Modern Translations

MODERN TRANSLATIONS
Since the day when the King James Version was first published, there have been literally thousands of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts discovered which are older than those used by the translators of that version. Newer translations have been able to take advantage of this increased wealth of information. The Revised Version.
A British revision committee was set up in 1870 to revise the King James Version in light of the growing manuscript evidence. They translated the Old and New Testament, completing their work in 1885. They went on to translate the Apocrypha in 1895. They made it a point to utilize Elizabethan English in this translation, changing only that language which could no longer be understood. The American Standard Version.
Working in cooperation with the British revisers, a United States committee brought out this translation in 1901. Instead of following the accepted practice of translating the tetragramatum as “LORD,” they gave an anglicized version of “Jehovah.” The Revised Standard Version: This translation was completed in 1952 and was a revision of the Revised Version of 1885. The New Testament is quite faithful to the best Greek texts; the Old Testament often departs from Hebrew for readings in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, or just conjecture. (Dr. William S. LaSor).

Because it has a tendency to depart from the traditional readings of the King James Version, this translation has come under significant attack by Protestant Evangelicals. The New American Standard Version (1970).
This was the nine year effort of 58 scholars brought together by the Lockman Foundation. They worked to update the American Standard Version. Its critics argue that it is too literal.

Considerable attention has been given to translation of verb tenses with the result that it often sounds awkward and slightly pedantic. (Robert H. Mounce, Professor of Religious Studies at Western Kentucky University).

Personally, I have found that the attention to literalness of translation to be a great aid in Bible study. Admittedly, there are times when the New American Standard does not flow readily and does not show the best of English grammar, but this is only a reflection of the fact that the writers of the Bible spoke in the common language. As such, they did not worry about run-on sentences or other forms which we might take to be poor grammar. In recording this, the NAS has been most helpful. The New International Version.
This translation was the combined work of more than 100 translators and editors. In contrast to the NAS which sought a more literal rendering, the NIV set out to give a dynamic equivalence in translation.

We tried to avoid making a mechanical word for word rendition, which is the tendency of some versions that stress faithfulness to the original languages. Our translators always asked, “Knowing what the original writer was trying to communicate, how would we say the same thing today?” (Dr. Burton Goddard, interview in Eternity Magazine). This translation has some excellent qualities. It is in modern English without resorting to slang. It is divided into paragraphs and is written in a flowing style for easy reading. It also gives the meaning behind figures of speech that might tend to be confusing if they were literally translated. The New King James Version.
For the Old Testament, the Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica was used, although both the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Dead Sea Scrolls were consulted. The Textus Receptus was used for the New Testament, although marginal notes indicate where there is a deviation from either the Critical Text or from their Byzantine Family (referred to as the Majority Text). The New English Translation.
First published in 2004, this translation follows after the tradition of the New International Version in seeking to be a dynamic-equivalent translation, at the same time seeking to be more accurate to the Greek and Hebrew texts. Included in the translation were thousands of textual notes to further explain the translation.