Quote:
Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!
I used to think the RV was the best, and then I saw it was good, but not perfect. The RV is NOT a purely literal translation as some might want to think. And just like other translations, they used a certain "license" according to their understanding, to render passages accordingly.
The bottom-line is the RV is still read in our group (footnotes almost always excluded), but so are most all other versions (e.g., probably not the JW version . . .) - and the Greek/Hebrew is also reviewed closely. We're after original meaning, not another man's often flawed interpretation!
|
The RecVer was built upon the "foundation" of the ASV 1901, which in conjunction with the Revised Version (British) of 1887, tremendously improved the existing KJV. Once the King (James, of course) designated his own translation as the "Authorized" version, it stifled all improvements for almost 300 years. Meanwhile, Archeologists exploring the Mideast (preserved by desert climates) had unearthed far superior and earlier manuscripts of the Greek Text. Textual scholars became familiar with the original language of Koine Greek. (
I read an interesting book years ago, From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps, on this topic)
Based on this ASV foundation, the Rec Vers (both Ingalls and Robichaux), the NASB, and others are built. Often I read the WEB, the World English Bible, mainly out of familiarity with the ASV "family" of versions.
Below is a chart of various English Versions which display various methods of translation style. To the far left would also be Knoch's Concordant Version. To the far right would be The Living Bible, which I was reading when I was wonderfully saved. Many new Christians started on the right, and slowly moved left over time. Except for obviously heretical versions, I believe all versions are pleasing to the Lord, as His desire is that all could know His word.
