R.e.v.

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by preacher4truth, Nov 4, 2013.

  1. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Revised English Version

    Has anyone checked this version out? If not, here is a link. Let me know what you think.

    http://www.stfonline.org/rev/
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    It's simply the Revised Version also called the ERV of the 1880's. Nothing new about it.
     
  3. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    So they've resurrected the ERV and are coming across as if it is all new?

    The REV and ERV are word for word?
     
  4. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,951
    Likes Received:
    370
    I would be curious to know how they determine when a literal translation is appropriate and when a departure is necessary. I’m not 100% sure that a new translation is needed (I see the ESV as somewhat of an in-between of the NASB and dynamic equivalency). It is a wonderful goal to provide a bible that “more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market,” but that is (I believe) the goal of most translations that are on the market. I guess my issue is that I do not know that easier to read bibles are the best - perhaps some effort is necessary otherwise we may be presented with someone’s interpretation that may or may not be accurate. At the same time I realize that biblical studies is not a popular art in a world where we expect to be handed the truth instead of disciplining ourselves to discover the truth. But it is an interesting undertaking.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I couldn't pull up your link. (This country censors a good deal.) But the ERV,REV,or simply the RV, all refer to the same translation.
     
  6. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    45
    SFT=Spirit & Truth Fellowship (splinter group from The Way International)
     
  7. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh. Well now since you cannot examine the link there we will have to wait.

    I don't know what evidence you've used to conclude the REV is in fact the ERV since you can't get to the link.
     
  8. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    That dude looks like John Pipers hucklebuck 4th cousin. He's a cross between Piper and Larry the Cable Guy.

    We went to Rod Parsleys World Harvest Church for one service to investigate. After the service they had a class to teach others to speak in tongues. We asked why they needed to be taught a gift. :)
     
  10. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    101
    This is based on the 1901 ASV (which is a minor revision of the ERV), but it's more than just a little updating. The theology of the translators is forthrightly Unitarian, so that is reflected in the text.

    Compare John 1 (which is the first thing I read in any new translation):

    ERV & ASV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
    Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

    REV: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was, the word was.
    2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    3 All things were made through it, and without it was not anything made that has been made.
    4 In it was life and the life was the light of
    mankind.

    I've also noticed that the REV also insists on using "Yahveh" as the proper name of God in the Matthew, citing the Shem-Tov readings of the first Gospel (1385).
     
  11. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Not sure if the REV is similar to the REB - the titles are so similar.

    The Revised English Bible (1989) is a revision of the New English Bible (1970).

    Both versions are Anglicized (not directed to American but for British readers) so some of the idioms may be strange and uncomfortable.

    The REB is a literal translation that tends to avoid overtly religious expressions.
    Like the New Revised Standard Version the REB is not generally a bible that Baptists use.

    ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that everyone who has faith in him may not perish but have eternal life.
    John 3:16, REB
    It is particularly worthy translation in the Psalms.


    Psalm 1 (REB)

    1 HAPPY is the one
    who does not take the counsel of the wicked for a guide,
    or follow the path that sinners tread,
    or take his seat in the company of scoffers.
    2 His delight is in the law of the LORD;
    it is his meditation day and night.
    3 He is like a tree
    planted beside water channels;
    it yields its fruit in season
    and its foliage never fades.
    So he too prospers in all he does.
    4 The wicked are not like this;
    rather they are like chaff driven by the wind.
    5 When judgement comes, therefore, they will not stand firm,
    nor will sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
    6 The LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
    but the way of the wicked is doomed.

    The REB is on the list of bibles I regularly check when I study.

    Rob
     
    #11 Deacon, Nov 5, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2013
  12. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not quite the same as the ERV is it?

    Sounds quite JW to me. That's too bad, was hoping for something legit, yet watching this guy on his video about the version I felt something was amiss with him.
     
  13. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    186
    There is a handy comparison chart that may help the folks who look at this part of the forum to kind of understand what the intent of each bible translation seeks to accomplish.

    Personally, I don't care so much about "thought for thought" translations as I do the accuracy of the translation - "word for word."

    Because the "thought" of someone else trying to put down the "thoughts" of the writer, may be off the mark. I would rather do my own work of investigation, gather my own research on a troubling passage, and then compare it to what others have considered.

    Anyway, click here to see the chart.

    BTW, this is why I rely most heavily upon the NASB, as my first choice.

    Those who claim that some other translation is "more accurate" are mistaken, and replaced word translation for attempting to discern the thought of the translator.

    There is a place for such an investigation, no doubt, but in my opinion it isn't and shouldn't be the first reading - it should follow what the Holy Spirit has impulsed from the most accurate word translation.
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    I read through John 1 but I very much do not like it. The issue with modern versions these days seems to be that they use modern words that actually minimize the the impact of the reality of what was going on then. John was a forerunner and that means something. Just saying he went in advance minimizes that.
     
  15. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    186
    I tend to agree.

    This is the best that I have ever encountered in the English language:

    John 1

    I like to read it by removing "foot notes" and "cross references" by clicking the "page options" button and removing the check marks by those two items.
     
  16. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I found the same and usually read John 1 first as well.

    This is how I found out the NSB is a JW translation. I believe the guy who wrote this heretical versions name was James Madsen. He had a site that talked about how long he has been a JW and how he made this 'Bible'.
     
  17. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    186
    Just so casual readers do NOT think "preacher4truth" just left the "A" out of NSB, I place the following two links.

    The NASB history

    The NSB history
     
  18. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks.

    from the article on the NSB (new simplified bible) :

     
  19. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    There are no true word-for-word translations. All use thought-for-thought most of the time --it's a necessity.

    You labor under a misunderstanding. It's not the "thoughts"as in "idea" ,"concept" or "general gist." It is clause-by-clause,phrase-by-phrase,sentence-by-sentence or even longer passages. It's taking things contextually sense-by-sense as John Purvey said when doing his second Wycliffe translation.

    You are wrong. Translation is not simply supplying word-for-word replacements. It doesn't work that way. There is no one-to-one correspondence.
     
  20. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    This is just false and an excuse by those who love the NIV and have a need to justify it. When we talk about these issues we need a bit more integrity than this.
     

Share This Page

Loading...