If you want a trustworthy update of the ASV, you will find it in the World English Bible which has corrected the egregious errors of the ASV properly to the historical text of the church (Byzantine Textform). Now there are probably a few dozen updates to the ASV and anyone willing to spend some time on their computer can produce an ASV update. You will be ahead of Ed if you do. You could not do worse. Ed, you are about 40 years out of date! You require anyone that you publish to denounce anything but the critical text and sign a pledge of faithfulness to the old critical text don't you? If I have the details on that wrong, please correct me! Well, it has been 6 months and Ed has not been able to muster an answer! But Ed is absolutely wrong on what is current textual theory. Ed's cultic view, and it is cultic when requiring a nonsense pledge (virtually a mirror of the KJV only position but for the opposite position), is held by NOBODY in the field of textual criticism and has not held it beginning with Kenyon. So Ed, you don't know what you are talking about. But Ed is better at guessing than Kevin below is. I do prefer the TR over the modern critical texts even if it does have a handful of big oopsies. It still represents the historical Greek NT of the historical church while Ed's favorite: you-must-pledge-allegiance-to-critical text pick and choose concocted Frankenstein monster text does not represent any historical manuscript used by the historical church! IN FACT, the preferred manuscripts of Ed's favorite critical text IS BETTER REPRESENTED by the Byzantine Textform (a better choice without the oopsies of the venerable TR). The Byzantine Text is the ONLY recognized TEXTFORM in TC and it is demonstrated to even do a better job of representing the oldest and most corrupt manuscripts and scraps preferred by the ever evolving and changing NA production. It is not preferred by most scholars but it does have respect unlike Ed and each new edition of the NA critical text keeps sneaking in a few more corrections to the Byzantine! Someone once made the joke that if you wait long enough, the NA will become virtually identical to the Byzantine given enough time. But Ed wants you to pledge to the TC fallacies debunked over 40 years ago. So you have to ask yourself, can you even begin to trust the work of someone who makes absolutely absurd demands of anyone who wants to work with him? You would have to be a fool.

While I personally am not a fan of Andrew's translation (because of his usage of the ridiculous Grandville Sharp rule - in which I personally sent him my disagreements and issues) I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "outdated" scholarship. But you do know what's outdated? The concept that the TR and the Byzantine tradition preserves the writings without error. Now if there ever was a funny joke in the world of Biblical textual criticism, this one would definitely take the cake. You have a theological motive - not a real, true critical one. So I would say that you're the last person whom I'd think should be able to criticize anything. Go do your own translation then come back.

Well that is interesting! Exactly what theological motive have you discerned? I have already been told about invisible intents that I have had and supposed rejections and what not. But now it is a theological motive! So pray tell what this said theological motive is and where have I mentioned it? You put words in my mouth: "The concept that the TR and the Byzantine tradition preserves the writings without error." And that is nothing I said. right? There is a name for when someone does that, correct? But whatever you are finding funny, please tell us why the UBS text and the ECM has made some corrections BACK TO BYZANTINE readings? What would really be funny is if we wait long enough and live long enough to see our modern critical editions correct themselves back to the Byzantine and that is the slow trend. Won't that be hilarious when we get there?