Tell me about the Revised Standard Version of the Bible

[LLee]

A recent magazine article from my Lutheran synod said we should never use this version. Why? What's different about it?

[filosofer]

Lee, this goes back to the early 1950's when the RSV first came out. The biggest contention was that the RSV "appeared" to water down some of the Messianic prophecies. I can provide some classic exmples that were used in the debate about whether to use the RSV or not. Interesing that today many who are conservative still like the RSV.

BTW, recently the LCMS has decided to move forward with using the ESV (considered a conservative response to the NRSV) for liturgical use.

[ylf1999]

The one thing that drives me up the wall is the born again passage.

In the NRSV it doesn't say "thou must be born again" it says "thou must be born from above" that drives me nuts. I hate it with a capital H. :mad

I also believe one of the reason I made the mistake of thinking that God and Jesus were two literal beings has to do with the NRSV.

up until a month ago I didn't believe in the deity of Jesus. The H.S corrected me about a month ago and told me that Jesus and God are one and the same person.

I'm in the process of changing the bible translation that I use.

YBIC

[LLee]

Thanks, filosofer! Wow, Chris - that's interesting! No wonder they don't want people using it. I pray that your spiritual growth is rapid now.

[ylf1999]

thanks LLee,

I did a thread in the bible forum asking about different translations. you might be interested in it when someone replies to it.

can you email me the article that your luteran church did that talks about the NRSV. Please email me at ylf1999@netscape.net.

BTW-are you Luteran Evangelical by chance?

YBIC

[Workfromhomemom]

Maybe this will help....

http://www.mag-net.com/~maranath/rsv.htm

:)

[filosofer]

Regarding the John 3 translation, the issue revolves around how to translate the Greek word ANA - either as "above" or "again"; each is equally valid as a translation. The ambiguity shows in how Nicodemus (mis)understands it to be "born again." Jesus has to explain that the Holy Spirit (from above) is the one who causes someone to be in the kingdom ("born agin from above").

[FirstCor123]

Originally posted by filosofer
Lee, this goes back to the early 1950's when the RSV first came out. The biggest contention was that the RSV "appeared" to water down some of the Messianic prophecies. I can provide some classic exmples that were used in the debate about whether to use the RSV or not. Interesing that today many who are conservative still like the RSV.

BTW, recently the LCMS has decided to move forward with using the ESV (considered a conservative response to the NRSV) for liturgical use.

I thought the RSV came out in the 1880's and the NRSV came out in the 1950's.

:confused

[filosofer]

Originally posted by Workfromhomemom
Maybe this will help....



That web site follows the old argument about manuscript differences - the exact same arguments used against the NAS, NIV, ESV, etc. In essence they are not critiquing the RSV so much as the textual tradition that the RSV (and most recent translations) follow.

To evaluate the RSV on its translation accuracy involves assessing how specific passages are translated.

[Workfromhomemom]

Originally posted by FirstCor123


I thought the RSV came out in the 1880's and the NRSV came out in the 1950's.

:confused

I beleive that you are confusing the RV (Westcott and Hort) with the RSV (NCC). The RV led to the AS which led to the NASB.

Filo,
Yep, it does make the same argument essentially. Although, having a BIble put together by Communist sympathizers does not give one the "warm fuzzies", now does it? LLee knows my slant and she can decide for herself if the link is helpful.

:)

[FirstCor123]

What is NCC?

[New Hope]

Scott, I believe NCC stands for Non Catholic Christian. It's used a lot over in Apologetics.

YBIC,
Justin

[mrpostgeek388]

I thought the RSV came out in the 1880's and the NRSV came out in the 1950's.


In actuality the English Revised Version (RV) came out in the late 1880's followed by the American Standard Version (ASV) in 1901 which begat the NASB of today. There's very little difference between the RV and the ASV except to make it appeal to the American Christians. Up until sometime in the 1980's, I believe, the ASV was the Bible of choice at my old alma mater - Toccoa Falls Bible College, in northeast Georgia.

The RSV is quite liberal in various areas including the Messianic prophecy of the vigin birth. Where the KJV translates "a virgin shall concieve..." the translators of the RSV use the phrase "a young girl shall become pregnant" (I don't have either translations in front of me, I'm going by memory). The Hebrew can indeed be translated virgin or young girl, but obviously the translation must be virgin, else we lose the uniqueness and divinity of our Lord. On a side note, the main translator of the RSV was the primary translator of the Today's English Version, aka Good News Bible (originally the NT was published as Good News for Modern Man in the late 1960's) which also incorrectly translates virgin as young girl. There have been four editions of the TEV and each one gets progressively worse than the previous.

My $.02.

Bill

Hi Filosofer! Glad to see you here.

[filosofer]

Yep, it does make the same argument essentially. Although, having a BIble put together by Communist sympathizers does not give one the "warm fuzzies", now does it?

At least ad hominem attacks have not died, have they?

[Rebel]

Can anyone recommend a website where the original "The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version" -- not the new RSV -- can be purchased online? I've tried Amazon, Barnes & Noble, eBay but no luck so far.

I prefer the hardcover edition but will also consider leather bound.

Thanks.

[Rebel]

To clarify further, I'm referring to the 1952 RSV edition that was published by the National Council of the Churches of Christ.

[wysiwyg]

Originally posted by Rebel
Can anyone recommend a website where the original "The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version" -- not the new RSV -- can be purchased online? I've tried Amazon, Barnes & Noble, eBay but no luck so far.

Rebel

Check out http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_sp/103206668?sp=65188&event=1003HOM

[filosofer]

Baker Book House also has a link for the original RSV through Oxford, in which you can get it in genuine leather, if desired.

The ESV (2001 - from Crossways) is supposedly the "conservative answer" to the NRSV (1989). Some debate about the translation improvement of this one as well. I have read it for the past five months in devotional reading. Some portions sound very familiar (especially from a liturgical background); other portions sound odd or awkward (1 Chronicles had a couple of passages that seemed to provide unnatural English (valid translation of phrase, just not "accepted" English style).

[Rebel]

wysiwyg and filosofer,

Thanks for those links. Christianbook.com is offering the RSV 50th Anniversary Edition without Aprocrypha in imitation leather for $28.99 ($39.99 for genuine leather), and I subsequently learned that Amazon after all has the Oxford University Press edition used and new in imitation leather for prices starting at $24.99. Either place seems fine.

[igglet]

ylf1999,

Let me apologize in advance, because I'm pretty sure I've misunderstood you. I'm tired, and need either sleep or coffee or, better yet, both in that order. No one else commented, so I'm quite willing to blame my befulled state. Just to get it through my fogged brain, though, can you explain this comment in relationship to the members of the trinity, and especially modalism? You said:

"I also believe one of the reason I made the mistake of thinking that God and Jesus were two literal beings has to do with the NRSV...up until a month ago I didn't believe in the deity of Jesus. The H.S corrected me about a month ago and told me that Jesus and God are one and the same person."

Specifically, what are God and Jesus if not literal beings? What is your definition of person (in the sense that God and Jesus are the same person)?

TIA!
--Bryan

[LSF]

Originally posted by FirstCor123
What is NCC?
New Hope got it wrong in this instance. In the context of the RSV, NCC means the National Council of Churches (http://www.ncccusa.org/) which is the orginization that sponsered the translating of the RSV and NRSV.