I Read the ASV - There Are Problems

[@4449John]

Thank You for this look at ASV.

[@understandingtruth10]

Thank you for this great information brother I just ordered an old ASV and it’s good to know these things!

[@flowerlass]

I try to read a book of the Bible most days. I don't know how you read so many translations all the way through to make videos. You must be a super fast reader! I am glad you read a lot because I learn so much from your videos. I enjoyed this video because I did not know anything about the ASV. When new Study Bibles are released, I usually stick to the NKJV, CSB, NLT, or ESV. Thank you so much for your online ministry!

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I read the Bible twice ish a year. Sometimes a little more. But I never quite get to a third time. Generally entire Bible twice, New Testament an extra time.

[@Meteor_pending]

​@@anickelsworthbiblereviews do you also include the apocrypha in your read-throughs (when the translation allows it)?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

@Meteor_pending not in this case, but in some cases yes.

[@MAMoreno]

Prominent Unitarian scholars such as George Vance Smith and Ezra Abbot were involved with the RV/ASV. These men were a tiny, if vocal, minority in the British and American committees.

[@timwilkins2008]

I wonder how many American Unitarian Scholars were involved in the American Committee in 1901?

[@harveygitarista1600]

Here in the Philippines, most people consider the "Ang Biblia 1905 Version" (equivalent to ASV) as the equivalent of KJV. The preface of this 1905 version clearly states that it is derived from ASV, yet people here are joining the KJV only tribalism.

[@KeithGarrett-w1t]

Thank you. It's a deal breaker. Sad, because I like the way it reads.

[@mattgunia942]

Great review. ASV was on my list to read through; I will rethink that plan. Question: Even when you read a problematic translation, are you glad you did it? Or, to put it another way, if you could go back in time, would you still spend the 65 or so hours reading the ASV? Finally, I pay attention to missionaries who translate the Bible into the language of small people groups. This last year I listened to a podcast where they talk about qualifications they look for when seeking people for the translation team. One of the most important is strong Christian faith. I thought of this at the end of your review; it sounds like the translators stood above Scripture and rejected the historic Christian faith. While weak faith is still faith, I don't want people of weak faith translating my Bible.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I don’t ever regret reading.

[@RevDavidReyes]

spanish's most respected translation rvr60 has "Jehova" as well .

[@MaverickStreet]

Maybe do a review of the Bibliotheca’s translation called the ALV. He based it on the ASV. I’m curious to see how Adam Lewis Greene and his translator’s kept or changed these verses you mentioned in this video. He based it originally on the ASV.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I’m not too interesting in reviewing Bibleotheca.

[@NovellaFranca]

I have an ASV that I had rebound by Frost Leather. The reason I love it is because it’s so woodenly literal sometimes that it helps you see the underlying Hebrew a bit better and retains a lot of the idioms. However, I only read the Old Testament in it and I say “Lord” in my mind every time I see Jehova. I think it’s understandable that they did that given the outdated scholarship they were working with at the time, but yea I agree with you I wish they had put YHWH (like bibliotheca does) or just “Lord”. I agree about the New Testament, that’s why I just use it for the OT, especially the poetry. But for the purposes that I use the ASV for, I love it. The book of Job is amazing in it for example.

[@larryg.overton2951]

I have multiple copies of the RV (some abbreviate it ERV, for English Revised Version) NT (1881) and the whole Bible (1885). I also have the _Companion to the Revised Version of the New Testament_ by Alexander Roberts, also published in 1881. BTW, the American Revision Committee (ARC) participated with the British revisers on the RV. The ARC was organized in 1871, at the invitation of the British revisers, and began work in October of 1872. (See pages 165f in Roberts noted above).) The readings/renderings preferred by the Americans which were not adopted by the British were printed in an appendix to the RV. By agreement, the ARC waited 14 years before releasing their own edition, the full title of which was _The Standard American Edition of the Revised Version of the Bible_ (which of course was later shortened to American Standard Version, abbreviated ASV). My grandfather had a Dickson New Analytical Indexed Bible, published in 1931 (which I have since inherited). The text was the KJV, but bracketed at points within the text would be the renderings from the ASV to clarify or correct the KJV renderings in question. In 1973, at 19 years of age, I bought my own Dickson Analytical Bible. In 1974 I bought the ASV in a wide margin reference format. About John 9:38, the RV and the ASV read the same in their respective texts. However, the RV has no marginal note for this verse. 1 Timothy 3:16 has the same wording in the text of both the British and American editions, with the same marginal note on “He who…” You noted in your video the text and marginal note of 2 Peter 1:1 in the ASV. In the RV, the text reads, “…our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” with the following marginal note: “Or, our God and the Saviour.” I have a theory that Joseph Henry Thayer was largely behind these heterodox renderings in the ASV. Thayer grew up attending the Unitarian church with his father, though his mother was a Congregationalist. He also wrote articles denying Biblical inerrancy. Thayer was the Secretary of the New Testament company of the ARC.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Very interesting info. I have a copy of the RV, I noted in the caption the note in that one and the RSV and NRSV added the word the. It’s all very fascinating

[@scottjones8100]

Right on, Brother. I was with you all the way on this.

[@DreamcastFarm]

Would you be willing to list all the grievances with the ASV new testament? Im very curious

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

It’s basically an extension of what I’ve already listed.

[@andypink5167]

Thank you Tim much appreciated 😎

[@jigeyu8433]

Could you do a review on the Revised Version?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

The English Revised Version or Revised Standard Version?

[@joestfrancois]

This is good content Tim, I don't care what paper it is written on, or what kind of leather was used for the cover. For me though, with no vested interest in the material for salvation, I can say that for the Hebrew Bible, the NRSV and the New English Bible are my favorite to read. Those points you bring up, I get what you are saying, but they mean little to me. CSB is pretty good too.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Joe, my friend, I take this as a very high compliment! 😃

[@jodylecompte]

I would love to hear more of your thoughts around inspiration and the allegorization of the old testament. For example, I don't believe Genesis is 100% literal, but I don't think that it's "uninspired". My belief is that as a human, I am too small in mind and understanding to truly reason about and understand what God did in the act of creation, but that God chose to give us a record we were capable of understanding.

[@admcmahon2]

Thank you so much Tim!

[@OrthodoxPhilip]

Thank you Tim for this interesting video. On all points I agree, except on the note for John 9:38. The note there is technically correct (albeit perhaps out of place). "Proskuneo" is the Greek word for veneration and would have been understood in context as reverence or worship depending on who it's towards. In the LXX, this word is used in several places for giving reverence/veneration to creatures. Ex. Exodus 18:7 says "ἐξῆλθεν δὲ Μωυσῆς εἰς συνάντησιν τῷ γαμβρῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ" (" And Moses went out for a meeting with his father-in-law, and he did obeisance before him"). But still, I agree with your points on the translation itself. I actually want a copy of this translation, not because of how good it is, but because it's one of the only translations of the Wescott-Hort text which makes it a valuable addition to a personal Bible library.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

In every instance it is used of worshiping God in the NT unless you argue this was not worshiping Jesus. There is not one instance it is given to man.

[@OrthodoxPhilip]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Yes, but the New Testament wasn't written in a vacuum. It was written in Greek just like the LXX - a version of the Bible read by the apostles. Moses does proskuneo to Jethro, Jacob does it to Esau, etc. I'm saying the note isn't wrong and the lexicon also agrees. What's weird is they put that note there by an instance where proskuneo is worshipful. That seems inappropriate and like they have an agenda to question the deity of Christ.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

@@OrthodoxPhilip that’s my point.

[@Dwayne_Green]

The whole "worship a creature" thing is very Jehovah's Witness. They take the Greek word proskhnew and translate it as "Do obesiance" every time it refers to Jesus.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Yeah, made a video on that as well. It is in the end screen.

[@MaverickStreet]

I enjoy your videos. Studying the English Bible versions for decades I concur with your facts as true but I learn from them as well! Keep up the God work!

[@70_X_7]

The Concordant Version also translates “our God, and the Saviour, Jesus Christ”. The Concordant Version was compiled by the Concordant Publishing Concern (CPC), which was founded by Adolph Ernst Knoch in 1909. It uses the CT as the base text. Specifically A, B, and א.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Never heard of that one.

[@ilovemyboyfriend5425]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews do review on it i have it

[@jamesodell3866]

Be careful of the date of publication on the ASV. The rights were acquired in the late 1920's by the ICRE (which became the National Council of Churches), and it was updated. Particularly that note on Matt 2:2 and others. Double check against the actual 1901 version

[@MartinBolick]

Where did you get your copy? They only seem to be readily available in paperback. Also, I'm curious as to why you think the ASV is usually marked as the most literal translation in most graphs of English translations.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I traded for this one and had it rebound. I don’t know why it would be considered the most literal. That’s above my pay grade.

[@rosslewchuk9286]

I just now noticed this: “Simon Pierre, serviteur et apôtre de Jésus Christ, à ceux qui ont reçu en partage une foi du même prix que la nôtre, par la justice de notre Dieu et du Sauveur Jésus Christ:” (2 Peter 1:1, French LS) "du Saveur..." Literally "of the Savior..." The older Ostervald is very good: “Siméon Pierre, serviteur et apôtre de Jésus-Christ, à ceux qui ont eu en partage une foi du même prix que la nôtre, dans la justice de notre Dieu et Sauveur Jésus-Christ.” (2 Peter 1:1, French OB) Just a FYI. 😊🙏📖

[@FaithLikeAMustardSeed]

I think he chose to misinterpret this translation (though I can see how the door is open a little wider to do so). Jesus is our God and *the* (one and only) savior. Of course even the original manuscripts can easily be misinterpreted so it seems an arbitrary and irrelevant criticism and there is definitely a lot good in the ASV. The is also a refreshed ASV and a byzantine ASV recently put out.

[@emmettjenkins8026]

2 Peter 1:2 The Greek θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ = our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

[@ChaseDowell]

Good review. However, you drank the cool-aid on the divine name. Check out Nick Sayers on this topic.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Kool-aid*

[@ChaseDowell]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews thanks 🙂

[@treeckoniusconstantinus]

To make your point about 2 Pet 1.1 even stronger, all the English translations before the KJV also read "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." Middle English Bible (c. 1380s): "oure God and sauyour Jhesu Crist" (from the Vulgate: "Dei nostri et Salvatoris Iesu Christi") Tyndale (1525): "oure God and savioure Jesus Christ" Great Bible (1539): "oure God and savioure Jesus Christ" Geneva Bible (1560): "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" Bishops' Bible: (1568): "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" Rheims (1582): "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (from the Vulgate, see above) King James Version (1611): "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" So the ASV took the KJV's cue of differing from the pack and decided to go a step further.

[@winters556]

I was thinking about getting a rsv, does it have the same problems that the asv has??? I’m aware of the passage in Isiah where the rsv renders it young woman instead of virgin. Is there anything else about the rsv though?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I posted a review of the RSV on the end screen, in short, no it doesn’t have issues this deep.

[@winters556]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews okay

[@ilovemyboyfriend5425]

why didnt u talk bout the new american standred ?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Because it has nothing to do with this video. While it considers itself an update it’s not directly in the family tree.

[@emiljohann88]

It's Yahweh not Jehovah but i don't mind it.

[@judithpruett1842]

Does the RSV..contain the Name of Jehovah...

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

No.

[@missinglink_eth]

I don’t want to fight in the comments but I’d love to have a chat over coffee about Genesis 1-11 on reading literally vs reading woodenly. I believe 100% that every word is inspired by God but you don’t have to read it woodenly. Genre is important and seeing it as material creation, scientific answers is reading in our 21st century mindset, imo.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I don’t disagree. But I believe it is history. Maybe a fanciful telling of it, but it happened.

[@missinglink_eth]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I believe it’s history too. 100%. But told in a way the Hebrews at that time could understand it and compare it to what they knew from their time in Egypt.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Then we have zero disagreement here.

[@missinglink_eth]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews ❤️

[@sillyrabbi64]

You should go research the Granville-Sharp Construction ("...our God and Savior Jesus Christ..."). It was unknown when the KJV was translated, giving them a bit of an out; it was known (published in 1798) when the ASV was done and is not excusable.

[@dekka213l]

@"it's obviously incorrect". I'd encourage you to engage the phd scholarship of Jewish hebrew scholar, Nehemiah Gordon. He devastates the claim of using the vowels from Adonai to get "Yehovah".

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Devastates?

[@Sanslab-wu8tv]

Thanks for another great video. All translation involves some interpretation, and all interpretation involves some presuppositions. The way the translators’ presuppositions are worked into the text in this version is, indeed, a troubling insight into their theological leanings.

[@EstifanosTZewde]

Brilliant!

[@generationomega9342]

The Name of God is His "nature, character, and authority," not how we pronounce a name nobody actually knows how to pronounce... ... And the ASV is vastly superior to the KJV "Easter" Bible - approved of by the same King that drove the REAL CHRISTIANS out of his country. But, no matter... ... God will find His wherever they may be. Peace to your house.

[@MaverickStreet]

“Jehovah” bothers me as well. 4:20

[@VeterSibiry]

What matters is not how the name is pronounced or what letter code it carries, but who or what the name is associated with. For example, few people object to the fact that the name "Jesus" sounds different in both Greek and English or in another language. Although this name was originally pronounced in Hebrew. If you choose between "Jehovah" and "Yahweh", then "Jehovah" is more traditional. And "Jehovah" resembles "Jesus." For me personally, as a Christian, the question of the Old Testament name of God is of secondary importance. This is a childish question that I have long outgrown. In addition, the ASV Bible is valuable because it gives you the opportunity to prove to yourself the divinity of Christ by the effort of the spirit, and not by the effort of the carnal mind. And this Bible will not let you get trapped in a theological dispute. After all, if the New Testament directly pointed out that Christ is God, then there would be no Christological disputes. "Christ is God" - this is what the Holy Spirit tells us through the Holy Scriptures as a whole, and not through individual quotations. This is a matter of faith, not argument.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

This is the oddest argument I’ve ever heard. The entire scriptures, old and New Testament shout that Jesus is God

[@VeterSibiry]

Many will argue with you that the word "god" can have a conditional meaning. Yes, I believe that Christ is the true God, but the Bible allows us to say in this matter that Moses was god, and the judges of Israel are gods, and the Angels are also gods. I repeat that the divinity of Christ is a controversial issue, and the Bible does not give an unambiguous answer to this question. And whoever says that the Bible accurately proves the divinity of Christ is either lying or has studied the Bible only superficially, even if he had memorized the Bible.

[@winters556]

If a Bible is from the critical wescott & hortt text it’s not an update or inline with the kjv, majority text is entirely different. The real line would be Matthew’s Bible, 1560 Geneva, kjv, nkjv , Mev. Also the problems you have with it are exactly why people that are in the kjv camp have immense problems with new translations. Mind you this is the first critical text Bible, and has these problems. Imagine after the updates and politics and all the changes how much has been changed now. That’s why I stick to Geneva,kjv, and sometimes nkjv or Mev but I haven’t full vetted those yet. If it’s all inspired the updates are not warranted and are change the word of God even because of copyright updates. Not trying to be mean just agreeing mostly, these things are not talked about enough.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Actually the KJV is from the Textus Receptus. Also the modern translations are more emphatic on the deity of Jesus than even the KJV. This is a translation philosophy issue not a textual one.

[@winters556]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews correction textus receptus. And I would say it’s most definitely both. Wescott & hortt if you look into them they were basically heretics and denied basic Christian truths and stuff, if you read their journals it’s pretty bad. There’s so many issues with that textual basis and even Paul said those in his time were trying to corrupt the word of God and Christian doctrine. Textus receptus means received text that was know to be inspired and was the majority that was used. I’ve looked into this for a decade and I can no longer say that the critical text is not highly corrupted as well as new translations.

[@BramptonAnglican]

Genesis can’t be historical. Unless Adam and Eve were black seeing as the first humans were African

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Who cares what color they were. If the first people were indeed black then Adam and Eve was black.

[@FaithLikeAMustardSeed]

Don't believe the evolutionists.

[@41srn]

You're trying to mix secular atheistic ideas with the word of God, which by the way says "they suppress the truth in unrighteousness". It is better to trust in the Lord than to put your confidence in men

[@skullgraff6349]

@@BramptonAnglican this is what happens when family cant shut up about being black and oozes to their children. I avoid people like this

[@timwilkins2008]

Oh…the Amplified Bible, the Living Bible (and. by extension, the NLT), the American Literary Version from Bibliotheca as well as the NASB are all built from the ASV as well….IT may not be the best ever translation but it certainly birthed a lot of great projects. At the end of the day, no translation is perfect. One can find flaws with them all. My advice: find the Bible you like, that peaks your language and read it, study it and most importantly, live it.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I would agree, but just because some translations that followed it improved things is not a defense for it. The RSV and NSRV, more specifically the NRSVue have their own really important issues.

[@timwilkins2008]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I have had no issues with the NRSV in 30 plus years of daily use. I am reading the NRSVue in the SBL edition. The biggest issue I have with it is the terrible quality of the pages and printing of the SBL Study Bible. But I am at a very different end of the theological spectrum than you so that could be the reason.

[@timwilkins2008]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I have two copies of the Refreshed ASV. I would be happy to send one to you if you want it.