texts.

The only significant change that comes to my mind (and one to which I have not adapted) is the growing reluctance to use the word 'man' where the meaning is clearly something they want to render as 'humanity', or 'humankind', even 'mankind' being 'offensive' to some, generally speaking those well outside of our circles. I have read condemnations of this kind of change, which do not in any way change the actual meaning. Now if they start changing 'man' or 'husband' to 'person' or 'spouse', then they've slipped over the hill and into the deep ditch of heresy.

Regarding the NASB, I am under the impression that it is not based on the same textual tradition as is the KJV. I think it is more akin to the NIV. (I used the NASB almost exclusively from around 1974 until 1978, but I don't have my copy with me here. I say 'almost', because I bought an NIV-KJV-Greek interlinear New Testament in 75. As I recall, the full NIV did not come out until 1978.)