Featured Revised Standard Version

I always thought that it was the NASV!

 

The RSV translation is a heretical one. Dr O T Allis in an appendix to his excellent book, "Revision or new translation?: " The revised standard version of 1946, " a comparative study. Revised version or revised Bible? : a critique of the Revised standard version of the Old Testament (1952)", shows the extreme Liberal views by the Committee of this version. I don't have access to this book now, but remember reading it many years ago. You can see some facts about this version, here A Critique of the Revised Standard Version

 

I see a lot of hype in the article and some weak arguments. The first person stating his led off with "this may or may not be true". Then began to list heretical doctrines held with any supporting documentation. Next argument is the Isaiah issue I mentioned in my 2nd post. I don't think this makes it heretical. The RSV acknowledges the virgin birth in the NT. What they avoided was a perceived implication that Isaiah's wife was virgin when she gave birth to their second child. A 2nd "fact they mentioned was that sarx was rendered as "body". Every lexicon I have, including the BDAG acknowledges this is a meaning of the word. A 3rd "fact" the present has proving it is heretical is the fact they fail to capitalize pronouns refering to the divine, such as "Son" ...or in the RSV's case "son".

Seems like the article is a bit of an overreaction.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

newspaper article from 1953:



"The Rev. Guy Weniger, an Oakland Baptist minister...urged investigation of the 'Communist-front activities' of the translators of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible."

 

Hahahaha

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Two more proofs offered by the link above to support the claim that the RSV is heretical....

"Psalm 45 are obscured by the Revised Standard rendering of "you" for "Thou" as if deity were not addressed."

"It has been declared on good authority that upwards of $500,000.00 was spent to promote the advertisement and sale of the book. This huge financial venture on the part of the copyright-holding Council and the publishers constitutes a monopolizing commercial scheme which will enrich the NCCC"

...yeah....not putting much stock in the piece by DTS faculty from the 1950's

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Couple minor items which from current perspective might seem to view the arguments of the 50’s as silly.

1) The “red scare” was a reality that few questioned. Communism was and still remains a threat, the socialist objective was never to obliterate, but as in the 60’s Khrushchev the U.S. would drop as a over ripe corrupt fruit into their hands. Pretty much their objective has been met.

2) One must also remember that from the mid 50’s many adults in leadership moved to a reactionary rather then a fair analysis. Parents and scholars wrestled with the growing rebelliousness and anything “new” was looked upon as suspect. Therefore the reviews of the RSV would reflect that bias, imo.

Ultimately, imo, the RSV could have been much better, and is not viewed in such a derogatory light, in modern times, primarily because of the stacks of other translations that are in deed even less credible (imo).

If the KJV was good enough for Jesus to use, that should be the standard for everyone to use, even the nonEnglish speakers. Don’t you agree?

 

I think Dick Cheney is ultimately responsible.

 

You speak of "hype", then I suggest you see some facts.

1. Genesis 22:16, the RSV has rendered the Hebrew, "זַרְעֲךָ֔", by "descendants", whereas the Hebrew noun is masculine and singular. This is a Prophecy of Jesus Christ as Paul tells us in Galatians 3:16, where he makes the point in saying, "seed" and "not seeds". The RSV has no authority to change the singular to plural, and remove the fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

2. For the all important verse in the Old Testament, for the "conception" of the Lord Jesus Christ, again, the RSV has rendered the Hebrew noun, "עַלְמָ֗ה", by "young woman". Two important points must be made here. Firstly, by doing so, they have removed any reference to this verse being a Prophecy for the Virgin Conception of the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, they have challenged the direct Inspiration of the Gospel of Matthew, who clearly says in his Gospel, 1:22, that this Prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Matthew also uses the Greek, "παρθένος (virgin)", and not "νεᾶνις", which is the word for "young woman". The RSV are saying that Matthew, who wrote under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, is wrong in quoting Isaiah 7:14 for Jesus Christ. Thereby denying the divine inspiration of this passage.

see, The Promise of a Saviour-King - Edward J. Young

3. In Matthew 1:25, the RSV against the greater textual evidence, have removed "πρωτότοκος", (firstborn), which is another reference to the Lord Jesus Christ' Birth.

4. In Romans 9:5, another strong text for the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been changed, following the Liberal rendering of the Greek, "ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν." (Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen), to read, "to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.". The RSV has been very careful in their punctuation, to make sure that Jesus Christ is not the "God over all".

5. In Colossians 1:14, the words, "διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ" (through His blood), have been removed.

6. in 1 Timothy 3:16, another strong and clear text to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been corrupted. Where, instead of "θεὸς" (God), they have used, "ὃς". John Burgon, one of the best textual scholars the Church has had, did a masterful work on this verse, and over 100 years later, has nor can be refuted. You can read this for yourself here, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Jesus/1tim3_16_burgon.pdf

7. Again, the clearest verses for the Holy Trinity, 1 John 5:7, was tampered with in the RSV, and made sure to remove any reference to the God, Whom is One Being, but Three Persons: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. I have done some personal studies over the years on this great and important verse, even though I first has some doubts on its genuineness.

The Testimony of two early Church scholars, Tertullian and Cyprian, who wrote over 100-150 years before the oldest Greek manuscript that we have for this text, knew of it in their New Testaments, both Greek and Latin. Here is my personal research, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/cyptert.pdf

Likewise for the man how was responsible for giving the Church the Latin Vulgate translation, Jerome, which you can read in my study, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/jerome.pdf

Lastly, but not least, I have shown from the internal Greek grammar of the entire passage that this verse is in, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the words from the context, without causing problems which the Lord would not have allowed. http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/1jn5.6-10.pdf

Ad Dei gloriam!

 

I had to use the RSV for a college course. I didn't like it very much. As a "modern" translation I will give it a 5.

A.F.

 

Hey A.F. I haven't seen you in these parts for about 32 months. Nice to see you again.

 

The truth though is that one can for legit reasons translate either Virgin, or young woman in Hebrew text, but the Holy Spirit made it clear meant Virgin, so did the Rsv not call Mary a Virgin?

 

Some areas where it can be improved upon, but overall "not that bad", but still would prefer the Esv to it!

 

You are wrong as there is not a single use in the Bible, where the Hebrew, "almah", does not mean "virgin". The deliberate change by the RSV to "young woman", removes the fact that the person referred to in Prophecy by Isaiah, was a "virgin"; as a "young woman", may or may not be a "virgin".The Holy Spirit in BOTH Isaiah and Matthew meant VIRGIN, and nothing else. Give me the warrant that allows any version to render the Hebrew as not "virgin"

 

They would not be reading the NT theology back into the OT passage, but were expressing how the hebrew would normally have understood it, and they also were connecting this to an immediate fulfilled of the prophet Isaiah own son being born...

 

I suggest you read the two excellent works done on this passage in Isaiah, with special attention to the Hebrew, almah, by Robert Dick Wilson and Edward J Young,which show beyond any doubt, that the ONLY possible rendering of the Hebrew is VIRGIN. These two scholars were among the best for Old Testament studies, and whose conclusions are irrefutable. You are mistaken to say that the Hebrew "almah" means "young woman", as this can be taken as someone who was not necessary a "virgin". The Hebrew very clearly shows that the "young woman IS a virgin", which is best rendered as "virgin", which removes any confusion.

 

so you know more than Wilson and Young? You have go to be kidding!