• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

Whats so wrong with the NRSV?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zoness

667, neighbor of the beast
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2008
8,384
1,654
Illinois
✟490,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
(Thread idea inspired by PaladinGirl)

So I read the NRSV regularly because I understand it best and it's my perferred to the NIV. Why? I don't really know I just like it lol good reasoning eh? Well I guess it gets a lot of more negative press in the conservative circles and they call it "too liberal". Well uh, define "too liberal" I guess a.k.a. what are some real reasons people don't like the NRSV so can at least understand that.

Peace
 

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
(Thread idea inspired by PaladinGirl)

So I read the NRSV regularly because I understand it best and it's my perferred to the NIV. Why? I don't really know I just like it lol good reasoning eh? Well I guess it gets a lot of more negative press in the conservative circles and they call it "too liberal". Well uh, define "too liberal" I guess a.k.a. what are some real reasons people don't like the NRSV so can at least understand that.

Peace
One cannot understand that last sentence. Perhaps it could be explained.
 
Upvote 0

cCensor

Regular Member
Feb 13, 2008
369
26
USA
✟15,630.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
(Thread idea inspired by PaladinGirl)

So I read the NRSV regularly because I understand it best and it's my perferred to the NIV. Why? I don't really know I just like it lol good reasoning eh? Well I guess it gets a lot of more negative press in the conservative circles and they call it "too liberal". Well uh, define "too liberal" I guess a.k.a. what are some real reasons people don't like the NRSV so can at least understand that.

Peace

It is the main bible of the UMC. The RSV wasn't as bad as the NRSV. So what is bad about the NRSV? It is written towards making women happy and that twist the word of God. Of course the UMC church is geared toward making women pastors.

Soooooh! This world has made men more like women and that may be the reason you like it.


With respect Censor
 
Upvote 0

D.W.Washburn

The Artist Formerly Known as RegularGuy
Mar 31, 2007
3,541
1,184
United States
✟24,908.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The NRSV is an excellent translation. It is favored by mainline Christian denominations and academics. Like any translation it is imperfect--or at least has limitations.

It's "inclusive" language is sometimes criticized (as is the "inclusive" language of the TNIV) as being somehow untrue to the original texts. This is a specious claim. The current state of the English language does not use the male grammatical gender inclusively, as the ancient Greek did. As an example, "brothers" does not adequately translate "adelphoi" (a masculine plural) which could be used of groups of siblings of mixed gender. Unless the context makes clear that only male siblings are intended, "brothers and sisters" better renders the meaning of "adelphoi."

Translation is not an easy task. The NRSV did many things right.
 
Upvote 0

NorrinRadd

Xian, Biblicist, Fideist, Pneumatic, Antinomian
Sep 2, 2007
5,571
595
Wayne Township, PA, USA
✟8,652.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican

It is the main bible of the UMC. The RSV wasn't as bad as the NRSV. So what is bad about the NRSV? It is written towards making women happy and that twist the word of God. Of course the UMC church is geared toward making women pastors.


I'm curious -- How does this:

Soooooh! This world has made men more like women and that may be the reason you like it.
peacefully coexist in your mind with this (portion of interest highlighted):


With respect Censor
Hmm?
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
In my opinion, dynamic equivalency is what preachers are for. In every generation God calls stewards of His Word to preach in the language and culture of their hearers employing the idioms of their hearers. They interpret God's word for God's people.

On the other hand the written word should represent as close a facsimile of the originals as possible, therefore I prefer formal equivalency there. The NRSV removes the reader from the sense of the original to a degree.

I use the NRSV for The Book of Tobit, nothing more; that is because it is the only translation I've found of the longer text of Tobit.

I use the RSV for the rest of the deuterocanonicals, and the ESV for the 66 books in the Protestant reduced Bible.
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
In my opinion, dynamic equivalency is what preachers are for. In every generation God calls stewards of His Word to preach in the language and culture of their hearers employing the idioms of their hearers. They interpret God's word for God's people.

On the other hand the written word should represent as close a facsimile of the originals as possible, therefore I prefer formal equivalency there. The NRSV removes the reader from the sense of the original to a degree.

I use the NRSV for The Book of Tobit, nothing more; that is because it is the only translation I've found of the longer text of Tobit.

I use the RSV for the rest of the deuterocanonicals, and the ESV for the 66 books in the Protestant reduced Bible.

I think I'm going to have to alter my above response come this January 1. Oxford University Press is releasing an ESV Bible with Apocrypha! Per the blurb, it will employ "the same methods and guidelines used by the original translators of the ESV, to produce for the first time an ESV Apocrypha." This is an answer to prayer for me, and a helpful step toward reviving the use of the deutercanonicals among many Christian groups who are now unfamiliar with them.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195289102

amazon.com said:
"The English Standard Version Bible captures as far as possible the precise wording of the original biblical text and the personal style of each Bible writer, while taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. The ESV thus provides an accurate rendering of the original texts that is in readable, high quality English prose and poetry. This Bible has been growing in popularity among students in biblical studies, mainline Christian scholars and clergy, and Evangelical Christians of all denominations.

"Along with that growth comes the need for the books of the Apocrypha to be included in ESV Bibles, both for denominations that use those books in liturgical readings and for students who need them for historical purposes. More Evangelicals are also beginning to be interested in the Apocrypha, even though they don't consider it God's Word. The English Standard Version Bible with the Apocrypha, for which the Apocrypha has been commissioned by Oxford University Press, employs the same methods and guidelines used by the original translators of the ESV, to produce for the first time an ESV Apocrypha. This will be the only ESV with Apocrypha available anywhere, and it includes all of the books and parts of books in the Protestant Apocrypha, the Catholic Old Testament, and the Old Testament as used in Orthodox Christian churches. It will have a lovely pre-printed case binding, and will include a full-color map section, a table of weights and measures used in the Bible, and many other attractive features.

"The English Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha is certain to become the preferred Bible in more conservative divinity schools and seminaries, where the Apocrypha is studied from an academic perspective. And it answers the need of conservative Christians in general for a more literal version of these books."
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟25,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
In my opinion, dynamic equivalency is what preachers are for.
Dynamic equivalence is for everyone who does not use Greek and Hebrew. So-called word-for-word translations are for nobody.

Christian preachers are as common as hen's teeth anyway.
 
Upvote 0

cCensor

Regular Member
Feb 13, 2008
369
26
USA
✟15,630.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican


I'm curious -- How does this:
peacefully coexist in your mind with this (portion of interest highlighted):


Hmm?

I have spent years of study of what makes men and women different. Words are one of the factor, and men and women hold different meaning for the same word.

Then we have this third word meaning and that is when boys have been taught by women. These boys make little sense when they talk to men.

Soooooooooooooh I have little idea what you said and even less of what you mean.

With respect. Censor
 
Upvote 0

Zoness

667, neighbor of the beast
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2008
8,384
1,654
Illinois
✟490,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Oh well I'm not a sexist so it doesn't bother me that much. I still like reading it either way. As far as being a little "removed" from the story well duh I wasn't around them so I'm not a part of the story. Anyways thanks for the responses guys I almost forgot I made this thread.
 
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Oh well I'm not a sexist so it doesn't bother me that much. I still like reading it either way. As far as being a little "removed" from the story well duh I wasn't around them so I'm not a part of the story. Anyways thanks for the responses guys I almost forgot I made this thread.
Okay, I never thought I was a sexist but I guess you're right. I'm a sexist evidenced by the fact the NRSV must be bothering me since its not my Bible of choice.
 
Upvote 0

Zoness

667, neighbor of the beast
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2008
8,384
1,654
Illinois
✟490,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
Okay, I never thought I was a sexist but I guess you're right. I'm a sexist evidenced by the fact the NRSV must be bothering me since its not my Bible of choice.

Even though I wasn't talking to you I'm going to assume that comment was meant to be sharp sarcasm. I don't particularly care what anyone's Bible choice is as they shouldn't care what mine is. The point of this thread is finding out why people don't like the NRSV.
 
Upvote 0

LamorakDesGalis

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2004
2,198
235
Dallas Texas
✟18,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
(Thread idea inspired by PaladinGirl)

So I read the NRSV regularly because I understand it best and it's my perferred to the NIV. Why? I don't really know I just like it lol good reasoning eh? Well I guess it gets a lot of more negative press in the conservative circles and they call it "too liberal". Well uh, define "too liberal" I guess a.k.a. what are some real reasons people don't like the NRSV so can at least understand that.

I'm conservative and I don't hate the NRSV. In fact I've read through it entirely as part of my devotional Bible readings and its a fine Bible translation. My preferred English Bible is the NIV, but I like to consult nearly all modern translations and even the KJV on occasion.

The gender neutral controversy has more to do with the English than the original languages. Do those who speak Spanish or French for example, actually have issues with gender neutral language? The RSV is more gender neutral than the KJV. So its not an issue that is limited to recent decades.

Long before you were born, many people attacked and reviled the RSV when it first came out. But that was the 1950s. In 2001 the ESV was published, and the ESV used the RSV as its basis. The ESV retained over 90% of the RSV text. Its ironic that a version which was reviled by conservatives has now become a great delight to some.

So don't put too much stock in the general criticisms of the NRSV.


LDG
 
Upvote 0

Izdaari Eristikon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2007
6,174
448
70
Post Falls, Idaho
✟40,341.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
I agree with RegularGuy and with Lamorak. The NRSV is a fine translation, and if you like it, use it. It's not my preferred translation (I like HCSB and ESV better), but I own several.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.