Revised Standard Version

[Saved-By-Grace]

No, rather that it was a dual fulfillment, as the immediate one was the son born to a young woman, and the later and greater fulfillment was the Son born of a Virgin!

your evidence for this is? Isaiah 7:14 clearly says that THIS child will be "עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל", IMMANUEL, which is "GOD WITH US", in the literal sense. Matthew, writing under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that this is ONLY fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ. Who do you think is right? Scripture, or man's reasoning?

 

[Yeshua1]

your evidence for this is? Isaiah 7:14 clearly says that THIS child will be "עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל", IMMANUEL, which is "GOD WITH US", in the literal sense. Matthew, writing under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says that this is ONLY fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ. Who do you think is right? Scripture, or man's reasoning?

The Holy spirit took the prophecy that applied to the time of the Prophet, and also applied it towards Jesus. same way he took "Out of Egypt called my Son," that meant Israel original setting, but he applied it also towards Jesus!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

The Holy spirit took the prophecy that applied to the time of the Prophet, and also applied it towards Jesus. same way he took "Out of Egypt called my Son," that meant Israel original setting, but he applied it also towards Jesus!

ONLY the words that are quoted in Prophecy are relevant to the writer, like Matthew. the surrounding words may have nothing to do with what is included in this Prophecy. Hebrews 1:5 reads, ""and again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son", which is quoted from 2 Samuel 7:14. But the following words are IMPOSSIBLE to refer to Jesus Christ, which says, ""if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men".

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

There were both brilliant, but neither was an Apostle, and they were wrong on this one issue!

then you can check me out and see what I say and then comment it you like, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Jesus/isaiah7-14.pdf

 

[TCassidy]

people like you are wrong

I am sorry you do not understand how prophecy goes from a known, present, statement to a prophetic, future statement.

I have tried to educate you, but alas, to no avail.

Read chapter 8 for the birth of the son prophesied in chapter 7 verse 14. Then read Matthew for the greater, prophetic, birth of Christ.

This entire idiotic discussion started with a critique of the Revised Standard Version of the bible. Unfortunately you don't know enough about the issue to offer cogent discourse on the subject, but instead dragged the thread off on a rabbit trail.

So, back to the OP. Are the criticisms of the RSV valid, partially valid, or invalid?

 

[rlvaughn]

It is well to admit that interpreting the details of Isaiah 7:14 in its context cause difficulty and consternation. Most all conservatives can agree on the remote fulfillment in Jesus born of Mary, a virgin, while wrangling over the immediate application (if there is one).

The two main ideas I have seen regarding this as a dual prophecy are that the immediate Immanuel is:

• Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, or
• Maher-shalal-hash-baz, son of Isaiah

These to have the following difficulties. The mathematics of Hezekiah's age when he became king shows he was already born before this time (He was 25 years old when he began to reign, and Ahaz's reign only lasted 16 years). God told Isaiah to name his second son Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which is not the same name and means something different than Immanuel. The rank assigned to Immanuel in Isaiah 8:8 also doesn't seem to fit Isaiah's son.

Another interpretation (which I hold, but have not heard as often, and which is not without some difficulties of its own) is that (1) verses 14-15 concern Jesus, the Immanuel, God with us, and is a sign to the house of David (you, plural, v. 14), and that (2) and verse 16 concerns Isaiah's son Shearjashub, who Isaiah brought with him, and is a sign to Ahaz (thee, singular, v. 7). This includes an immediate sign that Ahaz can "read" (i.e., before Isaiah's son knows enough to refuse the evil and choose the good, two kings will be destroyed, verses 8-9, 16), and a future sign to the nation of the coming Messiah.

 

[TCassidy]

God told Isaiah to name his second son Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which is not the same name and means something different than Immanuel.

And Mary and Joseph didn't name Jesus "Immanuel" either.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

And Mary and Joseph didn't name Jesus "Immanuel" either.

So, what of Isaiah 9:6, do you think this refers to Jesus Christ, or maybe Isaiah or someone else? Note what it says:

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. "

You will notice the same verb, קָרָא that is used in 7:14, used here. How many people do you know in the New Testament, ever CALL Jesus "Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."? Yes, ALL of these are 100% true in Jesus Christ, because He is Almighty God. Like that of Isaiah 7:14, HE and no one else is CALLED עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל, because as the Apostle Paul says, "θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί", which corresponds with עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I am sorry you do not understand how prophecy goes from a known, present, statement to a prophetic, future statement.

I have tried to educate you, but alas, to no avail.

Read chapter 8 for the birth of the son prophesied in chapter 7 verse 14. Then read Matthew for the greater, prophetic, birth of Christ.

This entire idiotic discussion started with a critique of the Revised Standard Version of the bible. Unfortunately you don't know enough about the issue to offer cogent discourse on the subject, but instead dragged the thread off on a rabbit trail.

So, back to the OP. Are the criticisms of the RSV valid, partially valid, or invalid?

If you look back, you can read what I have said on this version

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I am sorry you do not understand how prophecy goes from a known, present, statement to a prophetic, future statement.

I have tried to educate you, but alas, to no avail.

Read chapter 8 for the birth of the son prophesied in chapter 7 verse 14. Then read Matthew for the greater, prophetic, birth of Christ.

This entire idiotic discussion started with a critique of the Revised Standard Version of the bible. Unfortunately you don't know enough about the issue to offer cogent discourse on the subject, but instead dragged the thread off on a rabbit trail.

So, back to the OP. Are the criticisms of the RSV valid, partially valid, or invalid?

Hebrews 1:5 is an Old Testament Prophecy of Jesus Christ, which is from 2 Samuel 7:14. Would you say that the words that follow in the 2 Samuel text, also apply to Jesus Christ? ONLY what is quoted by Matthew (and elsewhere) from Isaiah, is relevant for what is being said. What precedes and follows need not matter at all to this.

 

[TCassidy]

What does your post have to do with the thread topic, "The Revised Standard Version?"

 

[Salty]

So, back to the OP. Are the criticisms of the RSV valid, partially valid, or invalid?

Words of wisdom form TC

 

[rlvaughn]

Salty, I've started another thread on Isaiah 7:14, to help reign in that discussion here.

Words of wisdom form TC

Wise? He was the one who showed us the road and gave us the keys!

 

[Van]

Much has been said in the section about the NASB, NKJV, NIV - ect.
But I hardly see any comments on the RSV
So on a scale of 1 -10 (and KJV being an 11)
how would you rate the RSV
Open for discussion

Hello Salty, this response addresses your opening post, I did not read very many of the follow-on posts.

I think the NRSV improves on the RSV, and therefore, if someone must use that version, stick with the NRSV. The ESV has a great many flawed verses because it did not adopt the revisions in the NRSV, such as Revelations 13:8.
I would rate the RSV no more than a 5, and the NRSV and ESV as a 6. As far as Genesis 22:18 goes, seed is the best translation choice (NKJV and NASB) but "offspring" which could refer to a single person (Jesus) is not actually wrong. The RSV's descendants is an unnecessary choice which calls into question Galatians 3:16.

As I indicated I would put all three in Mrs. Clinton's basket.

 

[Jerome]

bible-researcher.com/rsv.html

"The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles, chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish) context. Christian interpretations, including those of the New Testament writers, are therefore deliberately excluded as 'anachronistic'."

"The objections of conservatives to the RSV were not merely captious criticisms concerning the meaning of a word here and there; the controversy was about whether or not a version of the Old Testament which ignores and contradicts the New Testament, as well as itself, in so many places, has any right to be received as the standard Bible of American churches."

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

What does your post have to do with the thread topic, "The Revised Standard Version?"

because all of your posts don't always deal with the OP. I am responding to your comments on the reading in the RSV, which is the topic under discussion, on Isaiah 7:14.

 

[Garrett20]

Much has been said in the section about the NASB, NKJV, NIV - ect.

But I hardly see any comments on the RSV

So on a scale of 1 -10 (and KJV being an 11)

how would you rate the RSV

Open for discussion

I do not mind the RSV and would rank it a 6 on my preferred list (subjective, I know). I can guarantee you that God used it to accomplish His purposes.

I am a Byzantine Textform-preferred man... but my church faithfully preaches from the ESV. The RSV of course is it’s predecessor. I have no issues with either.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I do not mind the RSV and would rank it a 6 on my preferred list (subjective, I know). I can guarantee you that God used it to accomplish His purposes.

I am a Byzantine Textform-preferred man... but my church faithfully preaches from the ESV. The RSV of course is it’s predecessor. I have no issues with either.

This translation is heretical in many places, so I seriously doubt if it is in any way "blessed" by God. The fact that the Lord does use any translation, as He has the Jehovah's Witnesses, NWT, does not mean much!

 

[Garrett20]

This translation is heretical in many places, so I seriously doubt if it is in any way "blessed" by God. The fact that the Lord does use any translation, as He has the Jehovah's Witnesses, NWT, does not mean much!

I will let God decide how He uses His Word to accomplish His purposes. If I were you, I’d do the same. There are many, many saints of God that came to a saving knowledge of Jesus using the RSV. That is a true blessing. You can teach the entire counsel of God using the RSV. To compare it to the NWT is just ignorant.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I will let God decide how He uses His Word to accomplish His purposes. If I were you, I’d do the same. There are many, many saints of God that came to a saving knowledge of Jesus using the RSV. That is a true blessing. You can teach the entire counsel of God using the RSV. To compare it to the NWT is just ignorant.

see my comments in #29 and then tell me that my remark is ignorant