Any Baptists here use the RSV/NEB Oxford Study Bibles?

[Hermeneut7]

For half my life the KJV was my 'standard' in Bible study. Almost half my life was on the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible. The KJV is still my 'start point' in Bible study since most Hebrew/Greek helps are keyed to the Strong's #/KJV system. I left the free-will and dispensational views and now find the RSV/NRSV and NEB/REB Oxford Study Bibles to be of profit for me.

The NEB Oxford Study must be purchased at used book sources, but the REB is available and can be purchased on the computer Bible 'theWord"(www.theword.net), which also has the NET Bible free. The NEB NT is online free at: http://www.katapi.org.uk/NEB/master.html?http://www.katapi.org.uk/NEB/IntroContents.php

Years ago I stumbled across the NEB in a used bookstore and looked up some key verses and found them interesting and in agreement to how I'd studied them from the KJV. The scholars in the U.K. seem to come up with some fresh renderings in this translation, such as:

Mt. 24:34 " I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all."

2Th.2:13 " BUT WE ARE BOUND to thank God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because from the beginning of time God chose you to find salvation in the Spirit that consecrates you, and in the truth that you believe."

In the OT, it remains 'traditional' in Zech. 12:10 translating as:

"...but I will pour a spirit of pity and compassion into the line of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then 'They shall look on me, on him whom they have pierced,' and shall wail over him as over an only child, and shall grieve for him bitterly as for a first-born son."

 

[Yeshua1]

For half my life the KJV was my 'standard' in Bible study. Almost half my life was on the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible. The KJV is still my 'start point' in Bible study since most Hebrew/Greek helps are keyed to the Strong's #/KJV system. I left the free-will and dispensational views and now find the RSV/NRSV and NEB/REB Oxford Study Bibles to be of profit for me.

The NEB Oxford Study must be purchased at used book sources, but the REB is available and can be purchased on the computer Bible 'theWord"(www.theword.net), which also has the NET Bible free. The NEB NT is online free at: http://www.katapi.org.uk/NEB/master.html?http://www.katapi.org.uk/NEB/IntroContents.php

Years ago I stumbled across the NEB in a used bookstore and looked up some key verses and found them interesting and in agreement to how I'd studied them from the KJV. The scholars in the U.K. seem to come up with some fresh renderings in this translation, such as:

Mt. 24:34 " I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all."

2Th.2:13 " BUT WE ARE BOUND to thank God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because from the beginning of time God chose you to find salvation in the Spirit that consecrates you, and in the truth that you believe."

In the OT, it remains 'traditional' in Zech. 12:10 translating as:

"...but I will pour a spirit of pity and compassion into the line of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then 'They shall look on me, on him whom they have pierced,' and shall wail over him as over an only child, and shall grieve for him bitterly as for a first-born son."

the versions are OK, but MUCH better to use the Esv if you want to read updated Rsv, and those study bibles have critical schoarship notes, very bad!

 

[Hermeneut7]

the versions are OK, but MUCH better to use the Esv if you want to read updated Rsv, and those study bibles have critical schoarship notes, very bad!

When I wish to read an updated RSV, I read the NRSV. :smilewinkgrin: I have come to consult the NEB/REB & RSV/NRSV Oxford Study Bibles quite often and it is to look at critical scholarship in the translation. I have become concerned about theological bias in translations. I do not mean the ESV being biased by Calvinists. LOL I believe fully in the true deity of Jesus Christ, He is true and fully God! But, I wish to know that by the very best translation possible without reading into the Scripture that theology. I'll give you two examples of why the ESV is not a version of my choice, though I own 3 Study Bibles that use the ESV. Let me compare the ESV to the NEB on a text.

"To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." (Rom 9:5, ESV2011)

There are no translator footnotes indicating any other possible translation and the "ESV Study Bible" annotation reads: "...and he is not merely a human being but is also fully God."

The NEB reads:

"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen."

The translator footnote in the NEB reads: "Or sprang the Messiah, supreme above all, God blessed for ever; or sprang the Messiah, who is supreme above all. Blessed be God for ever."

The RSV also gives a footnote explaining the questions on translation. Yet, the ESV reads as if there are not questions over the best way to punctuate the verse. I frankly feel the RSV captures it well, even though the NRSV reversed course on it.

"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." (Rom 9:5 RSV)
"to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Rom 9:5 NRSV)

Another tip off verse that brings me to shun not only the ESV as authoritative for me, but most all the modern evangelical versions: NKJV, NASB95, NIV, NLT, HCSB, etc. is how modern fundamentalist thought changes the historic view of Ex. 21:22 rendering by some form of "miscarriage". That is another lengthy post though but check the modern versions against the: Wycliffe, KJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB on Ex. 21:22.

 

[Yeshua1]

When I wish to read an updated RSV, I read the NRSV. :smilewinkgrin: I have come to consult the NEB/REB & RSV/NRSV Oxford Study Bibles quite often and it is to look at critical scholarship in the translation. I have become concerned about theological bias in translations. I do not mean the ESV being biased by Calvinists. LOL I believe fully in the true deity of Jesus Christ, He is true and fully God! But, I wish to know that by the very best translation possible without reading into the Scripture that theology. I'll give you two examples of why the ESV is not a version of my choice, though I own 3 Study Bibles that use the ESV. Let me compare the ESV to the NEB on a text.

"To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." (Rom 9:5, ESV2011)

There are no translator footnotes indicating any other possible translation and the "ESV Study Bible" annotation reads: "...and he is not merely a human being but is also fully God."

The NEB reads:

"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen."

The translator footnote in the NEB reads: "Or sprang the Messiah, supreme above all, God blessed for ever; or sprang the Messiah, who is supreme above all. Blessed be God for ever."

The RSV also gives a footnote explaining the questions on translation. Yet, the ESV reads as if there are not questions over the best way to punctuate the verse. I frankly feel the RSV captures it well, even though the NRSV reversed course on it.

"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." (Rom 9:5 RSV)
"to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." (Rom 9:5 NRSV)

Another tip off verse that brings me to shun not only the ESV as authoritative for me, but most all the modern evangelical versions: NKJV, NASB95, NIV, NLT, HCSB, etc. is how modern fundamentalist thought changes the historic view of Ex. 21:22 rendering by some form of "miscarriage". That is another lengthy post though but check the modern versions against the: Wycliffe, KJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NEB, REB on Ex. 21:22.

The NEB though was/is NOT intended to be a literal translations, as it was much losser/freerer then even the Nsb were, and the NRSV is basically just another way that translators show horned into the text the issues on "gender bias"

prefer to stick with more literal versions, or esle those done better, such as nasb/Nkjv/Niv 1984 etc!

And those study notes are again, really bad...

 

[Hermeneut7]

The NEB though was/is NOT intended to be a literal translations, as it was much losser/freerer then even the Nsb were, and the NRSV is basically just another way that translators show horned into the text the issues on "gender bias"

prefer to stick with more literal versions, or esle those done better, such as nasb/Nkjv/Niv 1984 etc!

And those study notes are again, really bad...

I used to view the notes as simply apostate, but, I have found some tips in those notes and helpful cross references. I grew up on Scofield Reference Bible notes, so I know what "really bad" is. :smilewinkgrin:

If I had an Oxford Study Bible along side my Scofield, I may have noticed this caution in the Oxford Study Bible/RSV notes on Rev. 20:2- "One must beware of reading more into this passage than is warranted; e.g. nothing is said here about a reign on earth."

It as an Oxford Study Bible footnote on Rom. 3:22 that alerted me how the NRSV added the translator note that it can be "faith of Jesus Christ" and then in the footnote discusses it to prompt study. The KJV has "faith of Jesus Christ", the ASV renders "in" with footnote "of". The RSV "in" but no footnote. The NRSV went back to the ASV rendering "in" but footnoting "of" and the Study Bible then discusses it along with other passages. I even gain using the Orthodox Study Bible with its 49 Old Testament books! In fact, reading in the Orthodox Study Bible I was prompted to ask: We Baptists worship on the first day of the week, not by command, but by example of the NT church. So, why do we not likewise have the Lord's Supper on each first day of the week by example, Acts 20:7, 11.

When a liberal Study Bible tells me Peter did not write 2 Peter, even though 2 Peter claims for itself just that very fact, I of course believe the word of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

I used to view the notes as simply apostate, but, I have found some tips in those notes and helpful cross references. I grew up on Scofield Reference Bible notes, so I know what "really bad" is. :smilewinkgrin:

If I had an Oxford Study Bible along side my Scofield, I may have noticed this caution in the Oxford Study Bible/RSV notes on Rev. 20:2- "One must beware of reading more into this passage than is warranted; e.g. nothing is said here about a reign on earth."

It as an Oxford Study Bible footnote on Rom. 3:22 that alerted me how the NRSV added the translator note that it can be "faith of Jesus Christ" and then in the footnote discusses it to prompt study. The KJV has "faith of Jesus Christ", the ASV renders "in" with footnote "of". The RSV "in" but no footnote. The NRSV went back to the ASV rendering "in" but footnoting "of" and the Study Bible then discusses it along with other passages. I even gain using the Orthodox Study Bible with its 49 Old Testament books! In fact, reading in the Orthodox Study Bible I was prompted to ask: We Baptists worship on the first day of the week, not by command, but by example of the NT church. So, why do we not likewise have the Lord's Supper on each first day of the week by example, Acts 20:7, 11.

When a liberal Study Bible tells me Peter did not write 2 Peter, even though 2 Peter claims for itself just that very fact, I of course believe the word of God.

The Notes of that bible are all from the liberal/critical school of theology, so again, not worth buying it, if you like the version, just buy a plain jane Nrsv instead!

 

[Hermeneut7]

The Notes of that bible are all from the liberal/critical school of theology, so again, not worth buying it, if you like the version, just buy a plain jane Nrsv instead!

I have access to 13 modern Study Bibles I use along with historic commentaries, to see current views from all perspectives, including Orthodox & Roman Catholic. I lived too long in life thinking my own little group had all the truth. I learn from liberal, higher criticism input Study Bibles also. I'll give an example from eschatology. My view of last things is this: on the last day Jesus Christ will return suddenly, without warning. There will then be the general resurrection and the judgment and we go into eternal blessedness as saints. Anything more than that I see as opinions read into the Scripture and there surely are many human systems of eschatology! I grew up and almost all my life thought only Bible deniers saw the 4 kingdoms in Daniel 2 as any other than the Babylonian, Mede-Persion, Greece and then Rome. That is traditional in the Reformed tradition, but I noticed the higher criticism Oxford notes gave another view, based on Scripture. I believe that Scripture interprets Scripture, so to identify the 4 kingdoms we look at what other Scriptures teach. I found that to my satisfaction, from Scripture, the kingdoms are: Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, and the Macedonian Greek. I agree to this by comparing Dan. 8:20-21 and the Medes are mentioned independently, Jer. 51:11, 28. Then, in v43 the Oxford again shows me that the intermarriage mentioned with the 4th kingdom is referred to the Greeks in Dan. 11:6, 17. I find this view is supported by Scripture and have a problem with understanding Scripture by comparing secular history over comparing Scripture.

Now, that may be mainly in the higher criticism produced Study Bibles, but yet the LCMS Lutheran Study Bible, hardly liberal or higher criticism, agrees with these 4 kingdoms as Babylon, Medes, Persia and Greece. I do not trust most modern teachers and preachers in evangelical circles, so I study mainly from the older works like Matthew Poole, the JFB, John Gill, Adam Clarke, etc., but I do find some thought provoking ideas in the modern Study Bibles.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have access to 13 modern Study Bibles I use along with historic commentaries, to see current views from all perspectives, including Orthodox & Roman Catholic. I lived too long in life thinking my own little group had all the truth. I learn from liberal, higher criticism input Study Bibles also. I'll give an example from eschatology. My view of last things is this: on the last day Jesus Christ will return suddenly, without warning. There will then be the general resurrection and the judgment and we go into eternal blessedness as saints. Anything more than that I see as opinions read into the Scripture and there surely are many human systems of eschatology! I grew up and almost all my life thought only Bible deniers saw the 4 kingdoms in Daniel 2 as any other than the Babylonian, Mede-Persion, Greece and then Rome. That is traditional in the Reformed tradition, but I noticed the higher criticism Oxford notes gave another view, based on Scripture. I believe that Scripture interprets Scripture, so to identify the 4 kingdoms we look at what other Scriptures teach. I found that to my satisfaction, from Scripture, the kingdoms are: Babylonian, the Median, the Persian, and the Macedonian Greek. I agree to this by comparing Dan. 8:20-21 and the Medes are mentioned independently, Jer. 51:11, 28. Then, in v43 the Oxford again shows me that the intermarriage mentioned with the 4th kingdom is referred to the Greeks in Dan. 11:6, 17. I find this view is supported by Scripture and have a problem with understanding Scripture by comparing secular history over comparing Scripture.

Now, that may be mainly in the higher criticism produced Study Bibles, but yet the LCMS Lutheran Study Bible, hardly liberal or higher criticism, agrees with these 4 kingdoms as Babylon, Medes, Persia and Greece. I do not trust most modern teachers and preachers in evangelical circles, so I study mainly from the older works like Matthew Poole, the JFB, John Gill, Adam Clarke, etc., but I do find some thought provoking ideas in the modern Study Bibles.

You are desribing A mil eshatology, which is acceptable to hold with, as it is a valid option, but my complaint on those liberal study bibles much more into they deny authorship of genesis by moses, deny prophetic element, see fall spiritaulized, as most of the miracle sin the bible!

 

[Hermeneut7]

You are desribing A mil eshatology, which is acceptable to hold with, as it is a valid option, but my complaint on those liberal study bibles much more into they deny authorship of genesis by moses, deny prophetic element, see fall spiritaulized, as most of the miracle sin the bible!

To back up to something you mentioned earlier. I read the KJV/ASV/RSV(2)/NRSV & U.K. NEB/REB. ... You can't get much more literal and word for word than the ASV. Now, any translation is a mix of literal and dynamic approach and I compare them. The NEB was fresh and I may say, rather bold in its translation being a new work, not a revision of the RV. I like that when I study. As to the Study Bibles, I do not believe everything in the book introductions and notes in ANY Study Bible, the Macarthur SB, the Reformation SB, the ESV SB included. One point I always found amusing. Conservative belly ache that critics date the book of Daniel later saying he was writing from a later perspective. We know Daniel was a prophet, he did not have to live at the later time! But, these same critics of the liberals date the book of Revelation 95AD by the same reasoning. Revelation the way I read it was written prior to 70AD or 11:1,2 makes no sense in the timing given in 1:1,3 and 22:6,10. Would I recommend ANY Study Bible to a new Christian? Absolutely not. That is what the Baptist Confessions of Faith (1644, 1689) and the Catechisms are for, foundations in the faith.

 

[clark thompson]

I have used them they are not the best out there in my opinion.

 

[Yeshua1]

To back up to something you mentioned earlier. I read the KJV/ASV/RSV(2)/NRSV & U.K. NEB/REB. ... You can't get much more literal and word for word than the ASV. Now, any translation is a mix of literal and dynamic approach and I compare them. The NEB was fresh and I may say, rather bold in its translation being a new work, not a revision of the RV. I like that when I study. As to the Study Bibles, I do not believe everything in the book introductions and notes in ANY Study Bible, the Macarthur SB, the Reformation SB, the ESV SB included. One point I always found amusing. Conservative belly ache that critics date the book of Daniel later saying he was writing from a later perspective. We know Daniel was a prophet, he did not have to live at the later time! But, these same critics of the liberals date the book of Revelation 95AD by the same reasoning. Revelation the way I read it was written prior to 70AD or 11:1,2 makes no sense in the timing given in 1:1,3 and 22:6,10. Would I recommend ANY Study Bible to a new Christian? Absolutely not. That is what the Baptist Confessions of Faith (1644, 1689) and the Catechisms are for, foundations in the faith.

Their worst aspects are the very liberal and critical book introductions and study notes!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread from 2014 is closed.