NRSV? any thoughts

http://www.cbaonline.org/BestSellers/bestSellerBibles.jsp

 

i have used an NRSV since I was in third grade, never made me a liberal. There are a few parts that I have a problem with, but I like it

Until Next Post, Adam

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jude:
http://www.cbaonline.org/BestSellers/bestSellerBibles.jsp <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That link was interesting. Didn't even have the NRSV in the Top Ten of translations sold.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:


That link was interesting. Didn't even have the NRSV in the Top Ten of translations sold.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But it does have the Mess .. er .. I mean Message and NLT consistently outselling the NASB, which just boggles my mind.

 

The Message, at least, states outright that it is a paraphrase. However, it is not openly advertised that the NLT (I've never been able to get much out of it, myself) is so heavy in its use of dynamic equivalence that it is nearly a paraphrase itself. Worse still is that the 3rd bestselling study Bible is the NLT version of the Life Application Study Bible. Who on earth got the idea that the NLT is suitable for serious Bible study, and why is that trend going without stop?

I have the bestselling study Bible, the NIV Study Bible by Zondervan, but prefer my NKJV Nelson Study Bible since I find the NKJV and NASB best for study. The NASB Study Bible by Zondervan is exactly the same as the NIV Study Bible except that it contains the NASB text instead of the NIV text. In any case, it is disheartening to see that 4 of the top 5 Study Bibles are in the popular heavy-dynamic equivalence versions, and the only formal equivalent Bible on the list is the KJV, which has its own problems with aging. In any case, I can't confidently say that most Bible buyers are getting versions that are competent for in-depth study.

-Wayne

 

I agree wholeheartedly, Wayne. The NLT is also as gender-inclusive as the NRSV, but the bigger problem I feel, is that it changes singular pronouns to plural, actually affecting individual eschatology and soteriology.

BTW, where is Tabernacle NJ? I was born and raised in Clifton NJ, went to Clifton High and Montclair State College.

 

All new Bible "translations" are of the Devil. They all take out very fundamentals of the faith, such as the cleansing Blood, the virgin birth, etc. The NIV even calls Jesus a sinner. Do not use any of them. The KJB is the only preserved Word of God. It was translated from the Texus Receptus, or Recieved Text, using word for word translation. The rest were translated from other sources using theory translation. That means the translators made it say what they THOUGHT it meant. Over a 1000 words and verses have been deleted from all of them. Rev. 22:19 strictly forbids anyone to take away from the Word of God, and that is exatly what the owners of these new "translations" have done.

 

DSM, can you give us supporting scripture or other evidence that the modern versions are "of the devil" and that the KJV is the "only Preserved word of God" and always uses "word for word" translation? Thank you.

 

Chris--Tabernacle is in the pinelands in southern NJ, in Burlington County. It's more scenic than much of the rest of the state, too. I hadn't read enough of the NLT to know that it went so far as to change number. The fact that it still packages itself as a standard translation (all NLTs that I've seen use the Holy Bible on the front, as per KJV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NKJV) is downright dishonest, and I feel that Tyndale should not advertise it as a straight translation of the original texts, but a paraphrase and reinterpretation of them.

DSM--I'm sorry, brother, but that is simply not true. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that you may be misinformed and not lying, but the NASB and NKJV are popular modern versions that ARE formal equivalent. I disprove of the NIV and NLT specifically because I think they are too dynamic equivalent, and I markedly prefer the NKJV (from the same texts as the KJV, or off by a tiny margin in the case of the OT) and look forward to the ESV, which promises to be a highly formal equivalent translation (the NRSV being my tide-over companion to the NKJV in the mean time).

-Wayne

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DSM:
All new Bible "translations" are of the Devil. They all take out very fundamentals of the faith, such as the cleansing Blood, the virgin birth, etc. The NIV even calls Jesus a sinner. Do not use any of them. The KJB is the only preserved Word of God. It was translated from the Texus Receptus, or Recieved Text, using word for word translation. The rest were translated from other sources using theory translation. That means the translators made it say what they THOUGHT it meant. Over a 1000 words and verses have been deleted from all of them. Rev. 22:19 strictly forbids anyone to take away from the Word of God, and that is exatly what the owners of these new "translations" have done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The KJV was not completely translated from "Texus Receptus". Portions of it are from the Bishop's Bible and the Latin Vulgate. Also, it does not reflect the translation of older, more reliable manuscripts discovered since it was both translated and modified. The virgin birth is a clear presence in the NIV, the NRSV and the NASB. And if you're going to accuse a translation of calling Jesus a sinner, you need a reference.

There are no "word for word" translations of the Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew into English, since it is not possible to render a "word for word" syntax of either language into English. There are more supplied words (written in italics) in the KJV than in any other English translation of the Bible.

By the way, "Textus Receptus" is not in the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, it is in Latin, which makes the KJV a translation of a translation. At that, it has a very strong bias toward the Anglican Church, which authorized and approved it.

The marketing and sales figures for various Bible translations are meaningless with regard to their accuracy. The NIV, which I do not consider to be one of the better English translations by the way, has been highly successful and has surpassed sales of the KJV mainly because it has a more lenient copyright and is being published, marketed and sold by most major Christian publishing houses. Most of the KJV sales in the past two decades have been text Bibles made for mass distribution.

You're not going to find a Bible translation that does not reflect at least some of the biases of the translators, no matter how many different denominations are represented, or how careful they try to be. Your best bet, if you are really interested, is to either find a college where you can study Hebrew and Greek, or get yourself a dictionary and a lexicon.

By the way, verses and chapters have nothing to do with the original writing or the context or meaning of the passages. The chapters were added for reference by copyists in the 12th and 13th century. The verse references were added after the invention of the printing press.

[ August 21, 2001: Message edited by: RobertLynn ]

 

Just a quick favor. Not to steal your thunder, Dr. Cassidy, but could DSM please proceed with the 4,986,385th rumination of why "The MVs are of Satan and only the KJV is of God" someplace else? This isn't really the thread for it.

I agree that the NLT is much more of an overall paraphrase than it is a translation. The reason why people accept it as a study translation is the huge marketing thrust the Tyndale folks have mounted IMHO. Tyndale will even send you a NLT Bible for free if you are a pastor, and you write and ask for one. The reverse is true of the NASB. Lockman has only recently stepped up its marketing of the NASB to a point where the new update is even barely noticable on the radar screen. But with the emergence of the ESV, I'm afraid the NASB will be stuck where it is. The literal translation market niche is pretty crowded with the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and it will only be more so with the ESV forthcoming.

 

To make everyone feel better, here it goes.
The NIV perverts the diety of Christ:
1 Tim. 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh..."(KJB). The NIV reads "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body,...". Who appeared in a body, I know I did. There goes Jesus' diety.
The NIV preverts the virgin birth:
Luke 2:33 "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."(KJB). The NIV reads "The child's father and mother...". Joseph wasn't Jesus' father, God was. There goes the virgin birth.
The NIV removes the blood of Jesus:
Colossians 1:14 "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"(KJB). The NIV says "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.". Where are the words "through His blood," gone, outa there. Another truth gone.
The NIV turns Jesus into a sinner:
Mat 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause..."(KJB). The NIV says "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement."
Mat 21:12 "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,"(KJB). Sounds like Jesus got mad there, and rightfully so. But according to the NIV, he is subject to judgement, which makes him a sinner. But wait, we need sinless blood to cleanse us so we can get to heaven, if Jesus was a sinner, then whose blood are we gonna use. Oh, thats right, the NIV doesn't believe in cleansing blood. Good luck.
Need anymore proof, I've got a ton.

And to you RobertLynn, there were no older or more reliabe manuscripts discovered since the translation of the 1611AV. Dr. Sam Gipp said "The fact is, that the King James translators had all of the readings available to them that modern critics have available to them today." (The Answer Book, Gipp, p. 110). Nothing new has been discovered. And futhermore, 90-95 percent of all those readings agree with the King James, bet you can't say that about your perversion.

 

DSM,
Not trying to steal Dr. Cassidy's thunder again, but this is really off topic in this thread. Do a search in the Bible versions/translations area of this board and you'll find that this has all been hashed a blue billion times. If you want to make it a blue billion and one, have at it. But do it in the proper area.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DSM:
And futhermore, 90-95 percent of all those readings agree with the King James, bet you can't say that about your perversion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>DSM, there is no stronger defender of the KJV then I, but let me point out a few things to you. First, you have compared the NIV to the KJV and said the NIV perverts the deity of Christ. Fine, it is obvious the two versions differ, but how do you know the KJV readings are correct, and the NIV readings are wrong? Have you simply assumed as your a priori assumption that the KJV is correct so anything that disagrees with the KJV must be wrong? If so, how would you argue against a man whose a priori assumption is that the NIV is always right and because the KJV differs it must be wrong? What evidence can we put forth that will indicate that the KJV reading is superior to the NIV reading?

Secondly, although I believe the NIV is a poor translation, many good and godly Christians use it and may be offended by your calling it a "perversion." Remember the words of Jesus in Matthew 18:6, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

Can you give us evidence that the KJV is superior to the modern versions? Not that it is different, as we already know that, so a long list of verse comparisons will not tell us anything we don't already know, but evidence. Can you give us scripture which says, in effect, "The KJV is superior to the modern versions," or "Thou shalt only use the KJV," or words to that effect. If not, can you give us evidence from history which will point to the superiority of the readings contained in the KJV?

Thank you. I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion.

 

Just started reading this thread and would like to digress to some earlier discussion:

Speaking of "middle," right, left, etc., what I consider the middle would differ completely with "the world" and Joshua. The plumb line of God's Word is my middle ground! Walking the plumb line (center, middle) of God's Word is considered by "the world," the religious moderates and liberals to be "the religious far right!" Now isn't that just hillarious? Or sad!

[ August 22, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
Just started reading this thread and would like to digress to some earlier discussion:

Speaking of "middle," right, left, etc., what I consider the middle would differ completely with "the world" and Joshua. The plumb line of God's Word is my middle ground! Walking the plumb line (center, middle) of God's Word is considered by "the world," the religious moderates and liberals to be "the religious far right!" Now isn't that just hillarious? Or sad!

[ August 22, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMEN wellsjs!!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RobertLynn:
By the way, "Textus Receptus" is not in the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, it is in Latin, which makes the KJV a translation of a translation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am sorry, but the above statement is way out in left field. The Textus Receptus is a collection of 30+ editions of the New Testament in the Greek language following the Byzantine text-form. The term "Textus Receptus" is a Latin term refering to a Greek text form!

 

Deary, Deary me

Another KJV only thread. Look, friends, if the commands not to add or remove anything from the Bible, were literal then:

[a]: We would have no books after Deuteronomy

"...Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you..." KJV (OR)

" ... Deu 4:2 You shall not add to the Word which I command you, nor take from it, to keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you ..." (LITV)

: Most modern scholars agree that the Book of Revelation was written before John's Gospel or 1-3rd John, so we would have to remove them from our bibles.

Frankly I find this whole topic aggranoying, why? Because, in the guise of protecting God's word, folk who describe themselves as Christian are quite happy to slander and defame fellow believers and put at nought the wondrous documents that God has enabled archaeologists to find.

Kiwimac