I am in receipt of your lengthy letter about "AV7," and only now have the opportunity to respond in the detail needed. I am not usually in the habit of entertaining unsigned correspondence because I like to know that I am communicating with a real person and not a phantom or a front for a "foundation" whose components at this point remain unknown to me. I will take the trouble to respond to yours because I feel a reply to your many claims against what I wrote is only appropriate. I should point out first that my critique of AV7 was never intended to be a formal statement, but was simply a collection of observations which I posted to my personal blog.
|Published (Last):||24 April 2007|
|PDF File Size:||20.45 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.79 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
I am in receipt of your lengthy letter about "AV7," and only now have the opportunity to respond in the detail needed. I am not usually in the habit of entertaining unsigned correspondence because I like to know that I am communicating with a real person and not a phantom or a front for a "foundation" whose components at this point remain unknown to me. I will take the trouble to respond to yours because I feel a reply to your many claims against what I wrote is only appropriate.
I should point out first that my critique of AV7 was never intended to be a formal statement, but was simply a collection of observations which I posted to my personal blog. A few weeks after doing so, I saw that the online encyclopedia Wikipedia had a link in another article intended to point to a Wikipedia entry for AV7, but as often happens no article had yet been started.
I therefore started one with what I continue to feel despite some defensiveness on your part, noted below was an objective description of the volume. I linked to your site and, because of the paucity of information online about AV7, also to my blog entry simply as something by a person who had seen AV7 and could describe it. If I had known that it would cause anyone such significant offense, I probably would not have linked to my blog entry though I would still have written it because I continue to feel it is fair criticism, as explained below.
I am not even sure whom I have offended, to be quite honest, because of the way you sent your e-mail. So I think a fair question at this juncture would be, "Who are you? Hubeart Jr. Hubeart Jr" as in your header , because I sign what I write and thus take responsibility for it. Indeed, while writing this response, I found that you had decided to use my name publicly or more properly your incorrect "T.
Note the inaccuracies: my name is T. Hubeart"; and the review was not entitled "Right as Rain," which is the name of the blog itself.
You are able to do that, I must respectfully point out, because there is an identifiable person me standing behind the writing you are attacking. Additionally, at the end of your unsigned letter, you asked, "Finally, may I ask: how we can get the responses that we have provided to your criticisms posted so that they will be equally as accessible as your critical review?
After writing to me, you apparently decided to make them public yourself. Some people who found themselves being named in articles posted online by unknown and unnamed individuals--as I have by you--might find the experience somewhat creepy and threatening. Nor as of this writing have you gotten my name or review title correct on your site. But I can live with this--particularly because I think these easily-proven inaccuracies on your part tend to suggest to the reader your general level of reliability when discussing matters that are not so easily verified.
They will then be in a position to evaluate who has made the better arguments. Why you would take umbrage at my failing to vouch for your statements is utterly beyond me. TH's Response: Nor, in fact, did I intend to imply that this was one of your claims.
TLNF: While the AV7 website is a work-in-progress and additional elements certainly will be added over time, the AV7 website does offer information and many features that are not found as far as we know on any other Bible version website. It would be helpful if you would describe more specifically what other things "one might reasonably expect. TH's Response: The combative tone is again noted. As far as "other features" that are "better than what is available on the AV7 website," I hardly know where to begin, or how to give an adequate answer without unfavorably comparing your website with others and thus adding to the offense you have obviously already taken.
Let us look very briefly at two websites for popular contemporary Bible translations that offer a good many things that yours lacks. The English Standard Version's website at esv.
There is a feature on the home page that allows the user to "Read, search, and compare the full text of the ESV Bible online. There are endorsements , descriptions of available editions , and even a blog --none of which I noticed on your site.
I fear that to compare such sites with yours can only be to your disadvantage, and indeed you may object that some of these comparisons are unfair given that you probably do not have anything like the operating budget that drives the organizations that own these sites. I do think, though, that there is room for improvement in what you have currently that does not need to entail extensive expense:.
TLNF: It would be helpful if you would be more specific in explaining what you think is "weird" and "ridiculous" about the AV7 compilation process. We do not claim, as you asserted, that this computerized compilation is entirely "untouched by human hands. TH's Response: It "would be helpful" if you in your turn would make an effort to understand my comments rather than projecting things into them in order to take offense.
Frankly, this impression of an automated retranslation of the KJV strikes me as rather weird. I suppose the intention is good--to present the "AV7" as something uncorrupted by human translators who might insert their own second-guessing into the updating as clearly happened in the case of the NKJV , which turned out to be neither a true KJV update nor a new translation but sort of straddles the line between.
But the very idea of a computerized translation of Scripture 'untouched by human hands'-- if that is what the AV7's publishers are claiming this to be --is ridiculous. Anyone who has ever worked with translation software knows that computers alone cannot pick up all the nuances and senses involved in converting one language to another.
And obviously the greatest translations of all, including the KJV, have all been performed by humans. It will be clear to the unbiased reader that I was unsure of what you meant--hence my reference to the "impression" I came away with after reading your description and my qualification of the "untouched by human hands" phrase with the word "if" "if that is what the AV7's publishers are claiming this to be".
I did not "assert" that AV7 was claimed to be "untouched by human hands"; I simply responded to your frankly inadequate description of how it is produced of which more below.
My criticism was clearly a tentative response to the presentation you made, along the lines of "I can't be understanding this correctly--is this really what AV7's publishers meant to imply???
Would that others might do likewise. A quote from p. AV7 compilation is much more complex than indicated in this overview, but this provides a brief description of the process. We have "seven stages of computer processing," which are evidently the actors of all the work: "Stage 1 translates Stage 2 converts Stage 4 corrects Earlier in this same article p. Where in any of this do we find any human intervention? Logically, one would think there would need to be some --hence the point in my blog entry stating that "computers alone cannot pick up all the nuances and senses involved in converting one language to another.
Every other translation known to me has some identifiable human being or human beings behind it. Norton is, can cross-check his work against the text of the original edition of the KJV, and in fact took the liberty last year of e-mailing him about his companion book A Textual History of the King James Bible. As it happens, his work proves to be very sound. I would hope that it would encourage you to reconsider the way you have presented your publication heretofore.
TLNF: While it is true that the AV7 text is different than the KJV text, these alterations have been done mainly to update archaic language and syntax, and also make revisions in those cases and places where the KJV has well recognized and acknowledged errors. A couple of examples i. In order to save space here, please refer to the documented information on the following pages of my website:. I mean none of this to claim that translators today should feel obliged to maintain these renderings in their translations.
A case could certainly be made for legitimate updating of language to include these two examples especially "Easter"; "God forbid" is, I think, much more of a judgment call, and I believe my page on Rom. But although it is the easy way out, accusing the KJV of error in order to have a justification for your changes is simply wrong.
TLNF: The imposition of masculine pronouns and various other masculine gender idioms such as "brethren" that were charactistic [sic] of medieval times and perpetuated in the KJV are just that, idioms that are simply not accurate literal translations of the original language source words as explained below TH's Response: This begins a lengthy discussion that essentially, in my view, amounts to an appeal to your "translation tables" and "proprietary AV7 concordance" to decide the dispute.
As far as your points about Strong's Concordance, when you assert that this reference work "does not account for all of the nuances that need to be considered," I do not dispute that. Strong's is not a perfect tool, nor does it give all the answers regarding the original language texts of the Bible, but it is useful, has stood the test of time, and provides information that anyone can cross-check--unlike a "proprietary And I choose to trust the known quantity over an inaccessible database , proposed by an anonymous writer like yourself representing a "foundation" I had never heard of before seeing your publication.
To return to the point I intended to make when I asked, "One has to ask on what basis the Greek word adelphos. Perhaps you are genuinely unaware that the English language simply will not submit to being handled the way you have handled it in these passages and still provide the same meaning to the reader.
This is what I am trying to tell you. That being the case, how do you conclude that this rendering "produces absurdity"? Sheer common sense dictates that one recognize a difference.
Uncle Fred and Aunt Tessa may be part of my family , but they do not stand in a fraternal relationship to me, nor do Grandma Fitzbane nor Cousin Gertie whom I last saw when I was five.
So when, for example, Peter is appealing to his fellow Israelites, he speaks to them out of a brotherly standing, which has expository point in that, as Matthew Henry points out,. The equal standing of Peter with the other Israelites is preserved by such translations of Acts as these, just some that could be cited:. The Christian reader wonders why, turning to such helps as Strong's, Vine's , interlinear New Testaments, and other translations to see if this is a justified change.
But no! I must tell you that I think most people will decline to accept your invitation, just as I have. In the interests of space, I will also apply the above remarks to your discussion of 3 John, verses 5 and Your request that I provide "evidence in these verses that the writer's references herein are to be construed as exclusively to males to the exclusion of females" intentionally misconstrues the point I was making.
KJV's word "brethren" includes everyone in a fraternal relationship, just as Alexander Pope's poem "An Essay on Man " is meant to discuss all humans and not just "males to the exclusion of females. In this context, C. Lewis' remark that "At bottom, every ideal of style dictates not only how we should say things but what sort of things we may say" [Preface to "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" ] certainly comes to mind.
Nevertheless, I see that even a translation that accepts this limitation, the New Century Version, straddles it more successfully than AV7, for in Acts and the two 3 John verses, we find "brothers and sisters" given for adelphos. Whatever one thinks of the addition of the words "and sisters," this at least preserves the idea of fraternal relationship in these passages.
AV7's ill-advised rendering, on the contrary, destroys that idea. If you are not persuaded, I fear that I can no more convince you than I can prove the difference between a violin and a kazoo to a tin-eared listener convinced that "both sound the same. TH's Response: This is a cute but misleading statement which ignores widely-known differences in transliterating from Greek to English.
Your intent was obviously to take advantage of my admission in my post not to be speaking from a position of expertise in Greek, so that you would be able to misrepresent the facts. But unfortunately for you, I happen to know enough to see that your claim is so incorrect as to amount to deliberate distortion. For, as I will illustrate below with the support of scans from the following well-respected reference works Source: W.
But anyone who knows anything about transliteration knows that there is no universally accepted, one-to-one exchange between the Greek alphabet and the English alphabet. Strong explicitly states "Greek Dictionary of the New Testament" section, p. What you may not do is pretend that "there is no Greek word transliterated 'huper'" when you know very well or should have reason to know that many respected references give exactly this transliteration.
This claim of yours lacks credibility, and when I can so easily shoot down a claim so preposterous, it gives me reason to suspect your credibility in other areas that are not so easily checked such as your appeals to your "proprietary AV7 concordance". TLNF: Next, there is also no viable rationale or justification for the use of the word "Because" in this context the word "because" has a different array of Greek sources.
AV7 The New Authorized Version of the Holy Bible in Present-day English…
New Authorized Version
Be the first to write a review. Skip to main content. Email to friends Share on Facebook - opens in a new window or tab Share on Twitter - opens in a new window or tab Share on Pinterest - opens in a new window or tab. Add to Watchlist. People who viewed this item also viewed. Picture Information.
Contemporary English Version Books
Many attempts have been made to translate the Bible into Late Modern c. The New Revised Standard Version is the version most commonly preferred by biblical scholars. The Wessex Gospels were the first translation of the four Gospels in English without accompanying Latin text. It was updated as the New Revised Standard Version in In the late twentieth century, Bibles increasingly appeared that were much less literal in their approach to translation. In , J. Phillips — produced an edition of the New Testament letters in paraphrase, the Letters to Young Churches , so that members of his youth group could understand what the New Testament authors had written.