-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Revised Standard Version
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
The RSV served as the starting point for the production of the ESV:
esv.org/preface
"the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work"
esv.org/preface
"the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work"
....does that mean 1 is best and 10 awful???? [emoji848]
I'm kidding
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
I have never owned an edition of the RSV. Some were burned in pulpit back in the early 1950sbecause it was supposed to be so liberal.
From what I know I think on that scale of yours it has to rate around a 7 or so. I take it that the higher the number the greater the similarity it has with the KJV --at least the 1946 New Testament.
The N.T. ERV of 1881 had in even more in common with the KJV --I'd give it a 9. But then again, I have never owned a copy - -- just guessing.
From what I know I think on that scale of yours it has to rate around a 7 or so. I take it that the higher the number the greater the similarity it has with the KJV
The N.T. ERV of 1881 had in even more in common with the KJV
TCassidy once said on here, "it is the transaltion everyone loves to hate"---apologies if I have credited the wrong person.
I have mostly interacted with it through commentaries. What I have seen has been good. The lone exception has been in Isaiah where it reads "young woman" where almost every other translation says "virgin". Outside of that issue, I think it is a decent revision of the ASV-- from my limited experience with it. It uses the NA as its underlying text, opposed to the ASV which used WH. I believe is also took some OT readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There very well may be issues I am unaware of.
I am uncomfortable assigning a "number" to It, but I would expect it to be similar to the ESV, which I do like and use frequently.
I know some like John Piper love the RSV. I have tried to acquire a hard copy unsuccessfully in the past.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
I have mostly interacted with it through commentaries. What I have seen has been good. The lone exception has been in Isaiah where it reads "young woman" where almost every other translation says "virgin". Outside of that issue, I think it is a decent revision of the ASV-- from my limited experience with it. It uses the NA as its underlying text, opposed to the ASV which used WH. I believe is also took some OT readings from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There very well may be issues I am unaware of.
I am uncomfortable assigning a "number" to It, but I would expect it to be similar to the ESV, which I do like and use frequently.
I know some like John Piper love the RSV. I have tried to acquire a hard copy unsuccessfully in the past.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
There is a line crossing out my sentences. I can still see the words --but that line is in the way.
But I'm glad you and maybe others don't see what I see.
Did you accidently hit the strike-through function?
I do not see any lines. However I am using Tapatalk for this forum
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
I can see it. It's like you hit a strike-through function.
Isn’t there a three strike rule in this game of threads?
Three strikes? How about a balk:
According to Wiki: The RSV is a revision of the American Standard Version (ASV)
Click here for Wiki article
You are correct. That is my statement. Back in the early 1950s when the RSV was first published much of the Evangelical community disliked the version based on their opinion it showed way too much liberal bias.
I don't like the version for several reasons and would place it at -1 on the scale of 1-10.
But, on the other hand, it was the bible I was reading when God saved my sin sick soul so, as it was able to "make me wise unto salvation" it is, by definition "scripture" and therefore the word of God. A biased translation. Probably. But still the word of God.
The real revision of the ASV is the WEB. Which is an excellent version.
Would see the rsv as being a decent translation, save for that infamous Isaiah passage, as I believe thje Esv took over something like 90-95 % of its renderings straight over, and so was not that radical of an update/revision!