# Has anyone read/benefited from the ASV/ALV?



## Myson (Sep 7, 2018)

My dream Bible is one with no chapters of verses, flows well, and keeps the tetragrammaton everywhere it is used instead of translating it as LORD. I'm seeing Bibliotheca is pretty close to this. However, the ESV is coming out with a reader's edition in leather that I'm really looking in to (even though I already have the cloth). Has anyone read or had any experience with the ALV? Is it too literal? Is it just right? Is God's name translated most of the time? Would love to hear your experiences


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 7, 2018)

Myson said:


> ...keeps the tetragrammaton everywhere it is used instead of translating it as LORD. ...


So you don't like how the NT authors translate the OT?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Timotheos (Sep 7, 2018)

What is the ALV? I've never heard of it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Myson (Sep 7, 2018)

iainduguid said:


> So you don't like how the NT authors translate the OT?


No not particularly. I believe it was more out of patience for a superstition and an inability of accurately translating it that kept them from using it. If God gives us his personal name, why wouldn't we use it?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 7, 2018)

Myson said:


> No not particularly. I believe it was more out of patience for a superstition and an inability of accurately translating it that kept them from using it. If God gives us his personal name, why wouldn't we use it?



That's funny, I always thought they wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 1


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 7, 2018)

Myson said:


> No not particularly. I believe it was more out of patience for a superstition and an inability of accurately translating it that kept them from using it. If God gives us his personal name, why wouldn't we use it?


Speaking personally, I think that the doctrine of verbal inerrancy requires us at least to affirm that the NT authors translated the OT correctly. There were Greek translations of the OT that transliterated the divine name as PIPI. The Lord did not choose to follow that option, instead inspiring the apostles and other NT writers to translate the name as "kurios".

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Myson (Sep 7, 2018)

Timotheos said:


> What is the ALV? I've never heard of it.


It's an updated version


C. M. Sheffield said:


> That's funny, I always thought they wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.


I wasnt aware they were mutually exclusive.


----------



## Myson (Sep 7, 2018)

Timotheos said:


> What is the ALV? I've never heard of it.


I'm sorry that was a typo. It's an updated version of the ASV that as far as I can tell is only found in Bibliotheca.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 7, 2018)

Myson said:


> I wasnt aware they were mutually exclusive.



You said you felt that the NT rendering was based on superstition and inability to accurately translate, and yet that is not mutually exclusive from inspiration? I would like to think that as the third person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit would not be given to bouts of superstition and inaccuracy.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 7, 2018)

Myson said:


> I wasnt aware they were mutually exclusive.



I should think they are. We confess the Scriptures to be "immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages" (WCF 1.8). I cannot conceive that God would permit his own divine Name to be supplanted, as you say, because of the superstition of the Apostles. You make yourself more zealous for God's name than he himself is.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Myson (Sep 7, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> You said you felt that the NT rendering was based on superstition and inability to accurately translate, and yet that is not mutually exclusive from inspiration? I would like to think that as the third person of the trinity, the Holy Spirit would not be given to bouts of superstition and inaccuracy.


No, but their audiences would have been. So, rather than make a mountain out of molehills, they did not use the divine name and instead used the title, Lord. This is still fitting with inspiration since Lord is a good term and one to be used appropriately for God, but it isn't translated in replace of the name as it often is in the OT, which I think is a bad decision. God gave us his name, so why would we ignore it? Anyways, not the main point of the post. I was just wondering if anyone had read the edition.


----------



## Myson (Sep 7, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I should think they are. We confess the Scriptures to be "immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages" (WCF 1.8). I cannot conceive that God would permit his own divine Name to be supplanted, as you say, because of the superstition of the Apostles. You make yourself more zealous for God's name than he himself is.


Thanks, but I just disagree.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 7, 2018)

Myson said:


> No, but their audiences would have been. So, rather than make a mountain out of molehills, they did not use the divine name and instead used the title, Lord. This is still fitting with inspiration since Lord is a good term and one to be used appropriately for God, but it isn't translated in replace of the name as it often is in the OT, which I think is a bad decision. God gave us his name, so why would we ignore it? Anyways, not the main point of the post. I was just wondering if anyone had read the edition.



Ok, that makes more sense. I would still disagree, however, because the NT authors did not shy away from saying potentially offensive things. At any rate, I have heard good things about the Bibliotheca set, as well as the ESV readers edition. I really like the concept of an uncluttered reader’s edition.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 7, 2018)

I love the ASV so much. I just wish they would’ve gotten 2 Tim. 3:16 right...

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 7, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I love the ASV so much. I just wish they would’ve gotten 2 Tim. 3:16 right.



Wow, I have never noticed that. Yikes!

"Every scripture inspired of God _is_ also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness."​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 7, 2018)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Wow, I have never noticed that. Yikes!
> 
> "Every scripture inspired of God _is_ also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness."​



Yeah. I mean, they put the correct rendering into the footnotes, and I _think_ I can interpret the verse as it is to mean what it actually means (maybe). That is, since I believe the whole Bible is God-breathed Scripture as a foundational presupposition, the ASV’s rendering isn’t a problem for me _personally_. It’s just sad that, as far as I have perused the ASV, 2 Tim. 3:16 seems to be its only flaw. Greg Bahnsen and Al Martin still use(d) it, though, so maybe I can make myself feel better given that fact.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Myson (Sep 7, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Yeah. I mean, they put the correct rendering into the footnotes, and I _think_ I can interpret the verse as it is to mean what it actually means (maybe). That is, since I believe the whole Bible is God-breathed Scripture as a foundational presupposition, the ASV’s rendering isn’t a problem for me _personally_. It’s just sad that, as far as I have perused the ASV, 2 Tim. 3:16 seems to be its only flaw. Greg Bahnsen and Al Martin still use(d) it, though, so maybe I can make myself feel better given that fact.


Not gonna lie that's pretty brutal, BUT maybe the ALV improved on it.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 7, 2018)

Myson said:


> ...maybe the ALV improved on it.



Perhaps. There’s really no way to check, though, as there seems to be no online version of the text, but only the printed (and expensive) edition.


----------



## Myson (Sep 7, 2018)

You're making a case for me to buy it

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 7, 2018)

Myson said:


> You're making a case for me to buy it



I’m sure it’s a great resource, for sure! I could never buy a verse-less and chapter-less Bible, though, even though it definitely is a more authentic reading experience. The reference apparatus is just too indispensable to me.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 7, 2018)

I have this one, and if you can find it, you will have quite a bible to work with for many years:
https://www.amazon.com/Logos-International-Study-Bible-Concordance/dp/B000EGI1RY

It is quite the shock to they eyes with so many superscripted cross references, footnotes, commentaries all over each page.

One negative is the 120-page Holy Spirit addition which is basically a Pentecostal view.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 7, 2018)

Someone might want to correct the title of this post. It says ASV, whereas the text of the post is about the ALV (a revision of the ASV). It seems the discussion is about a little of both.


----------



## jw (Sep 7, 2018)

Myson said:


> Has anyone read or had any experience with the ALV?


I think it is likely.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 7, 2018)

I have read the ASV numerous times and benefited from it. My copy is a Star Publishing facsimile of the 1901 edition and it is nearly worn out from use.

I think it is among the best translations based on the CT. As time has gone on, I'm more drawn to majority text translations and I'm back to the AV/KJV translation as my primary English translation.

2 Tim 3:16 is one place I've found a bit disappointing. Another jumped out at me the first time I read it: the footnote at John 9:38, which says “The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator.” I'll admit I got chills of dread when I first read that.

Some of the translators were unitarian, and I think it crept into the notes. But they were professional enough to render the Greek of the text, as near as I can tell, faithfully.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 7, 2018)

Jake said:


> Someone might want to correct the title of this post. It says ASV, whereas the text of the post is about the ALV (a revision of the ASV). It seems the discussion is about a little of both.


Per this, title was changed to ASV. I will make it ASV/ALV to cover the confusion.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 7, 2018)

VictorBravo said:


> Another jumped out at me the first time I read it: the footnote at John 9:38, which says “The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator.” I'll admit I got chills of dread when I first read that.



Good grief. That’s pure blasphemy.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 8, 2018)

I am not acquainted with the ASV but the comments are piquing my interest. I was going to save up for the leather and walnut edition of the ESV Reader's Bible but if the translation is as great as people are making it out to be, I may grab this one instead. I contacted Bibliotheca and asked them the rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16 and John 9:38.

http://www.bibliotheca.co/#about

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 8, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I’m sure it’s a great resource, for sure! I could never buy a verse-less and chapter-less Bible, though, even though it definitely is a more authentic reading experience. The reference apparatus is just too indispensable to me.


I too had my reserves but I absolutely love the Reader's format now that I own it in the CSB and ESV. It is perfect for devotional reading. It is much easier to submerse my self in God's Word and read bigger chunks at a time. When it is time for serious study, I bust out one of the many Bibles I have with verses and chapters.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Myson (Sep 8, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I have this one, and if you can find it, you will have quite a bible to work with for many years:
> https://www.amazon.com/Logos-International-Study-Bible-Concordance/dp/B000EGI1RY
> 
> It is quite the shock to they eyes with so many superscripted cross references, footnotes, commentaries all over each page.
> ...


That looks great! Thanks for pointing this out to me!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Myson (Sep 8, 2018)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I am not acquainted with the ASV but the comments are piquing my interest. I was going to save up for the leather and walnut edition of the ESV Reader's Bible but if the translation is as great as people are making it out to be, I may grab this one instead. I contacted Bibliotheca and asked them the rendering of 2 Timothy 3:16 and John 9:38.
> 
> http://www.bibliotheca.co/#about


You'd be doing us all a service if you posted what they reply! Thanks so much!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 8, 2018)

I will most certainly share their response. I pray they made some changes to the verses in question as I now want this set. It is an absolutely stunning presentation of God's Word.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 9, 2018)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I contacted Bibliotheca and asked them the rendering of...John 9:38.



To be clear, it is not the _rendering_ of John 9:38 that is problematic, just the footnote, which the Bibliotheca edition doesn’t include, anyway.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 9, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> To be clear, it is not the _rendering_ of John 9:38 that is problematic, just the footnote, which the Bibliotheca edition doesn’t include, anyway.


Thanks for that. Yes, you are correct. I don't know why my brain glossed over that in the email. Have you viewed the passage in the ALV? I will bring the footnotes up.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Sep 9, 2018)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Thanks for that. Yes, you are correct. I don't know why my brain glossed over that in the email. Have you viewed the passage in the ALV? I will bring the footnotes up.



I mean, don’t get me wrong, the footnote is still extremely problematic, so I’m glad a reader’s edition would exclude it!


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Sep 10, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Yeah. I mean, they put the correct rendering into the footnotes, and I _think_ I can interpret the verse as it is to mean what it actually means (maybe). That is, since I believe the whole Bible is God-breathed Scripture as a foundational presupposition, the ASV’s rendering isn’t a problem for me _personally_. It’s just sad that, as far as I have perused the ASV, 2 Tim. 3:16 seems to be its only flaw. Greg Bahnsen and Al Martin still use(d) it, though, so maybe I can make myself feel better given that fact.



I wouldn't say the only flaw. Check 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7 and Romans 14:10 for instance. I'm sure there are several more if the major verses proving the Deity of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture are wrong. (These 3 are my immediate go to verses to check if a translation is worth even considering as potentially reliable, so first ones to check - ASV fails all 3).


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 10, 2018)

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> I wouldn't say the only flaw. Check 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7 and Romans 14:10 for instance. I'm sure there are several more if the major verses proving the Deity of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture are wrong. (These 3 are my immediate go to verses to check if a translation is worth even considering as potentially reliable, so first ones to check - ASV fails all 3).



Sure, but the same criticism applies to all of the CT translations. Looks like the ESV and others don't meet the test, either.

So ASV isn't unique here.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 10, 2018)

From Adam Lewis Greene:

"Hello, Robert:
I’m happy to provide the ALV renderings of those two verses, and I’ll also send any others you may be curious about.

In both of these cases, we preserved exactly the sense of the ASV.

*On 2 Timothy 3:16–17*
It may be interesting to note that this verse, in particular, I decided to run by David deSilva, Trustees’ Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Greek at Ashland Theological Seminary, who helped a lot with reading/reviewing the ALV Apocrypha and New Testament. I asked whether the ASV’s rendering (which was immediately controversial) stood up to the scrutiny of what we currently know about Koine Greek. He told me that the Greek really could go either way and suggested that, since the ASV presents a perfectly valid translation of the Greek, we might as well preserve the more unique interpretation of the ASV—especially considering that most English translations in circulation today go another direction. It is our view that reasonable variety among translations is healthy for difficult-to-translate passages, allowing for better comparison and depth for English-only readers.
ALV:
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely for every good work.
ASV:
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.
*On John 9:38*
ALV:
And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshipped him.
The ASV is the same, but with the following footnote: “The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator (see 4:20).” I see that Darby and Young have “did him homage” and “bowed before him,” respectively, which to me are both good, perhaps more renderings.
You may of course share all of this on the thread, and please let everyone know that we welcome questions! (Although, admittedly, sometimes it takes me a while to get around to replying.)
Cordially,

Adam"


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Sep 10, 2018)

VictorBravo said:


> Sure, but the same criticism applies to all of the CT translations. Looks like the ESV and others don't meet the test, either.
> 
> So ASV isn't unique here.



I should say no more lest I fall foul of the prohibition on criticising the CT pinned at the top of this forum.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Myson (Sep 11, 2018)

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> I should say no more lest I fall foul of the prohibition on criticising the CT pinned at the top of this forum.


I may be a little dumb because I'm not sure I know what CT means?


----------



## Taylor (Sep 11, 2018)

Myson said:


> I'm not sure I know what CT means?



It means “Critical Text.” It’s the New Testament text upon which all translations except the Geneva, KJV, NKJV, MEV, and WEB (I think that’s it) are based.


----------

