12 replies to this topic

[Butch Gates]

As I have been searching different versions for many subjects/words, etc... I have had a growing question.

What is the difference between e-sword bible versions and "Standard" versions (e.g.  NASV & ASV, NIV & ISV, etc.)?

 

To state this a bit different, Difference between "Standard ... Version" and "New ... Standard version".

 

Thank you,

Butch

Edited by Butch Gates, 21 August 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[Katoog]

On this website are there no Premium Bibles and other Bibles that you can find in the download program of e-Sword  (except variants of the KJV, Webster, ASV,... and non-English Bibles)

It is forbidden to host those Bibles in the e-Sword License agreement.

The other question about differences between ASV and NASV or other Bibles is for another forum.

see http://www.biblesupp...ogy-discussion/

Edited by Katoog, 21 August 2014 - 12:34 PM.

[Tim Butterfield]

The premium Bible modules (the ones that cost money) are made and distributed through companies that are either part of or licenced by the copyright holder. 

 

As a result it is to be assumed that say, the Lockerman Foundation (Amplified Bible and NASB) would not allow the distribution of a module that differed substantially from the content of the printed version, as that would cast serious doubt on the authenticity of one or the other editions.  (Such modules are also password protected to prevent unauthorized tampering with the content)  .

 

 

The other translations would be under similar scrutiny.  OTOH the nonpremium modules are created from public domain material, and it is only the scruples of the module maker that prevents them from altering the documents that the module claims to present

 

The module makers here are quite trustworthy, as far as I have been able to determine. Any  discrepancies noted have always been the result of an error in proofreading (a massive task, and one that even commercial entities find impossible to avoid completely.) which usually results in the module maker correcting it and assigning an update number to the module (module version 1.012 or such).

 

The other area where errors can arise where the document that was converted to a module (usually downloaded for the internet source) was either incomplete or had been altered by the web site.  

 

It is preferred to start with an electronically  generated file (PDF or the like).  Otherwise, the choices are to demolish a copy of the book/ pamphlet or what ever  and scan it, which results in a picture of the document. The scan that must be run through an OCR program (Optical Character Recognition) which can, depending upon the program and the quality of the scan,  be somewhat whimsical in its "translation" requiring massive proof reading (see above reference to how easy that is.)

 

Hopefully this answers your question and gives you some idea as to how easy it is for mistakes to sneak into modules.

[Tim Butterfield]

A closer examination of your question shows that I might have misread. 

 

What is the difference between e-sword bible versions and "Standard" versions (e.g.  NASV & ASV, NIV & ISV, etc.)?

 

To state this a bit different, Difference between "Standard ... Version" and "New ... Standard version".

 

The Standard version and New version designators are  not unique to e-Sword.  In fact, the companies that translate and publish the Bibles give that designation, not e-Sword.

 

Generally the designations change to show that the translation has been up dated to reflect the changes in the English language since the translation was done.  Generally the people doing the "updates" go back to original manuscripts  to ensure that they are not changing the meaning being conveyed rather than merely  modernizing the language. But any changes that the translators feel might be needed because of newly discovered manuscripts will be included as well.

 

There are also some translations that are differentiated because they were done to match the dialect of the readers (and an example the English Standard Version and American Standard Version)

 

Some Bible translations are "word for word" in that the translators translated each word directly (often maintaining  sentence as well) these make great study Bibles since they can be keyed to Strong's numbers.  Primary examples of this type translation are the KJV and NASB. They are not as easy to read as other translations, but tend to be more accurate.

 

NOTE just because they are word for word does NOT mean that they will be identical.  Take a look in any dictionary and you will see that there is more than one definition for almost every word, though most of the definitions will be similar. One group of translators might feel one specific definition better fits the context of the original while a second group feels a different (though essentially synonymous) word fits better.  The other source for differences is that one group may favor a certain group of manuscripts (and the attendant variants)  while a second my favor a different set because it is older, and therefore presumed to be more variant free. Most good (honest and unbiased) translators use all available manuscripts, and attempt to determine which ones are more reliable in each particular instance where there is a variant.

 

A second method of translation is the "dynamic" or thought for thought method.  In this style the emphasis is on readability and the translators attempt to convey the thoughts that the original authour intended to convey.  This form generally results in a very readable translation, but is very much more susceptible to influence stemming from the translators own peculiar theology.  It is also subject to the same "debates" as to which set of manuscripts should be given more or less weight in determining the exact translation.  Primary among these are the NIV and NLT.

 

Both of these types utilize panels of experts in the particular language and type (History, Prophesy, Poetry and so on) for each book, which is why you will often see in the hard copies of a Bible a list of the translators and what portion of scripture they worked on.  These "committees" are often theologians as well, and a good translation will have people from more than one sect or denomination to avoid error based upon personal theology.  

 

There is a third form of "translation" that is the paraphrase it is generally the work of one person, and there is not much actual translation involved, but rather it reflect the understanding of the "translator"  Primary of these is the Message and the J. B. Philips.  Personally I look upon them as basically commentaries rather than Bibles.

 

Sorry to ramble on so, but I try to be thorough in my answers.

[Butch Gates]

Thank you for your thoughtful answers.

My intent here is to use e-sword as my "Bible of choice" for teaching a young adult Sunday School class.

This class will only use only the Bible as our primary study text, but questions will arise about the meaning of some words or old phrases that are no longer used in our daily conversations. Dictionaries and commentaries will prove to be useful in answering such questions. I love the ability to have an entire library on my laptop for such studies, and with limited finances, e-sword has been a constant blessing to me.

 

I knew about the "word for word" and/or "phrase by phrase" translations.

I also know that King James was apparently offended by the condemning tone of earlier translations (sounds like conviction to me).

The main thrust of my question here was mostly on the term "new" (e.g. American Standard vs. New American Standard or International vs. New International etc).

I am afraid I was not as clear as I hoped to be in my question, but I believe you did answer very well.

 

Thank you very much for your responses and God bless you all,

Butch

[Tim Butterfield]

Technically, e-Sword is not a Bible, it is a Bible study software program.  That is why there are so many translations available for it.

 

I teach an adult Sunday Shool class myself and we have the same principle as our guide.  The problem, of course is that some of the members of the class either do not have the inclination or the resources to do independent study.  e-Sword is a good resource if your class has computers so that they have access to the resources.

 

I wound up writing a couple of pages of commentary so that those without access to the resources, that way they have some way of studying at least something, and since I am the teacher, l without a doubt interject some of my own biases anyway (I do try not to, but it is unavoidable.)

 

I "published" the first five or so commentaries in the blog section here if you care to check them out.

 

We are studying the book of John, we will have been at it for a year the end of this month, we should be finishing in about six months.

 

I guess you could say I believe on covering things in some detail.

 

Pretty much the only free e-Sword module keyed to Strongs is the KJV, but the NASB study set has Strongs keyed  as well as standard versions included.  The NASB is pretty much my translation of choice for study, but the NLT is good for daily or devotional reading (I seldom "rabbit-trail" using it.)

 

I also know that King James was apparently offended by the condemning tone of earlier translations (sounds like conviction to me).

 

For a very long time English translations of the scriptures were basically done by Roman Catholics. 

Douay Old Testament first published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609
Rheims New Testament first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582
The Whole Revised and Diligently Compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner, A.D. 1749-1752

 

and so on, and therefore were considered to be "tainted". 

 

The KJV, though was considered the only translation suitable for Protestants to use because it was "authorized" by the head of the Church of England Only nominally the head since he had been raised Roman Catholic), with most if not all of the translators being Protestants.

 

This earned it an advocacy verging upon idolatry in some circles though I doubt conviction had much to do with it. 

 

 

Yours in Christ,

Tim

Edited by Tim Butterfield, 24 August 2014 - 12:53 PM.

[mikecindi]

The usage of "New" by publishers generically would reference "updating" language from the previous or reference work (e.g. KJV 3-400 year old English, NKJV relatively contemporary English).  This also may reference using a different Greek and/or Hebrew source for the translation in the "New".  The first paragraph in the preface of the NKJV gives the "Purpose".

 

HTH,

Mike

Edited by mikecindi, 24 August 2014 - 01:02 PM.

[APsit190]

I am a predominant NKJV user, not because I think its the best one or something like that, but purely on the basis that I just like it, and for no other reason. That said, when it comes to doing exegetical and expository study I view many translation/versions, and the one I think that brings the best meaning of a particular verse(s) of Scripture, then that is what I refer to.

 

My belief is that when it comes down to varying translations and versions of Scripture, just about all of them have their strengths and weaknesses. Some have more strengths than others, and some have more weaknesses than others. And so, when it comes down to choosing the best translation, well, to be honest, its just boils down to one's own preference. There are KJV advocates who reckon that this is just the bees knees of all translations, and that its 100%+ accurate, and that its the one that God reads. So, from that you can really see some extremely strong biases and fights over certain translations.

 

Going back to the version that God reads, well putting in a kind of Scriptural perspective, its gotta be the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB). And why??? Well its all gotta do with something that Paul said to the Romans, "...to the Jew first." And I guess that places all of  the Gentile translations to whenever God gets around to them. Well, what do you expect, its Monday. <<< This has to be a real worry.

 

Blessings,

Edited by APsit190, 24 August 2014 - 03:37 PM.

[mikecindi]

The KJO police will be looking for you!

BTW, I prefer the NASB for the same reasons you prefer the NKJV and use multiple translations since I don't read Greek or Hebrew (and then which manuscript would I use).  Also I don't have a copy of the CJB!

[Tim Butterfield]

I do have a copy of the CJB, and the commentary that goes with it.  It is useful for getting a cultural context. But modern Messianic Jews are still modern. (though the CJB does cite commentaries and traditions from older Judaic writings.)

 

But the as to the "Bible"  that the Apostles read / used I would say the Complete Apostles Bible would be a good candidate since the Apostles seem to have used the Septuagint (which is why some of the OT citations aren't that exact a match with the Tanak.

 

It combines A Modern English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Translated by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton

 and The English Majority Text Version (EMTV) of the Holy Bible, New Testament.
 

It is here on this site if you are interested.  If for no other reason that it combines two single Testament modules into on thus saving "tab space".

 

http://www.biblesupp...apostles-bible/