Updated Bible Version (UPDV) Evaluation

Bruce Dunning said:

Does anyone have experience working with The Updated Bible Version (UPVD)? http://www.updated.org/

I don't really know much about it but I am interested in hearing some evaluations.

As a note of interest the translator, Greg Abrams, has made one post on the forums last fall - http://community.logos.com/forums/p/58592/417603.aspx

Anyone who removes the book of Acts from the Bible is idiosyncratic at best.

http://www.updated.org/acts.shtml

There are a bunch of other idiosyncrasies as well: a re-constructed Matthew, re-ordering of the books, placing the NT before the OT, etc.

Bruce Dunning said:

Let me clarify that I have no illusions that this version would be my next study Bible. I was quite aware that this is a very liberal version but for my purposes I think that it is good to be aware of it and compare it to other versions in the same way that I have texts of other religions in my library. What I am looking for is whether anyone has actually used it themselves and was hoping for some specific areas of evaluation/criticism.

Texts of other religions in your library are useful because people actually read, believe, and follow them. I'm not sure if an obscure, idiosyncratic, self-published Bible translation that no one reads has any use at all, unless you were doing apologetics with the translator. Maybe if he had some specialized expertise, but I can't find any information on his background that would make his translation salient in any way.

Bruce Dunning said:

As a note of interest the translator

I would call him an editor more than a translator. His reasoning for jettisoning the book of Acts seems contrived. I understand the benefit of being aware of his efforts but I certainly would not spend any money to have this one in Logos.

On another note; I find it interesting he kept the Western designations of the Old Testament history books. If we are going to start correcting things shouldn't we revert to the original?  

MJ. Smith said:

In this particular case:

• to get the correct connotations words that share a root in Greek must be translated into words in English that share a root
• Hebrew didn't have time to exhibit any changes in language during the period the OT was written

Thanks, M.J.

Fascinating.

MJ. Smith said:

My feeling when I pan something is that it's best to leave it as something potential customers find ... there is no reason to advertize the existence of a bad book.

That's not how I would do a review. If I hit a bad one, I let it out. I think to be reticent about it may bias the review in favour of a work without merit. One of my favourite reviews was a deserved one-liner: "Utter cr*p."

Anyway... dynamite! [;)]

Lee said:

One of my favourite reviews was a deserved one-liner: "Utter cr*p."

<clarify> That review in question was one that I read, famously written by a reviewer about a certain chess book. Nothing I wrote, and nothing about a book with religious content. </clarify>

[:#]

I have both translated and edited. Some chapters I have translated in their entirety. But, even editing usually requires underlying translation work.

There’s never been a requirement to pay for this Bible. The Logos PBB source file has been available at no cost. The Libronix precompiled format that came before the source file days was also free. The only one of the many formats that costs anything is ordering a printed edition. And those prices generally are set at the manufacturing cost. The exception to the preceding is a small number of commercial sales channels impose certain pricing on physical and electronic formats but they are not used much.

As to the designation of the books, I don’t generally see the value of reorganizing, renaming, or renumbering without some significant benefit to doing so.

There’s actually quite a bit of support for not including the Book of Acts. The reasons I give for this and other things are only a brief summary. They usually include several concepts and sources for one to conduct their own study or research. Acts plainly does not belong. Although there was much research done on it, one can step back and see it should not be there. It fits better for a novel or a movie script. Others have also come to a similar conclusion with credentials far more prestigous than mine.

One can spend years in endless discussions trying to precisely define and defend the definition of a canon.

And it doesn’t really matter for this situation of the Book of Acts except as a scholarly exercise.

To simplify, it is plainly not Biblical, or even ethical in most circles, to misrepresent fiction and made up stories as factual or as the inspired Word of God.

It is taught nearly everywhere as if it really happened and one can depend on God to back it up.

Of course by the meaning of Biblical, I suppose one at least needs to have part of the Old Testament in their canon where it is taught that there is a difference between what is and what is not the Word of God. 

Sean said:

I really don't think this is an appropriate discussion for this forum as per the guidelines here.

Thanks for the notice. It doesn’t seem like an appropriate topic for the General forum for multiple reasons.

I would recommend that someone open a thread in a more suitable place if they are interested in continuing this.

I will not be responding here while it is in the General Forum.

Greg Abrams said:

One can spend years in endless discussions trying to precisely define and defend the definition of a canon.

The definition of a "canon" is widely understood and wholly uncontroversial. To support this statement I refer to (in Logos) F. F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, and any Biblical, theological or English dictionary.

What one may legitimately and profitably spend time considering is the content of a canon and the criteria for inclusion.

Ironically, and to my mind amusingly, this thread is itself an example of a critical selective process determining whether a text fits the forum's standard of canonicity. [:)]