New Anabaptist Traditional Text Bible Project

[Judas Maccabeus]

I hadn't heard of the NET. Direct to English translation in today's English with a reasonable copyright license. Reasonable copyright license makes me think a repeat of the 1984 NIV being made unavailable is less likely. This could be the successor to the 1984 NIV.

Actually it seems like the successor to the 1984 NIV is the BSB, which has been placed into the public domain. The BSB has a similar reading style and even corrects a number of not-so-good 1984 NIV decisions. I guess this is what I've wanted since 2011.

A couple blog posts by an evangelical Friends pastor:
A case for the Berean Standard Bible
If you want today's version of the 1984 NIV

Seeing as it's in the public domain, a free ePub of the BSB translation is available at https://eBible.org

Thanks for the links. I read through both of these 'blog' articles, and wrote a comment on the first one, which was rejected for some unspecified reason. Oh well.

I also read what he wrote about comparing the 78 and 84 NIV text, as I've wondered this myself. The only 78 edition I have here in the States is just the NT, which was published in 1973. I have no idea if there were changes to the NT text between 73 & 78, when the entire Bible (NIV) was published for the first time. My only full copy of the 78 version is still in the village, hopefully in the barrel, or it has almost certainly ceased to exist. (Both termites and especially one species of ants are extremely fond of books.)

You can find an 1984 online, as a stand alone, if you look hard enough. Failing that, you likely can get an 84 parallel with the China Union Bible from Ambassadors for Christ in Paradise, PA.

[cmbl]

You can find an 1984 online, as a stand alone, if you look hard enough. Failing that, you likely can get an 84 parallel with the China Union Bible from Ambassadors for Christ in Paradise, PA.

A few years back, I bought my mother two 1984 NIV's at Clay Bookstore. That said, how nice to have a similar translation freely available without needing to overcome its publisher doggedly trying to make it disappear.

I think that the "rationale" document for the Traditional Text Bible Project may be alluding to the issue with the NIV when they write,

We can never know when the publisher, usually liberal Protestant, will make less than sound revisions to a new edition of their translation, while the older edition is still under copyright and cannot be reprinted for continued use.

(The 2011 NIV was more "liberal" than the 1984, but I don't think "liberal Protestant" is accurate.)

[Judas Maccabeus]

You can find an 1984 online, as a stand alone, if you look hard enough. Failing that, you likely can get an 84 parallel with the China Union Bible from Ambassadors for Christ in Paradise, PA.

A few years back, I bought my mother two 1984 NIV's at Clay Bookstore. That said, how nice to have a similar translation freely available without needing to overcome its publisher doggedly trying to make it disappear.

I think that the "rationale" document for the Traditional Text Bible Project may be alluding to the issue with the NIV when they write,

We can never know when the publisher, usually liberal Protestant, will make less than sound revisions to a new edition of their translation, while the older edition is still under copyright and cannot be reprinted for continued use.

(The 2011 NIV was more "liberal" than the 1984, but I don't think "liberal Protestant" is accurate.)

It was extremely difficult to get permission to print the parallel NIV-China Union Version parallel. They wanted us to have the whole thing retypset for the 2011 version. Finally got permission, but it had to be printed on the mainland, and for our own use and sale. That includes AFCs bookstore, so get them while you can.

[cmbl]

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.

Apparently I have been added to the mailing list for the Traditional Text Bible Project, so I have received a welcome packet which contains a 28-page booklet A History of the New Testament Text. After several pages of history about manuscripts, Reformation-era texts, the Received Text, Westcott & Hort, Critical Text(s) and the Byzantine tradition, p.26 indicates that "It appears to us today that the Traditional Text as published by Robinson and Pierpont best represents the Greek New Testament that has been preserved through the centuries by God's providence. In the work of translation, we are also referencing various editions of the Textus Receptus, including the 1550 edition of Stephanus."

This may be the info that eccentric_rambler was referring to.

[Bootstrap]

You can find Adam Boyd's translation of the Byzantine text here:

https://archive.org/details/gnt-byz

You can find other translations of the Byzantine text here:

https://byzantinetext.com/study/translations/

[cmbl]

You can find Adam Boyd's translation of the Byzantine text here:

https://archive.org/details/gnt-byz

You can find other translations of the Byzantine text here:

https://byzantinetext.com/study/translations/

It would seem that the Majority Standard Bible, translated by the same folks as the BSB, would be another.

[Bootstrap]

You can find Adam Boyd's translation of the Byzantine text here:

https://archive.org/details/gnt-byz

You can find other translations of the Byzantine text here:

https://byzantinetext.com/study/translations/

It would seem that the Majority Standard Bible, translated by the same folks as the BSB, would be another.

Yes, you can find that here:

https://majoritybible.com/

[JimFoxvog]

It is not only a 'translation' of the words, from one language to another (although it is very possibly not based on any original language text at all), but a 'translation' of the very settings, era, and location. At one time YWAM in Brazil was suggesting an approach like this - for instance, making Abraham an Amazonian Indian, and changing the entire historical setting. That's what the Cotton Patch does, setting the story in the American South.

I like the Cotton Patch version. It is a translation done from the Greek by a competent scholar, Clarence Jordan, that does just what you say.

The Cotton Patch Epistles do much less of the changes of historical settings, except for making the Jew/Gentile distinction become White/Black, which fits the culture of the American South. Jordan had some good insights into how to make the Word speak relevantly to the people around him.

[JohnH]

The Cotton Patch Epistles do much less of the changes of historical settings, except for making the Jew/Gentile distinction become White/Black, which fits the culture of the American South. Jordan had some good insights into how to make the Word speak relevantly to the people around him.

Except replacing Jew and Gentile with White and Black is a completely bogus change. For example, "white people" have never been God's chosen people, that God called to be set apart from black people and not to intermarry with them.

[ohio jones]

The Cotton Patch Epistles do much less of the changes of historical settings, except for making the Jew/Gentile distinction become White/Black, which fits the culture of the American South. Jordan had some good insights into how to make the Word speak relevantly to the people around him.

Except replacing Jew and Gentile with White and Black is a completely bogus change. For example, "white people" have never been God's chosen people, that God called to be set apart from black people and not to intermarry with them.

But they have sometimes acted like they are.