• 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!

What are the issues with the NRSV? + Poll for favourite version

Your favourite or usual used version?

  • NASB

    Votes: 5 18.5%

  • NRSV

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • ESV

    Votes: 4 14.8%

  • HCSB

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • CSB

    Votes: 4 14.8%

  • NKJV

    Votes: 7 25.9%

  • NIV (84)

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • NIV (2011)

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • KJV

    Votes: 10 37.0%

  • Other (please state)

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • Total voters
    27
Mikey

Mikey

Active Member
I've heard that the NRSV had "liberal bias" and many conservative Christians do not use the version because of this but instead adopted the ESV(other versions are popular), which seems like a "conservative" version of the NRSV (having same readings in many places) that reads poorly.

The only thing that I can really find on what these "liberal" elements are is the usage of Young-maiden over Virgin, in reference to the birth of Christ. Which to me doesn't seem to affect the Virgin birth.

Can someone explain the other translation issues? And if you think it is a good bible to use or not.

Thanks
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Check Hebrews 1:3 RSV NRSV NWT(Jehovah's Witness) Reference against John 1:9 being the "true light."
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mikey said:
I've heard that the NRSV had "liberal bias" and many conservative Christians do not use the version because of this but instead adopted the ESV(other versions are popular), which seems like a "conservative" version of the NRSV (having same readings in many places) that reads poorly.

The only thing that I can really find on what these "liberal" elements are is the usage of Young-maiden over Virgin, in reference to the birth of Christ. Which to me doesn't seem to affect the Virgin birth.

Can someone explain the other translation issues? And if you think it is a good bible to use or not.

Thanks
Click to expand...
It went way into the inclusive language translation process, so would be the liberal equivalent of the Niv 2011 !
Not a bad translation, but definitely into that gender rendering business!
 
Mikey

Mikey

Active Member
Yeshua1 said:
It went way into the inclusive language translation process, so would be the liberal equivalent of the Niv 2011 !
Not a bad translation, but definitely into that gender rendering business!
Click to expand...

From what I've read the NIV 2011 doesn't seem that bad. mainly rather than "brothers" it reads "brothers and sisters", this to me isn't a issue as often bothers is used for both(mixed group). Has it been used differently in either translation?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mikey said:
From what I've read the NIV 2011 doesn't seem that bad. mainly rather than "brothers" it reads "brothers and sisters", this to me isn't a issue as often bothers is used for both(mixed group). Has it been used differently in either translation?
Click to expand...
More involved than just the translation brothers and sisters, as even the upcoming Nas will be doing that now!
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
The MLV renders the emphatic Greek for "not in any way" as "may never*." In the 2019 revision "should never*." A little better. Still wishy-washy.
". . . and I give to them everlasting life, and they should never* perish . . . ." -- John 10:28.

I would think, "will never*" would have been better.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
davidtaylorjr said:
I did not know the new NAS would be doing that. Where did you see that? The ESV adds that to footnotes when appropriate.
Click to expand...
When the NASB adds words to a text, the added words are in italics. But when the ESV adds the same or similar words in the same text, not even a note.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
When the NASB adds words to a text, the added words are in italics. But when the ESV adds the same or similar words in the same text, not even a note.
Click to expand...

Not sure how that was relevant to what I was talking about. The NASB does not even italicize all added words, that is a misleading statement. Any translation there are going to be added words. They only italicize words that are supplied on top of the standard translation to add meaning. Honestly, many of their additions are unnecessary.

What examples do you have on the ESV, out of curiosity, with the same supplied words that would be italicized in the NASB?
 
SovereignGrace

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
davidtaylorjr said:
Not sure how that was relevant to what I was talking about. The NASB does not even italicize all added words, that is a misleading statement. Any translation there are going to be added words. They only italicize words that are supplied on top of the standard translation to add meaning. Honestly, many of their additions are unnecessary.

What examples do you have on the ESV, out of curiosity, with the same supplied words that would be italicized in the NASB?
Click to expand...
So I take it you are not a person who prefers the NASB over the ESV? I actually do prefer it over the ESV. Even the NIV. I know, boo hiss boo hiss.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
SovereignGrace said:
So I take it you are not a person who prefers the NASB over the ESV? I actually do prefer it over the ESV. Even the NIV. I know, boo hiss boo hiss.
Click to expand...

No I prefer the ESV as my primary translation. I see it at about the same accuracy as the NASB. Others argue otherwise, but just being literal all the time is not necessarily more accurate.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
davidtaylorjr said:
No I prefer the ESV as my primary translation. I see it at about the same accuracy as the NASB. Others argue otherwise, but just being literal all the time is not necessarily more accurate.
Click to expand...
The ESV translates the Greek for "from" as "before" in Revelation 13:8 as did the RSV. The NRSV corrects this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top