Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 2021

Status
Not open for further replies.

MWJ '90

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi all!

It's been quite some time since I've been on here. Hope everyone is doing well. As some of you may know, I'm a bit of a geek when it comes to Bible Translations and other Text related issues. Upon looking on the web a couple weeks ago, I came across a very shocking discovery. There is new 2021 revision of the old American Standard Version (ASV) from 1901! This was just released this month. This completely took me by surprise as I've figured the ASV was looooong gone and forgotten. I've always had a favorable opinion of the ASV as it was truly a highly literal English translation and I found it to be quite helpful in many regards despite the use of "Jehovah" in many places in the Old Testament or the Elizabethan English carried over from the KJV.

This new revision seems to preserve a lot of what made the original ASV so great while updating the language and utilizing the latest OT and NT manuscripts. This new revision is officially abbreviated as the UASV

I would love to hear your thoughts regarding this new revision. I have provided a link for your view pleasure in case you haven't seen it. You can view it here.

I look forward to some very insightful dialogue!

Grace and Peace.
 
You know what's funny, I saw an earlier post on here regarding the Refreshed ASV just minutes after I posted this one :banghead: I was like "are you kidding me??" Lol this is my first time hearing about it. I will check it out. Thanks.
 
I frankly find these kinds of projects, while interesting, to be a largely wasted effort. Looking at the footnotes, it looks like a great deal of labor was put into this. But to what benefit? It will almost certainly never be widely distributed. I doubt more than a few thousand people worldwide will ever even know about it. I would even wager that in the end more people will use the original ASV than the UASV. Plus, as I just said in another thread, we already have a virtually endless supply of good English translations, to the point where yet another one, and especially another one done by a single individual, is, in my estimation, entirely pointless. Enough already.
 
Taylor, I actually agree with you on that. I do honestly wish there were only 3 good formal equivalence translations and 2 solid translations on the more dynamic equivalence spectrum, in English. My Dream Scenario:

Formal Equivalence Translations:

1. King James Version---Okay do I really need to say anything regarding this precious timeless gift to the English speaking world? No I don't....moving on.

2. New King James Version--- I would personally like to see a MINOR and I mean MINOR revision to help improve some of its renderings of certain words to better reflect the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek a bit more closely (examples: "power" to "authority" in certain contexts in the Gospels, etc.) This would be a great translation to have due to the NT Text having a different textual base than the CT text of most modern translations. To me the NKJV is a grossly underrated yet exceedingly useful translation for close detailed study. Its documentation of textual variants is almost unmatched by any translation readily available with perhaps the exception of the Christian Standard Bible (more on this gem later). One more thing that I really like about the NKJV (as well as the NASB) is how it capitalizes pronouns that is referring to deity. I understand that there are potential pitfalls to this approach in certain contexts, but I personally like that feature and think it is really useful in most places. But enough about this one, as you can see I have a soft spot for the NKJV but I digress.

3. English Standard Version /New American Standard Bible '95---to be honest both of these are excellent Formal Equivalent translations based on the best available manuscripts we have today. I honestly think if you were to take the best qualities of both of these translations and combine them into one translation (say the New English Standard Bible (NESB)?) this would arguably be the best of the Formal Equivalent translations available. I could definitely see many in the Reformed world happily endorsing the "NESB" as their translation of choice. Man, just think of the possibilities!

Middle of the Road/ Dynamic Equivalence Translations:

1. Christian Standard Bible--- this is an almost perfect translation for those looking for something less "wooden" than the KJV, NKJV, or NASB and more literal than the NIV or NLT. The CSB does a seriously great job with its manuscript documentation especially in the OT. The CSB is just an overall solid translation. The only thing I would like to see improved if possible is a more "poetic" reading in the Poetry and Wisdom books. However, I completely understand the current style the translators of the CSB decided to go with as it fits the purpose of the translation philosophy. Again, the CSB is an overall great translation that is a perfect compliment to the more "literal" translations mentioned above.

2. New International Version---I honestly think the CSB mentioned above is what the NIV 2011 should have been more or less. Nevertheless the NIV remains a very solid translation despite the criticism (some of it justified, some just straight up ridiculous) it has received over the past almost half century. I will go so far to say that there are many places in which the NIV (yes even the NIV 2011) provides a much better and more accurate rendering than many of the translations above. Therefore I believe the NIV is worth keeping around. I also wouldn't mind seeing some of the renderings from the New Living Translation make its way into the NIV. This would make it an even more approachable translation for kids and/or English language learners.

So there you have it folks, these are the 5 English Translations that I would like to see stick around if every other English translations were to somehow disappear out of existence. A guy can only dream huh (Sigh) lol.
 
Last edited:
Why do you disapprove of the word "Jehovah?" Isn't it the English rendering of a Hebrew word, and isn't it less awkward that all-caps LORD to distinguish it form mostly-lowercase Lord used in the KJV? I think the KJV would have been much better for using Jehovah instead of LORD (words in all caps aren't exactly good grammar).
 
in General the main Bibles that are in use are :
Statenvertaling (1637), the Dutch equivalent of the KJV.
NBG vertaling (1951), a Dutch translation based on the CT.
Willibrordbijbel (1978 and 2012). a catholic bible translation based on the CT.
NBV (2004) and the updated version NBV21 (2021), replacment of the NBG bible and also based on the CT.
Herziene Statenvertaling, (2011) a revision of the statenvertaling.

Reformed Christians mostley use the Statenvertaling or the Herziene Statenvertaling. Many other protestants uses the NBV.

Besides these main translations there are two other:

Naardense Bijbel (2004) averry literal translation of the greek an hebrew.
Bijbel in gewone taal (2014), a translation for people with minimal laungauge skills, the only used 4000 basic dutch to translate the whole bible.

The chruches where i am invited to preach all use the Herziene statenveratling.
 
Refreshed RASV isn‘t bad. It’s one of the better individual revision projects.

Updated UASV has a distinct unitarian bias from what I’ve read. I don’t care for it at all.
  • Titus 2:13 note reads like a JW reason for ignoring the Greek and separating God and Savior.
  • John 8:58 says “I am” in one spot, but then gives a rambling note basically saying it should’t. He has an article saying it should be “I have been.“
  • Romans 9:5 removes the reference to the deity of Christ.
  • He also uses “CE” which is a pet peeve.
 
Taylor, I actually agree with you on that. I do honestly wish there were only 3 good formal equivalence translations and 2 solid translations on the more dynamic equivalence spectrum, in English. My Dream Scenario:

Formal Equivalence Translations:

1. King James Version---Okay do I really need to say anything regarding this precious timeless gift to the English speaking world? No I don't....moving on.

2. New King James Version--- I would personally like to see a MINOR and I mean MINOR revision to help improve some of its renderings of certain words to better reflect the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek a bit more closely (examples: "power" to "authority" in certain contexts in the Gospels, etc.) This would be a great translation to have due to the NT Text having a different textual base than the CT text of most modern translations. To me the NKJV is a grossly underrated yet exceedingly useful translation for close detailed study. Its documentation of textual variants is almost unmatched by any translation readily available with perhaps the exception of the Christian Standard Bible (more on this gem later). One more thing that I really like about the NKJV (as well as the NASB) is how it capitalizes pronouns that is referring to deity. I understand that there are potential pitfalls to this approach in certain contexts but personally like that feature and think it is really useful in most places. But enough about this one, as you can see I have a soft spot for the NKJV but I digress.

3. English Standard Version /New American Standard Bible---to be honest both of these are excellent Formal Equivalent translations based on the best available manuscripts we have today. I honestly think if you were to take the best qualities of both of these translations and combine them into one translation (say the New English Standard Bible (NESB)?) this would arguably be the best of the Formal Equivalent translations available. I could definitely see many in the Reformed world happily endorsing the "NESB" as their translation of choice. Man think of the possibilities!

Middle of the Road/ Dynamic Equivalence Translations:

1. Christian Standard Bible--- this is an almost perfect translation for those looking for something less "wooden" than the KJV, NKJV, or NASB and more literal than the NIV or NLT. The CSB does a seriously great job with its manuscript documentation especially in the OT. The CSB is just an overall solid translation. The only thing I would like to see improved if possible is a more "poetic" reading in the Poetry and Wisdom books. However, I completely understand the current style the translators of the CSB decided to go with as it fits the purpose of the translation philosophy. Again, the CSB is an overall great translation that is a perfect compliment to the more "literal" translations mentioned above.

2. New International Version---I honestly think the CSB mentioned above is what the NIV 2011 should have been more or less. Nevertheless the NIV remains a very solid translation despite the criticism (some of it justified, some just straight up ridiculous) it has received over the past almost half century. I will go so far to say that there are many places in which the NIV (yes even the NIV 2011) provides a much better and more accurate rendering than many of the translations above. Therefore I believe the NIV is worth keeping around. I also wouldn't mind seeing some of the renderings from the New Living Translation make its way into the NIV. This would make it an even more approachable translation for kids and/or English language learners.

So there you have it folks, these are the 5 English Translations that I would like to see stick around if every other English translations were to somehow disappear out of existence. A guy can only dream huh (Sigh) lol.
I like this selection
 
Refreshed RASV isn‘t bad. It’s one of the better individual revision projects.

Updated UASV has a distinct unitarian bias from what I’ve read. I don’t care for it at all.
  • Titus 2:13 note reads like a JW reason for ignoring the Greek and separating God and Savior.
  • John 8:58 says “I am” in one spot, but then gives a rambling note basically saying it should’t. He has an article saying it should be “I have been.“
  • Romans 9:5 removes the reference to the deity of Christ.
  • He also uses “CE” which is a pet peeve.
Thank you so much for your insight. Truly appreciated.
 
English Standard Version /New American Standard Bible '95---to be honest both of these are excellent Formal Equivalent translations based on the best available manuscripts we have today. I honestly think if you were to take the best qualities of both of these translations and combine them into one translation (say the New English Standard Bible (NESB)?) this would arguably be the best of the Formal Equivalent translations available. I could definitely see many in the Reformed world happily endorsing the "NESB" as their translation of choice. Man, just think of the possibilities!

Let’s put Yahweh in this one and call it the NELB (New English Legacy Bible).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top