Talk:American Standard Version

message: :Any examples of eliminated verses that conflicted with JW doctrine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.5.87 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 11 April 2004
The article contained a statement to the effect that the NWT was produced without explanation of its' renderings.  This is incorrect.  Reading the appendices in the NWT you will find the reasons the translators gave for their renderings.  
Also, the incorrect statement that no other translation has been produced anaymously is a mistake, so I removed it as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.254.112.173  (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 July 2004
:Thank you.  I concur with the change and your reasoning behind it.  I own a (revised?) black-cover NWT (circa 1985 or 1990?) and have perused many copies of the original edition (green cover, circa 1978?).  From memory (because I don't have it here ;) there are definitely some explanations behind the translation methodology, though many might disagree with the reasoning or find it insufficient.  I thought that sentence was a bit odd in the article, but didn't think much about it at the time.  Furthermore, I don't think any of that belongs in the ASV article, but the NWT article.  It's sufficient for this article to just say that the Witnesses' use of the ASV was supplanted by the NWT.
:BTW, your helpful edit suggests you'd make a useful regular Wikipedian.  Please feel encouraged to create a user ID, log in, and continue helping. Jdavidb 20:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion of translational choices in NWT 

message: This concerns POV tag cleanup.  Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it.  This permits discussion and consensus among editors.  From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.  Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements.  This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags.  No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I believe this article is in error attributing its NT text to the Westcott & Hort Greek edition.  It is true that both Westcott & Hort were members of the New Testament Committee of the Revised English Version, the precursor of the ASV, but it is clear that neither the REV nor the ASV (nor the later RSV) were translations of the W&H Greek text.  The most obvious evidence of this is that these translations include readings that do not appear in W&H.  The Greek underlying the REV is the text worked up by Palmer and published with an apparatus criticus by Souter;  I think it would be safe to assume that the ASV was similarly based on the Palmer edition.
-- 71.178.242.140 03:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, IMHO, the renderings of the ASV are the result of votes, not the result of following any critical text carefully.  If enough committee members agreed to change the KJV, it was changed per vote.  So I don't think the ASV would agree perfectly with any critical text made before its publication.  I would guess that some readings were adopted by bargaining:  "I'll vote for your change  here, if you vote for mine there."  Probably the textual conclusions of Westcott and Hort were very influential, as was the fact of what the KJV had, an important precedent.  (EnochBethany (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

text: The above is an unsigned IP edit. Alephb (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek textual basis

message: In his very useful guide, God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, Adam Nicolson points out that when the Victorians came to revise the King James Bible in 1885, they [...] threw in a lot of extra Jacobeanisms, like "howbeit," "peradventure, "holden" and "behooved".
-- "Why the King James Bible Endures" by CHARLES McGRATH, New York Times April 23, 2011
-- AnonMoos (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO:  Howbeit is a still modern variant for albeit.  Behoove was a part of the language in my family growing up. Peradventure seems to me also a modern word, if not used a lot.  "Holden," however is quaint.  I didn't know that the ASV had Jacobean; I thought its English was Elizabethan. (EnochBethany (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point is that the ASV revisers did a lot less than they could have done to clear up difficult archaic English. AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference which might be worth following up (criticisms)

message: This is an article about the ASV. It is not an article about the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Tetragrammaton, or the New World Translation. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued insertion of irrelevancies