New bibles since 1960

It is ironic that most new bible interpretations and publications have been since 1960.

Do we know why?

How is it ironic? I'd say that all new Bible interpretations and publications have been since 1960, because if they were from before 1960, they wouldn't be "new".

So... perhaps you'd care to rephrase the question and identify the point you're trying not to make.

For the love of $$$

Well, this OP is not completely true!

The Twentieth Century NT version was the first modern English version, published in its final version in 1904!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_New_Testament

Moffat's version was published in 1922, to bring, "effective, intelligible English" to the world!

In 1937 the William's Bible was published, which put the text into modern English or "the language of the people!"

In 1950, the Revised Standard Version NT was published! And the whole Bible in 1952.

JB Philips version "the New Testament in Modern English, was published in 1959!

This does not count the Bibles in Braille, Chinese, East Indian etc, all published in the language of the People, which you KJV Only people seem to forget! You know, most of the world!

As to why? People no longer understood the KJV because of the obsolete and archaic language, and as later scholarship would discover, the fact that it was translated from 7 fifteenth century corrupted manuscripts, including back translated from Catholic Latin copies, to say nothing of all the additions incorporated into the text, by Byzantine scribes through the millennia.

I prefer the original languages, but I do read modern versions, I'm currently using the NET for the 60,000 footnotes, although it is an excellent modern version and translation!

Here is an interesting link to Bibles in the 20th century! Just the facts! None of this misinformed KJV Only nonsense and outright lies.

http://clausenbooks.com/bible2000.htm

I would say to improve readability over antiquated language and incorporate later research on texts.

Read the intro to most "newer" bibles, they usually give the answer for a new bible such as in the 1983 NIV

The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English. This group, though not made up of official church representatives, was transdenominational. Its conclusion was endorsed by a large number of leaders from the many denominations who met in Chicago in 1966.

Why? For at least these 2 reasons: (1) to provide Biles without the incomprehensible archaic language (e. g., "froward;" "yea." "lo") sand words that had a different meaning in the 1600s than they do today (e. g. ",mansions") and (2) to correct theological significant erroneous translations (e. g. mistranslating the OT Hebrew word "Sheol" as Hell).

(3) But there was a far more important reason: the recognition that the Hebrew and Greek text used for the KJV is very corrupt because (1) it was based on later manuscripts in which many of the 400,000 contradictory readings had crept into the text rhough miscopying;
(2) the new science of Text Criticism had developed which is devoted to reconstructing the original Hebrew and Greek text as accurately as possible with the aid of more ancient and reliable Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that were not available to the KJV translators. Text Critics grouped manuscripts into families by date and region to determine when, where, and why these errors crept into the biblical texts. They then compared their corrections with quotations form the earliest Church Fathers who preceded the manuscripts in question. I find it ironic that evangelicals with the highest view of biblical inspiration prefer the most corrupt text of Scripture (. e. that used for the KJV).

There was the Revised Version, Standard American Edition of the Bible, as well, more commonly known then and now as the American Standard Version (ASV), that was completed in 1901. It was often the translation of choice in American seminaries, until the New American Standard Bible (NASB) began replacing it in the 60's and 70's, that is.

~Deut

Textual criticism = Bible corrector

With all these so called experts, why can’t they give you a Bible you can trust?

The experts agree on the original Hebrew and Greek text. But for theologically and spiritually significant Hebrew and Greek terms, there is no one-to-one English equivalent between Hebrew or Greek word. So a judgment call must be made about whether and how to capture the original nuance. Translators differ on how best to do this. That's why you need a seminary-trained pastor who knows Hebrew and Greek to help you sort out any confusion on this point! But modern translations like the NIV and ESV are essentially almost always identical. But beware the NRSV. It is very accurate until it comes to mascuculine pronouns Then it uses gender-neutral translations (e. g. sometimes changing singular pronouns to plurals) to create to make the Bible more appealing to the politically correct crowd. I am currently watching the UMC Special Conference on gay marriage and ordination. The delegates were rebuked for using the pronoun "He" for God. That attitude explains why the NRSV was created!

I guess Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and all the KJV translators were "Bible correctors" too then.

Not sure what you are trying to imply, but it seems to me in my opinion that the Word of God in any well-done modern translation is completely trustworthy.

If you have trouble with the trustworthiness of the Biblical text, read and study up on the Biblical doctrine of inspiration and what God says about His Word.

In order to understand the "why" of the modern perversion of the Bible (which is the Word of God) we need to go back to the beginning.

Satan (through the Serpent) in the garden of Eden lied to Eve and deceived her by presenting DISTORTIONS of God's words.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. (Gen 3:1) That word *subtil* (subtle) is from the Hebrew עָר֔וּם (a·rum) which in this case means crafty, cunning, sly, tricky, or wily -- marked by skill in deception. And the primary weapon of the Devil against both Christians and non-Christians is DECEPTION. What did Satan do to deceive Eve?

1. PERVERTED THE WORDS OF GOD -- Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Or in modern parlance "Did God really say that you cannot eat of EVERY TREE garden?" We know that God said nothing remotely resembling that, and Eve knew it, but evidently Eve was as eager to play his game as Satan was to deceive her. What God had actually said was the EXACT OPPOSITE -- And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But Eve did not tell Satan at once "You are a blatant liar". So he continued with his lies.

2. CONTRADICTED THE WORDS OF GOD -- And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:. But God had said: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And again, this lie was allowed to stand, even though it was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what God had said.

3. CONCOCTED HIS OWN DOCTRINE -- For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what would happen if Adam and Eve disobeyed God. We know from Scripture that instead of becoming as gods (a) Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden and (b) the whole human race was tainted with the indwelling sin nature, and death was guaranteed to all human beings. This made the need for the Savior a divine necessity.

Beginning in the late eighteenth century unbelieving and rationalistic Higher and Lower Critics began to believe that they were wiser than God ("ye shall be as gods") and began attacking Scripture. The Higher Critics focused on the origin of the texts and *the world behind the texts* and made up some fanciful theories (which have been debunked), while Lower Critics examined the manuscripts themselves. Unfortunately they discovered a few ancient corrupted Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and versions and began to promote them as *better*, *more accurate*, etc. than the majority of manuscripts. But these corruptions were manufactured by heretics and Gnostics who had their own agenda to change the doctrines of the Bible.

Hence their *critical texts* began to reflect the same tendencies by (a) perverting, (b) contradicting and (c) concocting. This was through *conjectural emendations*, deletions, omissions, additions, transpositions, and other changes to the existing Bibles. Thus all modern Bible versions since 1881 are quite different from the Reformation Bibles (including the King James and Geneva Bibles).

And it is true that since the 1960s modern Bible versions have proliferated (and the profit motive cannot be discounted), and doctrines have also been created which have no basis in Scripture. Ultimately, Satan is behind every attack on the Word of God, since Scripture is *the Sword of the Spirit* an one of its functions is to defeat Satan's lies.

I challenge you to support all your assertions with non-KJV-only source material.

Good luck.

Huh and I thought 1960 was old. But then I wasnt even born then.
can you elaborate, do you mean new as in NIV, NKJV, NRSV, NLT, NET all english translations with 'new' in the title?

I mean the New Testament is actually pretty old, but of course...its new.

KJV was a new publication back in the 17th century. Did those holding a Geneva publication think the same thing?

Despite the textual and translation flaws outlined above, one researcher rightly labels the KIV "the greatest work of English prose ever written." For a celebratory history of its creation, watch his inspirational documentary:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...E53C125E7B7C38734A27E53C125E7B7C387&FORM=VIRE

3 points made in the documentary stand out for me: (1) 'The committee that translated the KJV included a drunk and some violent men, who brought color to the translation.

(2) Before a translation of a given KJV text was approved, it was read aloud to see whether it flows or "sings" poetically for public reading during church worship. That helps explain even KJV haters like me insisted that the Lord's Prayer and the Shepherd's Psalm (23) be read aloud in church oniy in KJV English!

(3) By King James's order the translation had to be worded in such a way as to support the monarchy and the hierarchical structure of the Church of England.

Good one. And as goods increase so do those who consume them.

There are many new private interpretations as new translations coming out and as it seems picking up speed .Especially with todays technology. Some possibly helpful from another perspective from another opinion . God can cause the growth as long as men do not make the grace of God without effect by doing despite to the grace as a change to the Bible . That would indicate another gospel another Christ. The spirit of the antichrists( many)

garee.

Did you read my last thread? James insisted that the KJV be translated in such a way as to both support his monarchy and the ecclesial structure of the Church of England. You obviously have not watched my video on how and why the kJV was translated.

I have now. Interesting.

I remember reading that the Geneva Bible was the one that came with the puritans to America, and yes the KJV was much disliked when first published.