Jump to content


SUPPORT TOPIC File Information

  • Submitted: Jun 07 2018 10:38 AM
  • Last Updated: Jun 10 2018 04:56 PM
  • File Size: 23.56MB
  • Views: 1913
  • Downloads: 133
  • 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
Greg Abrams

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

Tab Name:

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:

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

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 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

 Please clarify: Do you believe in (1) the inerrancy of Scripture and in (2) the virgin birth of Jesus?


As to #1, see above.


#2, Regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus, speaking mainly as an interpreter rather than a translator:


The UPDV translation does not support the virgin birth. But then again, Jesus does not need to be born of a virgin. 


You can believe Jesus was God (son of God, God in the flesh, etc.) without necessarily believing Mary was a virgin.


Some think if you say no to being born of a virgin, you are also saying Jesus is just a man. That's not the case. It doesn't diminish anything.


The Old Testament doesn't require it (without discussing the many problems in Isaiah 7:14 - an issue in itself).


The New Testament doesn't require it or mention it either except for the questionable and isolated Gospel passages.


This is another area where it makes the Bible appear less credible by adding in or embellishing things that were not there originally.


See here for example for some points raised here:



The virgin birth is not one of the pillars that sustains the New Testament faith in Christ. The confession of faith in Jesus, the Son of God, the Lord, is independent of the virgin birth, and is not based on it.


The apostle Paul makes three explicit references to Jesus' birth, and in each he assumes Jesus' full humanity and says nothing of the circumstances of the birth.


If these two narratives were missing from the New Testament, "there would be no biblical mention of the virgin birth"


The modern scholarly consensus is that the doctrine of the virgin birth rests on a very slim historical foundation.


Also consider that even if Mary was not a virgin, the birth could have been divinely conceived -  that is, the translation doesn't prevent it.

The probleem is not Word vs Speech because the Greek word "Logos" support both words.
You wrote Speech with a S in Joh 1:1 and Joh 1:14

Using my translation with (Speech) to make it clear:

Joh 1:1 In [the] beginning was the Word(Speech), and the Word(Speech) was with God, and the Word(Speech) was God.

Joh 1:14  And the Word(Speech) became flesh, and tabernacled among us,
(and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.
The "Word became flesh" or the "Speech became flesh" and the "only-begotten Son of God" is a part of the Incarnation doctrine that that every Christian must accept against the doctrine of the antichrists: see my topic about Virgin Birth:
In other words: the Speech(Jesus) is born or begotten as Son of God (not by Adoptionism and Psilanthropism). Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus.  

By writing "Joseph begot Jesus" do you also contradict:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the World, that He gave His only-begotten Son,...
Joh 3:18 ...in the Name of the only-begotten Son of God.
1Jn 4:9 ...  because that God has sent His only-begotten Son into the World,...

So the Virgin Birth doctrine is not only based on the parts that you deleted.

Marcion that you used as source for some of the edits was one of the worst heretics in the second century:

" And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan."(Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses. Book III, Chapter 3, Verse 4. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

Polycarp was the bishop of "Church in Smyrna" Rev 2:8-11 and the pupil of the Apostle John: so he has autority unlike the heretic Marcion.
More about the false teachings of Marcion.

Do you understood how bad it is to follow statements and sources of Marcion or other heretics for deletion or change in your UPDV Updated Bible?
It is a fact that you not accept the "Virgin Birth doctrine" and therefore deleted Mat 1:18-25 and Luke 1 And you can't use autority of Bible believers to justify this deletion.
Don't come with the apostate Bart D. Ehrman who wrote the book "Forged" and other anti-christian books. (He worked before as textual critic with his mentor Bruce Metzger).

Do you understood that the term "Historical Jesus" is used by those who deny that Jesus is the Son of God and other Biblical doctrines.

These are generally broad characterizations of minimal evidentiary value which do not go beyond anything already considered.

I see that a part of the "Sermon on the Mount" is deleted.
I see that you have the shortish versions of the "Lord's Prayer" in Matthew and Luke
I see that a part of the parables in Matthew are deleted for "style" reasons.

I see that you have a problem with the "three days and three nights" chronology so you deleted it.

I see how much you deleted in Mat 28 Mar 16(Longer Ending) Luk 24 and the ending of John

Based on your "translation" was an Angel the only witness of the "Resurrection of Jesus" and the story ends with the women that are afraid, flee and telling nobody after hearing that the body was gone. The two earthquakes are also missing.

Bribe of the soldiers, The road to Emmaus, Thomas doubts, the death of Judas, Feed my Sheep, Catching hundred fifty three fishes, The Great Commission and Ascension of Jesus are all deleted.
 "The Holy Spirit on Pentecost" also because you deny the Book "Acts of the Apostles".


What next? Deleting the other miracles like the Jefferson Bible?
Version 2.04 was better while it has the "Jesus Barabbas" corruption.

... Matthew, not only at the beginning, but also at the end, may be the creation of a later writer who was familiar with novels in his culture; rather than being the original work of a Hebrew author. Patterns of the Modified Text Although the above factors focus on the first two chapters, the modifications continue throughout Matthew. The first two chapters turn out to be just a symptom of a much more widespread problem. In reviewing Matthew, some patterns emerge when we find material that is not present in John, Mark, or Luke. In general terms, Matthew contains unparalleled materials that tend to: a) Sensationalize or exaggerate; b ) Support a misunderstood Scripture; c) Prematurely insert extra prophecies; and d) Over-emphasize certain phrases and topics. Context In many cases, passages were found that were not in their proper context. By presenting the material in a context which was not originally intended when the words were spoken, this was likely to result in misinterpretation. There were also cases of multiple sayings that were placed together even though they happened at different times and in different contexts. Reconstruction The UPDV has used the existing material in Matthew as a basis for reconstructing a replacement text which: a) Removes the unattested material; b ) Puts the events in a more chronological order; c) Places the text in its proper context; and d) Covers the same general subjects and events. ... https://www.updated.org/matthew.shtml


... Matthew, not only at the beginning, but also at the end, may be the creation of a later writer who was familiar with novels in his culture; rather than being the original work of a Hebrew author. Patterns of the Modified Text Although the above factors focus on the first two chapters, the modifications continue throughout Matthew. The first two chapters turn out to be just a symptom of a much more widespread problem....


Modern thinking tends to place criticism on the way ancient writers composed their material.
It definitely helps not to do so if one is to be objective.

On a slightly different note, there are marked differences in the LXX and the Hebrew yet I never read where Paul, John or our Lord Jesus in any way reprimanded "that evil greek translation".

You do know there were many "Gospels" that aren't extant, don't you?

Regardless I realize that we will never see eye to eye so however your work ends up is entirely up to you.
However, I do wonder about just what your aim is and what you are trying to prove.

Hey, I'm out of here, myself being an old time conservative bible believer..so don't worry about anymore replies from me.
As I mentioned already, I followed the research. I did not have any agenda or something to prove. If we are being objective, a good place to start is in reviewing the research done and conducting our own. Does it need to be done? Absolutely. It’s pretty obvious there are problems with Acts and the gospel beginnings, endings, and changes done to Matthew. Let’s stop torturing the text to make it harmonize and admit the problems. To do this properly takes at least some number of weeks of serious study rather than just making broad generalizations on various side issues. On the website, in the footnotes, and in the appendix I have given but a small part of the research findings and some sources. Beyond that there are cabinets, hundreds of books, dissertation files, untold time at theological libraries, and more. So why not actually get into the merits of research?

Mr. Abrams, do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?

Mr. Abrams, do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?

See my response above about the virgin birth.

My view is no different than that which is translated.

Mr. Abrams, I am kind of interested how you view the personage that Muslims call "Allah" -   Do you see him as a satanic imposter, and Mohammad as a delusional demoniac...OR...do you see these two personages as another iteration of God the Father and His Messagner?  To say the least, your translation far exceeds any strange tome I have seen that men call the 'Word of God'.   I'm just wondering how you see these imposters.


Another question...  Where did you learn to handle the ancient languages of Greek and Hebrew?   Did you just wander into a public library one day and the Siran's of knowledge called for you to investigate the source of Bible translations...OR...did you receive instruction from a school or person?  If so where and who blessed you with such insight?

Other files you may be interested in ..

  • 8,721 Total Files
  • 50 Total Categories
  • 212 Total Contributors
  • 5,005,878 Total Downloads
  • Unlocked Literal Bible Latest File
  • anapto Latest Submitter

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

8 members, 13 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bing (3), shanefitch, Cvawter, jhodgesjtn, smm987, DanielVCP23, Google (1), raguab, jmloy, jessenji