Clutch writes Always good to hear from a couple(2) of the 7000, that have not bowed their knee to Baal. Ron, my understanding of the RSV/ASV is that it was supposed to a revision of the KJV. What happened is that the translators delved into the most ancient texts for both testaments making it all suspect in my opinion.
your pedantic English buddy here...
you refer above to the RSV/ASV, but this is confusing the
RV/ASV was produced in c1881 YOu are quite right in saying that as regards the New Testament they introduced thousands of variations into the text that the KJV translators had used (the Byzantine/Majority/Received text). I never use the New Testament of the RV/ASV without careful scrutiny.
In the Old Testament the Revisers "thought it prudent to adopt the Massoretic Text as the basis of their work, and to depart from it, as the Authorised Translators had done, only in exceptional cases".
The NASB is the 'son of the RV/ASV' and is, imho, better than than the RV/ASV for the New Testament as their Greek text gave more credit to the 'Received Text' than had the RV/ASV translators. I still don't trust it personally. It was, however, more 'literal equivalent' (word for word) even than the KJV
the RSV was produced in 1948 and is a very different kettle of fish. It was well produced in very readable English but is based on the Massoretic text 'corrected' by the Septuagint, common sense etc. The NT of the RSV was based on the same kind of text that the NASB was based on. To my mind, still short of the 'Received TExt' standard of the KJV.
The ESV, see separate thread, is the 'son of the RSV' with a little more evangelical input.
William Tyndale, basis of KJV 1536. 83% of the KJV NT is direct copy of William Tyndale. And an even bigger percentage of the Geneva Bible!
"the peculiar genius which breathes through the English bible, the mingles tenderness and majesty, the Saxon simplicity, the grandeur, unequalled, unapproached in the attempted improvements of modern scholars, all are here, and bear the impress of the mind of one man, and that man - William Tyndale" quote from Thomas Newberry.
1611 KJV translation. Our KJV version is based on a later 'revision' c1769.
1881 the Revised Version (RV) The American Committee produced their own version (ASV) c1901. It has been called "The Rock of Biblical Honesty." It is the product of the work of over 50 Evangelical Christian scholars.
The OT is Massoretic Text based, but the NT is still very much based on Westcott and Hort's text as in the English RV). The OT is very reliable and an invaluable study aid. (imho)
1960 The NASB, is heavily based on the 1901 ASV. The OT is based on the Massoretic Text. The NT is not so heavily based on Westcott and Hort as the RV/ASV but is still inferior to the Received Text (imho). It is easily attainable in paper versions.
1948 The RSV was a fresh start translation, not dependent (consciously) on previous translations. Well produced and much used in academic circles. Broke ranks by 'correcting' the Massoretic text from the Septuagint etc. Reads well, but not to be trusted.
2001 The ESV, an evangelically sponsored update of the RSV. Said to be 'literal equivalent' but is not. OT based on Massoretic Text. NT based on Nestle/UBS Greek text. Nicely produced but 'iffy'.
I have not included the Nearly Inexusable Version, The Good News Libel, The Massaged Message, or many other modern marvels. :-?
I am often asked 'which Bible should I buy?' I always say 'buy one you will read'. You could have Paul's own manuscript on your shelf but if you don't (or can't) read it,it will profit you nothing. Amy Carmichael believed that all versions captures unique facets of divine truth; I believe this is true. I despise none, but for every day use my personal preference is the KJV, heavily supported by the NASB and some great Bible tools.