Jump to content

Submitter



SUPPORT TOPIC File Information

  • Submitted: Jun 07 2018 10:38 AM
  • Last Updated: Jun 10 2018 04:56 PM
  • File Size: 23.56MB
  • Views: 1927
  • Downloads: 135
  • Author: Greg Abrams
  • e-Sword Version: 9.x - 10.x
  • Tab Name: UPDV

Support BibleSupport.com

  • If our e-Sword and MySword modules have blessed you, please consider a small donation.


    Your donation pays only for dedicated server hosting, bandwidth, software licenses, and capital equipment (scanners, OCR equipment, etc).


    Enter Amount $


    You do not need a paypal account to donate online.



    If you're high tech and have any spare bitcoin bits or mBTC:
    Bitcoin Address: 1GnBesZLESuE8oPYW4WF63vuAgVKVK4Ajk

Other Modules By Same Author

e-Sword 9+ Module Download:
Download UPDV Updated Bible Version (PC & Apple) 2.17

* * * * * 1 Votes
Literal Apocrypha Old Testament New Testament Scripture
Screenshots
Author:
Greg Abrams

e-Sword Version:
9.x - 10.x

Tab Name:
UPDV

There is a Windows bblx file, Windows .exe installer, as well as Mac version file available to download.
Select updv-Windows.exe for the PC based Windows e-Sword (after downloading, click it to open the installer).
Select updv-Mac.bbli for Apple Macintosh Based e-Sword, iPhone, and iPad (after downloading, select 'Open in e-Sword' on iPhone or iPad, or on Mac OSx just double click the downloaded file).


For the MySword version to use with Android devices, click below for that format:
http://www.biblesupp...ersion-mysword/


PURPOSE:
To provide a modern version that retains accuracy.
To update archaic words and grammar.
To use new materials, such as manuscripts, to improve accuracy.


FEATURES:
Plurals Indicated:
Plus signs are used next to words such as you+ and your+ when they refer to a group of two or more. This is done to improve accuracy.


The Name of God:
The name "Yahweh" (a personal name for God) and "Yah" (a contracted form of Yahweh) are used instead of what is rendered in many versions as "LORD".

Bracketed Text:
Brackets [ ] are generally used to enclose words supplied in the translation that are not present in the original Bible text in order to make a passage more understandable.

Books of the Bible:
First Maccabees is included and reconstructed (click here for more information).
The Wisdom of Sirach is included (click here for more information).
The Book of Acts is no longer included (click here for more information).
The order of the books places the New Testament before the Old Testament; and the book of John before Matthew (click here for more information).
The Book of John ends at 19:35 (see page 607 in the Appendix).
The Book of Luke chapters one and two are not included
(see page 607 in the Appendix).
The Book of Matthew and the ending of Luke were reconstructed (see pages 602 and 608 in the Appendix).

Gender:
Gender has generally been translated literally. Words such as man, woman, son, daughter, he, she, him, and her are generally left in the same gender as they were in the original texts. There is no overall effort to remove such distinctions or to make this a gender inclusive translation.

Additional Information About This Translation:
The Speech in John 1:1
Book of Matthew
Complete Appendix


Copyright © 2003-2018 by Greg Abrams: www.updated.org.

What's New in Version 2.17 (See full changelog)

  • This version was released for publishing on May 31, 2018.
  • Title: "UPDV Updated Bible Version 2.17"
  • Changes made:
  • Incorporate changes from recently released critical text NA28.
  • Book of Sirach completed.
  • Literal translation of soul.
  • MP3 Audio Files Updated
  • Several other misc. updates.
  • Complete list of changes at: https://www.updated.org/download/previous/changes/changes_216-217.pdf

Screenshots

Screenshots Screenshots

When I first opened this up I found that beattitudes were in the wrong chapter.  It still may need some work on it.

Mr. Abrams, page 602 of the Appendix states that "In some cases, the text in Matthew was not included in any form" - and that the entire Book of Acts "is not included" due to "significant amounts of material" within it being "unsubstantiated" and that "many of the details within it appear to [have been] created" (i.e. 'made up'?); and page 603 of the Appendix claims that Matthew 1:16 "was modified very early to support the concept of a virgin birth of Jesus": <https://www.updated....ad/appendix.pdf>. Please clarify: Do you believe in (1) the inerrancy of Scripture and in (2) the virgin birth of Jesus?

Lastly, Mr. Abrams, page 601 of the Appendix states that this thoroughly edited work "is not to be modified" (which would presumably include citations of it that restore verses deleted from the ASV text on which it had been based): https://www.updated....ad/appendix.pdf Respectfully, sir, does not Deuteronomy 4:2 (as rendered in the UPDV 2018) exhort us to not "diminish from" God's sacred scripture?

While there are textual variants in Mat 1:16 has no source this: ιωσηφ δε εγεννησεν τον ιησουν(and Joseph begot Jesus) and the reason while you deleted Mat 1:18-25 and Luk 1 is because you disagree with the Virgin Birth doctrine.

Because the ASV was used as start base for the translation is it easy to prove that he edited it for doctrinal reasons.
ASV Luk 3:23 ...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph
UPDV Luk 3:23 ...He was known as: the son of Joseph
(see G3543 think, suppose)

ASV Joh 1:14 ...only begotten from the Father
UPDV Joh 1:14 ... only begotten from a father
Father=God the Father
father=Joseph

Because you used Speech(Logos or Word in most translations) with the big S in Joh 1:14 do you admit that He is the same as Joh 1:1
Only God the Father claims that Jesus is His "only begotten" Joh 3:16 Joh 3:18 1Jn 4:9


The story of Beth-lehem is closer to that of Moses (Exo 1 and Exo 2).
(your source of deletion for Luk 1 and Luk 2 and Acts is 'Marcion": one of the first Bible corrupters).
from you:
ttps://www.updated.org/download/appendix.pdf
"There is evidence that the early life of Christ probably was not in the original gospel account from which Luke is derived.
The Book of Matthew was likewise found to include similar material of a doubtful origin.
Accordingly, it seemed best to not include these two chapters in the text of Luke. For additional information, see Joseph P. Tyson,
Marcion and Luke-Acts(Columbia, University of South Caroline Press, 2006),"


The canon of your friend Marcion is even smaller than yours: rejection of the entire Old Testament and only 11 NT books of the 27 Books
http://www.ntcanon.org/Marcion.shtml

"Marcion undertook to expunge everything from the text of Luke which echoed or otherwise implied a point of contact with the Old Testament. Since Jesus, according to Marcion, had only the appearance of being human, he could not have been born of a woman. Therefore Marcion omitted most of the first 4 chapters of Luke"

So Macion was even worse for contradicting Gal 4:4 and removing Matthew entirely.

In Luk 23:46 did you delete "He said, Father, into Thy hands I will commit My Spirit" but you have no source for the textual variant except the edited version from Marcion.

You deleted the "Longer Ending of Mark" and the "woman taken in adultery" while you are not a real supporter of the NA nor Aramaic sources(that supporting those verses): if you really care about RANK: A (sure) in the NA then why should you delete Luk 1:17 and Luk 2:11 ?

To show the stupidity of the NA:
Mark 16:14 that is a part of the "Longer Ending of Mark" has also a RANK: A (sure) by the NA.
And also John 8:9 and John 8:10 that is a part of the "woman taken in adultery".

You delete or change what is not in your doctrinal mind while using the worst sources.
 

Lastly, Mr. Abrams, page 601 of the Appendix states that this thoroughly edited work "is not to be modified" (which would presumably include citations of it that restore verses deleted from the ASV text on which it had been based): https://www.updated....ad/appendix.pdf Respectfully, sir, does not Deuteronomy 4:2 (as rendered in the UPDV 2018) exhort us to not "diminish from" God's sacred scripture?

 

Not being modified pertains primarily to not using it to make an entirely new translation from it or a large amount of it. Citations and most anything else are fine.

 

As to Deuteronomy, diminishing is only half of it. We are neither to "add to" nor "diminish from".

 

The compilation and transmission of parts of our New Testament (primarily the Gospels & Acts) was not subject to the same rigors and process that was afforded to the Old Testament.

 

2 You+ will not add to the word which I command you+, neither will you+ diminish from it, that you+ may keep the commandments of Yahweh your+ God which I command you+.

(Deu 4.2 also see Deu 13.32)

 

5 Every word of God is tried: He is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Don't add to his words, Or else he will reprove you, and you will be found a liar.

(Proverbs 30:5-6)

When I first opened this up I found that beattitudes were in the wrong chapter.  It still may need some work on it.

 

Matthew is reconstructed, see: https://www.updated.org/matthew.shtml which includes cross reference tables.



Mr. Abrams, page 602 of the Appendix states that "In some cases, the text in Matthew was not included in any form" - and that the entire Book of Acts "is not included" due to "significant amounts of material" within it being "unsubstantiated" and that "many of the details within it appear to [have been] created" (i.e. 'made up'?); and page 603 of the Appendix claims that Matthew 1:16 "was modified very early to support the concept of a virgin birth of Jesus": <https://www.updated....ad/appendix.pdf>. Please clarify: Do you believe in (1) the inerrancy of Scripture and in (2) the virgin birth of Jesus?

 

My beliefs come from the work of the translation, not the other way around. I had no such preconceptions going into it. The changes were the result of research done several years into the translation.

 

I personally believe that the inerrancy of the written Word of God is true. But, this doesn't mean that just because something was placed in a Bible that it is the Word of God.

While there are textual variants in Mat 1:16 has no source this: ιωσηφ δε εγεννησεν τον ιησουν(and Joseph begot Jesus) and the reason while you deleted Mat 1:18-25 and Luk 1 is because you disagree with the Virgin Birth doctrine.

Because the ASV was used as start base for the translation is it easy to prove that he edited it for doctrinal reasons.
ASV Luk 3:23 ...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph
UPDV Luk 3:23 ...He was known as: the son of Joseph
(see G3543 think, suppose)

ASV Joh 1:14 ...only begotten from the Father
UPDV Joh 1:14 ... only begotten from a father
Father=God the Father
father=Joseph

Because you used Speech(Logos or Word in most translations) with the big S in Joh 1:14 do you admit that He is the same as Joh 1:1
Only God the Father claims that Jesus is His "only begotten" Joh 3:16 Joh 3:18 1Jn 4:9


The story of Beth-lehem is closer to that of Moses (Exo 1 and Exo 2).
(your source of deletion for Luk 1 and Luk 2 and Acts is 'Marcion": one of the first Bible corrupters).
from you:
ttps://www.updated.org/download/appendix.pdf
"There is evidence that the early life of Christ probably was not in the original gospel account from which Luke is derived.
The Book of Matthew was likewise found to include similar material of a doubtful origin.
Accordingly, it seemed best to not include these two chapters in the text of Luke. For additional information, see Joseph P. Tyson,
Marcion and Luke-Acts(Columbia, University of South Caroline Press, 2006),"


The canon of your friend Marcion is even smaller than yours: rejection of the entire Old Testament and only 11 NT books of the 27 Books
http://www.ntcanon.org/Marcion.shtml

"Marcion undertook to expunge everything from the text of Luke which echoed or otherwise implied a point of contact with the Old Testament. Since Jesus, according to Marcion, had only the appearance of being human, he could not have been born of a woman. Therefore Marcion omitted most of the first 4 chapters of Luke"

So Macion was even worse for contradicting Gal 4:4 and removing Matthew entirely.

In Luk 23:46 did you delete "He said, Father, into Thy hands I will commit My Spirit" but you have no source for the textual variant except the edited version from Marcion.

You deleted the "Longer Ending of Mark" and the "woman taken in adultery" while you are not a real supporter of the NA nor Aramaic sources(that supporting those verses): if you really care about RANK: A (sure) in the NA then why should you delete Luk 1:17 and Luk 2:11 ?

To show the stupidity of the NA:
Mark 16:14 that is a part of the "Longer Ending of Mark" has also a RANK: A (sure) by the NA.
And also John 8:9 and John 8:10 that is a part of the "woman taken in adultery".

You delete or change what is not in your doctrinal mind while using the worst sources.
 

My doctrine did not decide the translation. It's the other way around. I never had such preconceptions, nor did they ever even enter my mind before this.

 

The various critical texts usually specifically note that they are limited in scope to what they can decide. While they are great resources, they can only build based on the assumptions they have made.

 

Marcion may have made some valid observations. I don't know him well enough to say if he is my friend. His writings were only used as points of evidence. If some things he said were true or not or caused a controversy, they do not completely discount everything he said. From the source above, I think it would be pretty obvious then if the purpose of the UPDV was to follow Marcion.

 

Most of the citations I provide are only a small sample of the research for any given issue. Usually, the more serious ones go on for months and can go several inches or more deep in research just for the printouts. Add to that other books and research papers consulted as well.

 

Then there's also the problem that, besides all this technical talk, this extraneous material in most Bibles is causing obvious contradictions. This is why commentators really have to force explanations about why some things from one gospel don't blatantly contradict another or the rest of the New Testament or known history. While it may make us feel like what we have in our Bibles is 100% perfectly inspired, that doesn't mean that it is so. It also makes it look less credible than just owning up to mistakes being made and fixing them as best as possible. This is what I have done.

While there are textual variants in Mat 1:16 has no source this: ιωσηφ δε εγεννησεν τον ιησουν(and Joseph begot Jesus) 
 

 

I explain this in the footnote to the verse and also provide the Critical Text translation as well. Also see the Appendix on page 607.

 

It helps on some verses to have the PDF or ePub formats which contain footnotes.

 

Matthew 1:16 – See footnote at this verse. The Greek followed is based on the TA mentioned there. However it is styled to NA28 for conjunctions and omits the intervening dialog by the speaker.

 

TA: The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila. The critical text presented in a thesis by Robert Gerald Robertson at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1986.

 

Footnote at Matthew 1:16:

 

This verse follows Manuscripts R and O at 17.3ab of the early document, "The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila" (TA). It is also partially supported by the Old Syriac (Sinaiticus), some Palestinian Syriac, some Greek manuscripts, and Von Soden's critical text, which indicate Joseph begot Jesus but with text included about Mary. CT reads, "and Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary; from her was born Jesus, who is called Christ." For the meaning of "begot", see the footnote at Matthew 1:2.

Because you used Speech(Logos or Word in most translations) with the big S in Joh 1:14 do you admit that He is the same as Joh 1:1
Only God the Father claims that Jesus is His "only begotten" Joh 3:16 Joh 3:18 1Jn 4:9

 

This is a great observation and a huge feature in the UPDV.

 

Keeping the standard translation as Word, or a similar Greek based translation, significantly obscures what is going on with this.

 

Using Speech, and cross-referencing it based on the underlying translation, greatly expands the understanding of who Christ is elsewhere in the Bible. This is based on what John most likely meant by it when he wrote it originally.

 

It is a key that unlocks many possible references to Christ in the Old Testament.

 

For a more detailed explanation see:

 

https://www.updated....elp/speech.html

 

and the Appendix page 605 as well as other underlined uses elsewhere.

 

The electronic editions that do not have underlines, footnotes, and the appendix will limit being able to understand what has been done here.

 

Some excerpts from the Appendix on page 605:

 

It is possible that the underlying word in Aramaic in John 1:1 was originally 'Memra' (ממרא). This would match the extensive use in some of the Targums (Aramaic translations of the Old Testament). The significance of this is that John may have used his understanding of this term from the Targum when he wrote in John 1:1, 'In the beginning was the Speech...'.

 

In reference to the use of 'Memra' in the Targums, J.W. Etheridge states:
"... it seems, I repeat, impossible to restrict the signification of the epithet in question to a mere figurative personification, and not to perceive that St. John, when he wrote the first verses of his Gospel, communicated to the Gentile churches a mystery of the truth which had long been held sacred by the ancient people of God." (J.W. Etheridge, M.A. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee. KTAV Publishing House, Inc. New York, 1968, first published 1862, pages 19- ).20
 
Holding a similar view is Martin McNamara who says:
"...it is legitimate to assume that John is very much under the influence of the targums in the formulation of his doctrine of the Logos. " Martin McNamara, Targum and Testament. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1972, page 104.
 
In understanding John 1:1, it is also important to differentiate between the meaning of the 'Logos' of Greek Philosophy and the 'Memra' of the Old Testament. John Gill in his 'Exposition of the Entire Bible' at John 1:1 indicates that the meaning of John 1:1 is based on the meaning of 'Memra' from the Targums rather than from the writings of Plato or his followers. Gill further states that it is much more probable that Plato got his idea of the 'Logos' from the 'Memra' of the Old Testament, rather than supposing that John's ideas in John 1:1 were derived from Plato.
 
In order to show where 'Memra' is used in the Old Testament, the corresponding English translation has been underlined. For example, in Genesis 1:3, the Targum reads, 'And the Memra of the Lord said'. Our present version reads, 'And God said'. Accordingly, 'God' in Genesis 1:3 in this translation has been underlined. This shows the corresponding use of 'Memra' in the Targum. This also shows a possible relationship between 'God' of Genesis 1:3 to the 'Speech' of John 1:1. The 'Speech' of John 1:1 is also underlined since it is likely to have been originally derived from 'Memra' in the Targum.
 
If the word 'I' is underlined, the verb next to it will also be underlined to make it easier to notice.
 
In Genesis 1:3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 24, and 30, the last phrase of the verse is underlined to show the additional phrase 'according to the decree of his Memra' or 'according to his Memra' which appears at the end of the verse in the Targum. In Genesis 1:3 the Targum reads, 'and there was light according to the decree of his Memra'. The rest of the verses listed above read in the Targum, 'and it was so according to his Memra.'
The following are the instances where underlining has taken place to show an underlying use of 'Memra' in the Old Testament as well as the possible use of the same word in New Testament (parenthesis indicate the number of times 'Memra' appears in a verse if more than once)....(see Appendix for list)

 

 

Sources:

 

Appendix Page 605:

https://www.updated....ad/appendix.pdf

 

Article on Speech: 

https://www.updated....elp/speech.html


Other files you may be interested in ..





  • 8,721 Total Files
  • 50 Total Categories
  • 212 Total Contributors
  • 5,008,720 Total Downloads
  • e-Sword ToolTip Tool NT Latest File
  • BH. Latest Submitter

30 user(s) are online (in the past 30 minutes)

10 members, 18 guests, 0 anonymous users


RevSteve, Bing (2), firstlast, Peter22, chosen, nexus125, RONNIEROB, AlanJHowarth, gyephraim, Jogegore, Moses Chimuzurum