Revised Standard Version

[Garrett20]

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

With all due respect, I have read what you wrote. I simply disagree and believe that if the RSV translators had a hidden agenda to remove important doctrines from The Bible then they failed miserably. Doctrine is taught all throughout Scripture, not solely in a few verses. One cannot read the RSV New Testament and come away without seeing Christ as Risen Lord. While it has shades of liberal bias, I stand by my statement. One can come to saving faith by using the RSV (which is now out of print in its’s original publication), although it’s not a translation I read from often. The KJV, NKJV, and WEB are translations I prefer. I have given the MEV a chance and have read the gospels. I enjoy it as well so far.

Lord Bless

 

[TCassidy]

I like the fact that the RSV is easier to read and understand than the KJV.

KJV Job 6:6 Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?

RSV Job 6:6 Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt,
or is there any taste in the slime of the purslane?

See how much clearer the RSV is? Uh. Oh. Wait a minute. Okay. Never mind.

 

[McCree79]

I like the fact that the RSV is easier to read and understand than the KJV.

KJV Job 6:6 Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg?

RSV Job 6:6 Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt,
or is there any taste in the slime of the purslane?

See how much clearer the RSV is? Uh. Oh. Wait a minute. Okay. Never mind.

I prefer the Anchor Bible's "slimy cream cheese". Hahaha

All 3 are clearer than the Hebrew

*Of course others like the ESV and NIV go with a plant like the RSV

"Is tasteless food eaten without salt, or is there flavor in the sap of the mallow ?" (NIV)


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

With all due respect, I have read what you wrote. I simply disagree and believe that if the RSV translators had a hidden agenda to remove important doctrines from The Bible then they failed miserably. Doctrine is taught all throughout Scripture, not solely in a few verses. One cannot read the RSV New Testament and come away without seeing Christ as Risen Lord. While it has shades of liberal bias, I stand by my statement. One can come to saving faith by using the RSV (which is now out of print in its’s original publication), although it’s not a translation I read from often. The KJV, NKJV, and WEB are translations I prefer. I have given the MEV a chance and have read the gospels. I enjoy it as well so far.

Lord Bless

so why the need to corrupt the text?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

For those who love the Lord and His Word and want to really know the Truth.

The Revised Standard Version - Editors "theology"

The Revised Standard Version - Editors "theology". Continued

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The Rsv is a better translation than many seems to indicate for its time, and Isaiah 7:14 refers BOTH to what happened at time of the prophet, and at time of Christ!

 

[Rob_BW]

For those who love the Lord and His Word and want to really know the Truth.

The Revised Standard Version - Editors "theology"

The Revised Standard Version - Editors "theology". Continued

I think you would have been better served by using two posts in one thread, instead of two threads.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I think you would have been better served by using two posts in one thread, instead of two threads.

You are right. I just could not figure on how to do it. The system stopped my as it said it was too long.

 

[rlvaughn]

You are right. I just could not figure on how to do it. The system stopped my as it said it was too long.

You can just break it up -- with the opening post as much as it will take, then break the rest into subsequent posts. That keeps the conservation in one thread.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

You can just break it up -- with the opening post as much as it will take, then break the rest into subsequent posts. That keeps the conservation in one thread.

thanks, I will try the next time

 

[rlvaughn]

That keeps the conservation in one thread.

Or, more likely, the conversation!

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

For those who love the Lord and His Word and want to really know the Truth.

The Revised Standard Version - Editors "theology"

The Revised Standard Version - Editors "theology". Continued

My goodness, gracious. All this fallacy thrown out by you.

Do you know the theology of the KJV translators? Here is a hint. They didn't hold to Arminian thought.

We call this 'double standards' and they are the hallmark of KJVOnlyism.

 

[Yeshua1]

My goodness, gracious. All this fallacy thrown out by you.

Do you know the theology of the KJV translators? Here is a hint. They didn't hold to Arminian thought.

We call this 'double standards' and they are the hallmark of KJVOnlyism.

All those who hold to that position need to do is apply the very same standards imposed upon all other translations to the Kjv itself!