Browsed by
Tag: ISV

ISV Whole Bible Available

ISV Whole Bible Available

The ISV whole Bible is available in electronic form. It’s a sort of pre-release, with a module available for eSword, along with Word 2003 and 2010 docs. I now have the whole Bible, even though corrections may be made before printing, so I’m planning to check my key verses and make up my numbers to post on mybibleversion.com.

I recently found what I consider a wonderful, though simple, wording in the ISV New Testament, “no inconsistency or shifting shadow” in James 1:17.  I’ll be interested in seeing how the Old Testament translation compares with the new. I will post a link here once I’ve written up my notes.

(HT: Better Bibles)

Revisiting Acts 17:26

Revisiting Acts 17:26

Yesterday I blogged about the HCSB of Acts 17:26, and in particular the portion that reads something like “made of one ______”. The KJV reads “blood” which is one of the textual variants, while the HCSB says “man” which apparently does not occur in any of the ancient manuscripts.

Since I read these lectionary texts daily for two weeks, today I encountered it in a different version, this time the TNIV, surely not one that could be accused of supporting anything like “male representation”, and it also read “man” in this case.

I’m not at home right now, so just looking at the immediately available Bible versions, I see the following:

  • REB reads “from one stock”
  • NRSV reads “from one ancestor”
  • CEV reads “from one person”
  • ESV reads “from one man”
  • TEV reads “from one human being”
  • God’s Word (GW) reads “from one man”
  • ISV reads “from one man”

I think that’s enough to see that most of the versions break where I would expect, with the exception of the TNIV. I wonder what their justification is here. It seems to me that since a number of ancient scribes appear to have provided options, but none thought of “man” here, it is unlikely that ancient readers would have understood this to refer specifically to the one man as human ancestor.

I’d be interested in comments on the reasoning behind the use of “man” in this verse.