ASV 1901 Worth A Stand Alone Copy ?

[JimmyH]

I've read so many times that the ASV 1901 was/is the "most accurate" translation. I've got high quality bindings of the AV, NKJV, ESV and the NASB, among others. I don't have a copy of the ASV 1901. There is a seller on the bay with that calfskin edition that omitted Exodus 16:22-36, and provides those verses on a separate card.

Good price on it too but is the translation really "that good" to justify spending more $ on another Bible ? I read the Bible daily, usually a New Cambridge Paragraph KJV, then I re-read much of the same material in other translations just to better understand the content. Any on topic replies will be greatly appreciated.

 

[BibleCyst]

If it's the only one missing from your collection, why not? That translation tends to go in and out of print, so you might as well grab it while you can.

As far as it being the most accurate translation ever, I wouldn't go that far. (Don't take my word for it, though. I don't know Hebrew or Greek.) The original NASB (the one that includes the thees and thous) is probably more accurate. It's also not very readable.

 

[py3ak]

If I could have only two English Bibles I would choose the KJV and the 1901 ASV. Those two translations are rereadable, whereas though I have been through the Geneva, NJKV, ESV, and NASB, I am very unlikely to ever read through them again, though I will consult them on an ad hoc basis for reference.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The definition of accuracy depends on one's view of the original texts. Regardless, it is no doubt superior to many modern translations.

 

[reformedminister]

Spend your money on another KJV, perhaps the Westminster Reference Bible by the Trinitarian Bible Society?

 

[Pilgrim]

You might want to look at it online or on Olive Tree or something similar to determine if it's something you're going to really use. But it does seem to me that there is some inconsistency with the online ASV texts with regard to errors and other things. I got an old Nelson copy from eBay a few years ago. But I'll likely have to have it re-bound to get any use for it. It's boxed up at the moment.

It is more literal than the NASB, either the 77 or the 95. And interestingly, it was originally in paragraph format whereas today we tend to associate that with less literal translations. But I think the High Village edition noted in the OP is in verse by verse (i.e. verse per line) format.

 

[Jake]

I would think accuracy would have to do with one's thoughts of the Westcott and Hort text.

 

[VictorBravo]

I have a hard cover ASV reprint I got new around 7 years ago for approximately $25. It's my favorite CT translation, though I prefer the KJV.

My only complaint is that the reprints sometimes have less than crisp text. I've only seen one original print version, and it looked crisper than mine.

 

[JimmyH]

I would think accuracy would have to do with one's thoughts of the Westcott and Hort text.

Thanks for the thought Jake. I just finished reading "The King James Bible, A Short History From Tyndale To Today" by David Norton. If the AV is your favorite I highly recommend the book. Especially if accuracy of translation and textual sources are of special interest. The author goes into that quite thoroughly.

Thanks to all who posted. I am going to look for a good condition copy of the Nelson printing of 1929. The paragraph format would be more pleasing to me. I was unaware that the Nelson editions were printed in that format. Thanks to Pilgrim for pointing that out.

At one time I preferred verse by verse because that is what I grew up with. At 64 years old we wouldn't think an old dog could learn new tricks but ..... I picked up a copy of the fore mentioned David Norton's (editor) New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (KJV) and I've fallen in love with the format for daily reading at home.

I still prefer verse by verse at Sunday services or Wednesday night Bible study, for speedy access of specific verses , but find the paragraph format much more readable at home. Flows so nicely. Thanks to all who posted their thoughts !

 

[Jake]

I would think accuracy would have to do with one's thoughts of the Westcott and Hort text.

Thanks for the thought Jake. I just finished reading "The King James Bible, A Short History From Tyndale To Today" by David Norton. If the AV is your favorite I highly recommend the book. Especially if accuracy of translation and textual sources are of special interest. The author goes into that quite thoroughly.

I am actually right now a convinced of the Critical Text, although that doesn't mean that I shun the NKJV and KJV.. I actually have been using them with increased frequency as of late. I just know that the Greek manuscript that the ASV is based off, WH, of has fallen into disrepute. The ESV uses the NA27 for example.

I actually don't know how much Wescott and Hort differs from NA27. I just have tended to hear worse things about the former.

 

[One Little Nail]

The problem with this translation of that Bible is that it uses the Westcott/Hort Text & Textual
Apparatus,essentially its the American Version of the Revised Version ,which was so effectively
debunked by John Burgon in his Revision Revised,as to i. the underlying greek text ii the english
version iii. Westcott & Hort's new Textual Theory.

There would be no harm if you got it to add to your collection &/or for research purposes.

 

[reformedminister]

I would think accuracy would have to do with one's thoughts of the Westcott and Hort text.

Thanks for the thought Jake. I just finished reading "The King James Bible, A Short History From Tyndale To Today" by David Norton. If the AV is your favorite I highly recommend the book. Especially if accuracy of translation and textual sources are of special interest. The author goes into that quite thoroughly.

I am actually right now a convinced of the Critical Text, although that doesn't mean that I shun the NKJV and KJV.. I actually have been using them with increased frequency as of late. I just know that the Greek manuscript that the ASV is based off, WH, of has fallen into disrepute. The ESV uses the NA27 for example.

I actually don't know how much Wescott and Hort differs from NA27. I just have tended to hear worse things about the former.

If that were true, that would mean that for most of the life of the church, they had a flawed text, including the Reformers and those who wrote the Reformed Confessions. Most people do not think about it that way. And how much has the modern Critical Text changed since Westcott and Hort? Wouldn't you prefer a Bible that is a based on a text that does not change, and has been preserved throughout the centuries?

 

[JimmyH]

I would think accuracy would have to do with one's thoughts of the Westcott and Hort text.

Thanks for the thought Jake. I just finished reading "The King James Bible, A Short History From Tyndale To Today" by David Norton. If the AV is your favorite I highly recommend the book. Especially if accuracy of translation and textual sources are of special interest. The author goes into that quite thoroughly.

I am actually right now a convinced of the Critical Text, although that doesn't mean that I shun the NKJV and KJV.. I actually have been using them with increased frequency as of late. I just know that the Greek manuscript that the ASV is based off, WH, of has fallen into disrepute. The ESV uses the NA27 for example.

I actually don't know how much Wescott and Hort differs from NA27. I just have tended to hear worse things about the former.

If that were true, that would mean that for most of the life of the church, they had a flawed text, including the Reformers and those who wrote the Reformed Confessions. Most people do not think about it that way. And how much has the modern Critical Text changed since Westcott and Hort? Wouldn't you prefer a Bible that is a based on a text that does not change, and has been preserved throughout the centuries?

With all due respect Reverend Eppard, I mentioned in my OP that I would appreciate replies that were 'on topic' in an attempt to avoid a thread that would get into the seemingly inevitable debate between the AV and every subsequent text.

One of the reasons I recommended David Norton's history of the KJV is because it demonstrates that the 1611 translated text has been changed/edited many times since 1611, the TR as Erasmus pointed out,has problems of its own. So. though I probably read the KJV more often than any other translation, I don't 'throw the baby out with the bath water as it were, and reject CT based translations.

 

[reformedminister]

I would think accuracy would have to do with one's thoughts of the Westcott and Hort text.

Thanks for the thought Jake. I just finished reading "The King James Bible, A Short History From Tyndale To Today" by David Norton. If the AV is your favorite I highly recommend the book. Especially if accuracy of translation and textual sources are of special interest. The author goes into that quite thoroughly.

I am actually right now a convinced of the Critical Text, although that doesn't mean that I shun the NKJV and KJV.. I actually have been using them with increased frequency as of late. I just know that the Greek manuscript that the ASV is based off, WH, of has fallen into disrepute. The ESV uses the NA27 for example.

I actually don't know how much Wescott and Hort differs from NA27. I just have tended to hear worse things about the former.

If that were true, that would mean that for most of the life of the church, they had a flawed text, including the Reformers and those who wrote the Reformed Confessions. Most people do not think about it that way. And how much has the modern Critical Text changed since Westcott and Hort? Wouldn't you prefer a Bible that is a based on a text that does not change, and has been preserved throughout the centuries?

With all due respect Reverend Eppard, I mentioned in my OP that I would appreciate replies that were 'on topic' in an attempt to avoid a thread that would get into the seemingly inevitable debate between the AV and every subsequent text.

One of the reasons I recommended David Norton's history of the KJV is because it demonstrates that the 1611 translated text has been changed/edited many times since 1611, the TR as Erasmus pointed out,has problems of its own. So. though I probably read the KJV more often than any other translation, I don't 'throw the baby out with the bath water as it were, and reject CT based translations.

I apologize for getting off topic. I think that Bibles that are based on the Critical Text can be useful study aides as long as one has a knowledge that it is based on a different text than the one the Reformers used. I have many translations that I refer to on occasion. However, THIS IS A TRANSLATION ISSUE. Your original question and reason for this post was the idea that the ASV was/is one of the most accurate translations. That is simply not the case. In my opinion, if you like the Critical text then the NASB or ESV is your better choice. I like the ESV myself, which I believe to be the finest translation based on the Critical Text. However, I prefer the texts underlying the KJV/NKJV.

 

[JimmyH]

I apologize for getting off topic. I think that Bibles that are based on the Critical Text can be useful study aides as long as one has a knowledge that it is based on a different text than the one the Reformers used. I have many translations that I refer to on occasion. However, THIS IS A TRANSLATION ISSUE. Your original question and reason for this post was the idea that the ASV was/is one of the most accurate translations. That is simply not the case. In my opinion, if you like the Critical text then the NASB or ESV is your better choice. I like the ESV myself, which I believe to be the finest translation based on the Critical Text. However, I prefer the texts underlying the KJV/NKJV.

No apology necessary and thank you very much for the input. To be honest I am not schooled enough to know for sure which text to completely rely on. That being the case I hold the AV in the highest regard of all the translated texts, if for no other reason than 400 years of soul winning. I rely on the NKJV, NASB and ESV to clarify points I fear I may not be fully understanding in the phraseology of the AV.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I would just look for an old copy at a Library sale, or garage sale. Not that God's Word is only worth a dime or a dollar, but you can get a copy of an ASV almost for free, and not pay shipping besides.

Just sayin'. And that's my .

 

[Gloria Dei]

If intersted I have an old Nelson ASV hardback that I believe is in paragraph format (not quite sure for now). If interested, shoot me a message.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If you want to go all out, find a used copy of the Logos International Study Bible in good shape: American Standard Bible the Complete Study Bible in One Volume

 

[JimmyH]

If intersted I have an old Nelson ASV hardback that I believe is in paragraph format (not quite sure for now). If interested, shoot me a message.

Thanks very much for the kind offer, but I did not let the grass grow under my feet, and have one on the way.

If you want to go all out, find a used copy of the Logos International Study Bible in good shape: American Standard Bible the Complete Study Bible in One Volume

Thanks for the information. I had not heard of that edition before. Coincidently I found a Baker reprint of Harold E.Monser's Cross Reference Bible and ordered that for $50.00 + shipping. Doing a google search of the Logos Study Bible reveals it is largely based on Monser's volume and both have the 1901 ASV text. So I should have a veritable feast of information coming to me.

Thanks again to all who replied.