Amazing. I went to a Bible study this morning for first time at an older brother’s home and was Browsing his bibles and he had that exact RSV 50’s red hardback. I had not seen it before, then you pull is out same day. Awesome.
I totally agree with you. The main issue I find is in the RSV 1971 revision, specifically in 1 Cor: 6:9, "the big one", as you called it. In all other verses where there is controversy, the changes can be justified with academic reasons (i.e., translation and exegesis). So, one may disagree with those decisions but at the end you can tell, it is a honest work (at least academically speaking). In the case of 1 Cor 6:9 though there is no justification except an overt intention to 'camouflage' what the Greek text explicitly says, by using a generic term. Theological or even moral considerations aside, what they did there is intellectual dishonesty. Which is sad, and even painful, because, it is a very beautiful translation (my favorite tbh).This said, excellent synthesis!
I have actually really come to love the RSV. Strangely enough, the seminary I attend still uses this translation for study since (according to the people in charge) the ESV is too Calvinist and the NRSV is too liberal.
@@manfredcaranci6234 the ESV study notes are certainly Calvinist, but the translation itself is excellent (with perhaps 1 or 2 exceptions). The NRSV is certainly liberal and treading toward more cultural compromise with each update.
Agree. After hearing some discussion by Dr. Dan Wallace, the ending in Mark makes sense (or what appears to be the abrupt ending)...honestly...I have come to enjoy the fact that the book of Mark ends with that cliff hanger...it provokes thought in the reader and adds grounded realism to his witness...but we've all become accustomed to what is probably a later scribes addition. I purchased the Schuyler RSV--what a gorgeous bible--and I enjoy the beauty of the language, the typesetting and its history... It does feel like home...all said... it is good to have many translations...again as Dr. Dan Wallace stated when asked his fav---: "it depends on the purpose."
I understand and respect the argument for the "short ending" of Mark, but the case for the "long ending" is actually quite a bit stronger than most people realize. Notably, the 2nd century father Irenaeus quotes from the long ending in Against Heresies 3.10.5 (“Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says, ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God”). The second century father Justin Martyr also appears to quote the long ending in First Apology 45 when he states that the "apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere." In contrast the two Alexandrian texts that feature the short ending of Mark (Sianiticus and Vaticanus) date from the 4th century and these manuscripts seem to show awareness of the long ending even as they reject it (Vaticanus features an unusual blank column where the long ending of Mark would be and Sianiticus inserts a unique decorative image where the long ending would be - both seem to suggest the scribe was aware that readers would expect a longer ending to Mark and inserted something else instead). If you're interested, a good scholarly defense of the long ending is Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. While not an academic, James Snapp also does a good job laying out some of the textual evidence for the long ending on his blog "the text of the Gospels." The idea that the long ending is authentic is definitely the minority opinion among academics, but I do think it's plausible based on the evidence.
Happy to see this review. It is good that there is a footnote for Isaiah 7:14. I had a 1952 RSV that I kept in my workshop. There was something special about that bible. It was lost in a move and I've been grieving over it. Found one on eBay last night for $8.00. It will be home in a few days. Thank you for sharing this video.
Thanks for comparing the two RSVs. I've only noticed the positive changes in the 2nd edition, but it seems there is also, already, an unpleasant trajectory toward the NRSV/NRSVue in it.
I just have to know. . . how long does it take you to read all the way through the Bible?! :) You seem to read through one every few weeks. What a blessing! Thanks, brother, for all the great, thoughtful reviews. I've loved the RSV all my adult life. I think too much is made of the Is 7:14 bit, but 1 Cor is problematic and I too puzzle over that translation decision. Thanks for another great video. Keep it up! Blessings
Great review. I have an RSV Harper Study Bible that was gifted to me by my Church in 1976 when I left to join the Army. I still have and use it because as you pointed out, the language is so beautiful written. I recently purchased a Schuyler RSV also. We have so many great translations today. I have the ESV, NKJV, NASB, KJV, CSB, etc. I like something about all of them, and I struggle to identify my main go to bible. I pray that God would lead me to which one he wants me to use as my main bible.
I happen to have 5 copies of the 1952 RSV. WHY? Because I want it preserved. It is my favorite reading Bible. But I have 10 translations that I use to be able to understand the context as understood at the time the translation was published. Each translation is the inspired and infallable Word of God.
I have one copy of the 1952 edition, published in Great Britain by Collins, but I'm not sure when. I also have a copy of one of similar vintage, but with the 1971 update. A more recent purchase of mine is the 2024 reprint by Thomas Nelson. I've been aware of the fuss made over Isaiah 7:14 for some time, and I agree that given societal expectations of the time, "young woman" implies "virgin" - being born in 1960, I was aware of an age appropriate version of saving yourself for marriage.
Another great review Tim. Love the detail crammed into a shorter time frame. I love the RSV and when I pray the daily office, I use the 2019 BCP and the Schuyler RSV with apocrypha. I have notes on all the suspect verses, and my feeling on it is if you know where they area and understand the context then not a problem. I have a few more notes in my 1972 Schuyler... Gen 22:18 - RSV: "by your descendants" / ESV: "in your offspring" Gen 22:18 - RSV: "bless themselves" / ESV: be blessed" Psalm 16:10 - RSV: "give me up" to sheol / ESV: "abandon my soul" to sheol Psalm 2.7 - RSV: "son" is lowercase, / ESV: "Son" Psalm 2:11 - RSV: "kiss his feet" / ESV: "Kiss the Son" Psalm 45:6 - RSV: "Your divine throne" / ESV: "Your Throne" - Traditional address is to God, RSV not actually addressing a person as God Romans 3:24-25 - RSV: "expiation" / ESV: "propitiation", also 1Jn 2.2 & 4.10; Heb 2:17 Romans 9:5 - RSV: "God who is over all be blessed" / ESV: "Christ, who..." Luke 12:27 - RSV: "make ready" / ESV: "get ready" Luke 15:11-15 - Complete re-write.
This is so interesting thank you Tim. I love getting the history you share. The 1952 version peaked my interest being the year of my birth. I wonder my mother as a Catholic if she read the Bible then. She had a BA & studied languages but I don't recall her sharing the Bible with me though she was very much into the Word through her church missal. Again thank you for sharing this. Just starting to read an Nrsv after the esv, the nkjv has been my go to.
One of the reasons you probably felt at home with the RSV: the ESV is basically the same. The ESV is a conservative revision of the RSV (1952,1971). It corrected the ‘liberal’ influences in some of the verses. The ESV only changed about 8-10% of the RSV, leaving the rest untouched.
While it's correct to say that the ESV is a revision of the RSV, I'd disagree with the claim that its goal was to correct the RSV's "liberal" influences. In reality, the scholars who created the ESV were reacting to the "liberalism" or the NRSV, which prompted them to return to the RSV in order to update it in light of recent scholarship. Ironically, the exact same scenario played out with the RSV, where a group of scholars who found the RSV too "liberal" decided to go back to the ASV and update it to create the NASB. Anyway, the overall biggest difference between the ESV and RSV is the ESV's use of Dead Sea Scroll and Septuagint readings in the Old Testament, which is hardly a "liberal" or "conservative" issue.
I prefer the King James, and New King James. The RSV has a good feel for the most part. But to be a problem child Tim, if I imagine myself back in 1952, I imagine that I am newly born baby, so my reading skills were lackluster at best!
4:05 You make an important misstatement when you cite the NRSVue's translation of arsenokoitai (though you have it written down correctly). The verse does not say "those who engage in illicit sex," but "men who engage in illicit sex." The word "men" is not inclusive in the NRSV, and the translators really do mean that men (the "arseno" part of arsenokoitai), not women, are the ones violating the Levitical law by engaging in this sexual behavior. At worst, it could be taken as applying to all of the sins proscribed in Leviticus 18 and 20, but that's only if you assume that the women involved in illicit sex acts are off the hook. The NRSVue's gloss is certainly a very obscure way of translating the word (and most likely deliberately so for the sake of avoiding offense), but it's more precise than "sexual perverts," and it's more gender-accurate than the RSV's original "homosexuals" (which would include women, whereas the Greek word can't do so). The NRSV '89 was the most precise with "sodomites," but the downside of that gloss is that it suggests a direct link to the city of Sodom that is simply not implied by the Greek word. The ESV tries to improve on the too-broad "homosexuals" of the RSV (which the NASB/LSB still uses) with "men who practice homosexuality," but that rendering sounds bizarre in its own right: practicing a sexual orientation makes little sense. The CSB's phrasing is the best: "males who have sex with males." Considering that arseno is the LXX's preferred gloss for the Hebrew text's zakar ("male," Gen. 1.27), it's appropriate to use "males" here, clarifying that it's not a matter of a participant's age or culture-specific gender norms (as the word "men" might imply to some audiences), but of basic biology.
The expression "practices homosexuality" reminded me of joke in one of my favourite TV shows from years gone by, referring to "practice" in a sense that the text probably doesn't justify. Oh dear!
I love the RSV. It's my 2nd favourite translation behind the KJV. That balance between the KJV and a modern translation is a great bridge between the two in my opinion. I think it's underrated and while I'm sure the ESV and NKJV are more accurate in certain places, I still think it's great.
Are these concerns more of an American Protestant thing? Do Catholic and Orthodox Christian’s who frequently use the RSV have these same translation concerns?
Thomas Nelson is introducing a new edition of the RSV in their 'Sovereign Collection' which will be available in August 2024. Christianbook is taking pre-orders. I'm pretty certain it will be the 1971 version, though. The poetic books will be single-column, which is a nice touch.
And, that fact always gives me pause regarding the ESV. Why would the ESV translators choose to update (as it were) such a controversial translation as the RSV? I was born in 1954. But, even as I was growing up, the RSV was, as the comment above says, that which "opened the gates of hellish liberal translation." It may not have been as bad as we thought it was, and not as bad as the TEV which followed it. But, it did help to open the door for such liberal translations. Why would the translators of the ESV pay the liberal National Council of Churches for the rights to base their ESV off the RSV? It doesn't make sense to me.
@@sounddoctrine54my first Bible was a Good News Bible, also known as Today's English Version. Being a dynamic translation, it was a good starter Bible for me, but I have gravitated towards more literal or formal translations when participating in Bible Study groups. One I attend leans towards KJV/NKJV. Another I attend uses NIV, which probably wouldn't be my first choice.
The translation of the Bible has been an interest of mine for MANY years. Some of the verses from the RSV that I have research- and other translations -are: Ps. 23:1, Matt. 3:1, Matt. 5:14, Matt. 7:7, Matt. 23:23, Mark 7:19, Luke 2:10, Luke 3:33, John 3:16, John 5:10, John 10:23, John 21:15-17, Acts 14:13, Rom. 10:4, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Cor. 7:1, Gal. 2:21, Gal. 3:1, Eph. 2:8, Phil. 2:7, Heb. 10:31, Heb. 11:31, James 1:1, 2 Peter 2:4, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 3:2, Rev. 6:8, Rev. 12:10, and others. I am not an expert in Greek. Yet there are certain readings that I wish translations had.
Mr Nickels, I assume you are a conservative/evangelical Protestant, and so you must be commended highly for taking on both the reading and the release of a largely favorable review of the RSV, a translation that still generates much apoplexy among C/E Protestants. Thank you!
I have to remember when watch your reviews... you favor the NLT... which DOES use the word..."division"... at the end of that verse... many Modern translations... use the word "factions"... but the most reliable translations such as the KJV use the word. ."heresies"... even the ASV states "parties"..
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews that is why I am leaning... more toward this verse speaking in regards to the idea of transgenders... with that verse ... not so much homosexuality Only.... but women acting or pretending to be men... and men pretending to be drag queens.. as well as girls who wish to compete in sports with men... and vice versa... If we were to translate that word as "effeminate"... and people would heed it... we would have no need for uni-sex restrooms in public areas... such as schools or airports... which is getting closer to the norm these days.. I believe God in His infinite wisdom knew at the time the bible was written that this would be an issue.. in society.. and here is the warning against it..
The RSV is one of my favourite English Bibles. isaiah 7.14 is a quotation from a Ugaritic poem, & must be translated, not with eye on St Matthew 1.23, the NT passage that quotes it, but as the Hebrew requires. There is nothing godly about perverting the meaning of the Hebrew, in order to force it to agree with Greek of St Matthew 1.23. If honest & accurate translation of the two passages makes them disagree, so be it: *the accurate meaning of the texts is far more important than the doctrines people build out of them* .
That's similar to what I was thinking, if accuracy demands some level of disagreement, then so be it. There are ways of dealing with these disagreements, such as explanatory footnotes.
Thanks for highlighting those verses in the translation so we know what to look out for when we read it. Most appreciated
Amazing. I went to a Bible study this morning for first time at an older brother’s home and was
Browsing his bibles and he had that exact RSV 50’s red hardback. I had not seen it before, then you pull is out same day. Awesome.
I totally agree with you. The main issue I find is in the RSV 1971 revision, specifically in 1 Cor: 6:9, "the big one", as you called it. In all other verses where there is controversy, the changes can be justified with academic reasons (i.e., translation and exegesis). So, one may disagree with those decisions but at the end you can tell, it is a honest work (at least academically speaking). In the case of 1 Cor 6:9 though there is no justification except an overt intention to 'camouflage' what the Greek text explicitly says, by using a generic term. Theological or even moral considerations aside, what they did there is intellectual dishonesty. Which is sad, and even painful, because, it is a very beautiful translation (my favorite tbh).This said, excellent synthesis!
I have actually really come to love the RSV. Strangely enough, the seminary I attend still uses this translation for study since (according to the people in charge) the ESV is too Calvinist and the NRSV is too liberal.
"...the ESV is too Calvinist and the NRSV is too liberal." Man, ain't THAT the truth!
@@manfredcaranci6234 the ESV study notes are certainly Calvinist, but the translation itself is excellent (with perhaps 1 or 2 exceptions). The NRSV is certainly liberal and treading toward more cultural compromise with each update.
Agree. After hearing some discussion by Dr. Dan Wallace, the ending in Mark makes sense (or what appears to be the abrupt ending)...honestly...I have come to enjoy the fact that the book of Mark ends with that cliff hanger...it provokes thought in the reader and adds grounded realism to his witness...but we've all become accustomed to what is probably a later scribes addition. I purchased the Schuyler RSV--what a gorgeous bible--and I enjoy the beauty of the language, the typesetting and its history... It does feel like home...all said... it is good to have many translations...again as Dr. Dan Wallace stated when asked his fav---: "it depends on the purpose."
I understand and respect the argument for the "short ending" of Mark, but the case for the "long ending" is actually quite a bit stronger than most people realize. Notably, the 2nd century father Irenaeus quotes from the long ending in Against Heresies 3.10.5 (“Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says, ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God”). The second century father Justin Martyr also appears to quote the long ending in First Apology 45 when he states that the "apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere."
In contrast the two Alexandrian texts that feature the short ending of Mark (Sianiticus and Vaticanus) date from the 4th century and these manuscripts seem to show awareness of the long ending even as they reject it (Vaticanus features an unusual blank column where the long ending of Mark would be and Sianiticus inserts a unique decorative image where the long ending would be - both seem to suggest the scribe was aware that readers would expect a longer ending to Mark and inserted something else instead).
If you're interested, a good scholarly defense of the long ending is Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. While not an academic, James Snapp also does a good job laying out some of the textual evidence for the long ending on his blog "the text of the Gospels." The idea that the long ending is authentic is definitely the minority opinion among academics, but I do think it's plausible based on the evidence.
Happy to see this review. It is good that there is a footnote for Isaiah 7:14. I had a 1952 RSV that I kept in my workshop. There was something special about that bible. It was lost in a move and I've been grieving over it. Found one on eBay last night for $8.00. It will be home in a few days. Thank you for sharing this video.
Going back in time in 1952 is a very good context in your review 😊
Thanks for comparing the two RSVs. I've only noticed the positive changes in the 2nd edition, but it seems there is also, already, an unpleasant trajectory toward the NRSV/NRSVue in it.
The NRSV and NRSVue are great translations.
Very good enlightening review Tim....we don't all these variations in RSV and even in NRSVUe....God bless you Tim...
I just have to know. . . how long does it take you to read all the way through the Bible?! :) You seem to read through one every few weeks. What a blessing! Thanks, brother, for all the great, thoughtful reviews. I've loved the RSV all my adult life. I think too much is made of the Is 7:14 bit, but 1 Cor is problematic and I too puzzle over that translation decision. Thanks for another great video. Keep it up! Blessings
I try to read it at least three times a year. I try to do a six month and two ninety day ones. Sometimes I fall short.
Another great video. You’re why I’m interested in the different versions of bibles. Keep up the great work.
Thank you! Great review. I read other translations, but the RSV is the translation I read the most. I love the cadence of the language.
Nice theocracy shirt, brother!! “I Am” is such a powerful song (thanks, Smitty)!
Great review. I have an RSV Harper Study Bible that was gifted to me by my Church in 1976 when I left to join the Army. I still have and use it because as you pointed out, the language is so beautiful written. I recently purchased a Schuyler RSV also. We have so many great translations today. I have the ESV, NKJV, NASB, KJV, CSB, etc. I like something about all of them, and I struggle to identify my main go to bible. I pray that God would lead me to which one he wants me to use as my main bible.
Thank you for reviewing this. The RSV is my standard "go to" translation.
I happen to have 5 copies of the 1952 RSV. WHY? Because I want it preserved. It is my favorite reading Bible. But I have 10 translations that I use to be able to understand the context as understood at the time the translation was published. Each translation is the inspired and infallable Word of God.
Well said!
I have one copy of the 1952 edition, published in Great Britain by Collins, but I'm not sure when. I also have a copy of one of similar vintage, but with the 1971 update.
A more recent purchase of mine is the 2024 reprint by Thomas Nelson.
I've been aware of the fuss made over Isaiah 7:14 for some time, and I agree that given societal expectations of the time, "young woman" implies "virgin" - being born in 1960, I was aware of an age appropriate version of saving yourself for marriage.
The American Heritage and Merriam-Webster dictionaries both find fault in your spelling of the word infallible.
I most enjoy the RSV-CE. I love how well it reads. Granted I have extensively read only 4 translations of the Bible but I find the RSV most enjoyable.
Another great review Tim. Love the detail crammed into a shorter time frame. I love the RSV and when I pray the daily office, I use the 2019 BCP and the Schuyler RSV with apocrypha. I have notes on all the suspect verses, and my feeling on it is if you know where they area and understand the context then not a problem. I have a few more notes in my 1972 Schuyler...
Gen 22:18 - RSV: "by your descendants" / ESV: "in your offspring"
Gen 22:18 - RSV: "bless themselves" / ESV: be blessed"
Psalm 16:10 - RSV: "give me up" to sheol / ESV: "abandon my soul" to sheol
Psalm 2.7 - RSV: "son" is lowercase, / ESV: "Son"
Psalm 2:11 - RSV: "kiss his feet" / ESV: "Kiss the Son"
Psalm 45:6 - RSV: "Your divine throne" / ESV: "Your Throne" - Traditional address is to God, RSV not actually addressing a person as God
Romans 3:24-25 - RSV: "expiation" / ESV: "propitiation", also 1Jn 2.2 & 4.10; Heb 2:17
Romans 9:5 - RSV: "God who is over all be blessed" / ESV: "Christ, who..."
Luke 12:27 - RSV: "make ready" / ESV: "get ready"
Luke 15:11-15 - Complete re-write.
I had so many more notes than I could put in a five minute video. Thanks for your comment!
This is so interesting thank you Tim. I love getting the history you share. The 1952 version peaked my interest being the year of my birth. I wonder my mother as a Catholic if she read the Bible then. She had a BA & studied languages but I don't recall her sharing the Bible with me though she was very much into the Word through her church missal. Again thank you for sharing this. Just starting to read an Nrsv after the esv, the nkjv has been my go to.
The RSV is wonderful! It retains the KJV's majesty without using words nobody understands.
Thanks for the review, Tim.
Thank you, Brother Tim 🌹⭐🌹
The eloquence when addressing God in the Psalms is one thing I enjoyed about the NASB 77.
77 is my favorite nasb
Could you make a video about your thoughts on reading the KJB?
Perhaps.
One of the reasons you probably felt at home with the RSV: the ESV is basically the same. The ESV is a conservative revision of the RSV (1952,1971). It corrected the ‘liberal’ influences in some of the verses.
The ESV only changed about 8-10% of the RSV, leaving the rest untouched.
Yep!
While it's correct to say that the ESV is a revision of the RSV, I'd disagree with the claim that its goal was to correct the RSV's "liberal" influences. In reality, the scholars who created the ESV were reacting to the "liberalism" or the NRSV, which prompted them to return to the RSV in order to update it in light of recent scholarship. Ironically, the exact same scenario played out with the RSV, where a group of scholars who found the RSV too "liberal" decided to go back to the ASV and update it to create the NASB. Anyway, the overall biggest difference between the ESV and RSV is the ESV's use of Dead Sea Scroll and Septuagint readings in the Old Testament, which is hardly a "liberal" or "conservative" issue.
Yep! My main Bible is an ESV. I love it!
The ESV is one I like too.
Fascinating video! ❤ Is there any particular vendor you would recommend for finding old Bibles?
Depends on your location. Half Price Books can be a good option.
Thanks! 😁 @@anickelsworthbiblereviews
Great video, Nickels... I love that original 52 edition!
Wonder how I got that?
I prefer the King James, and New King James. The RSV has a good feel for the most part.
But to be a problem child Tim, if I imagine myself back in 1952, I imagine that I am newly born baby, so my reading skills were lackluster at best!
Thank you, Tim - great video!
4:05 You make an important misstatement when you cite the NRSVue's translation of arsenokoitai (though you have it written down correctly). The verse does not say "those who engage in illicit sex," but "men who engage in illicit sex." The word "men" is not inclusive in the NRSV, and the translators really do mean that men (the "arseno" part of arsenokoitai), not women, are the ones violating the Levitical law by engaging in this sexual behavior. At worst, it could be taken as applying to all of the sins proscribed in Leviticus 18 and 20, but that's only if you assume that the women involved in illicit sex acts are off the hook.
The NRSVue's gloss is certainly a very obscure way of translating the word (and most likely deliberately so for the sake of avoiding offense), but it's more precise than "sexual perverts," and it's more gender-accurate than the RSV's original "homosexuals" (which would include women, whereas the Greek word can't do so). The NRSV '89 was the most precise with "sodomites," but the downside of that gloss is that it suggests a direct link to the city of Sodom that is simply not implied by the Greek word.
The ESV tries to improve on the too-broad "homosexuals" of the RSV (which the NASB/LSB still uses) with "men who practice homosexuality," but that rendering sounds bizarre in its own right: practicing a sexual orientation makes little sense. The CSB's phrasing is the best: "males who have sex with males." Considering that arseno is the LXX's preferred gloss for the Hebrew text's zakar ("male," Gen. 1.27), it's appropriate to use "males" here, clarifying that it's not a matter of a participant's age or culture-specific gender norms (as the word "men" might imply to some audiences), but of basic biology.
The expression "practices homosexuality" reminded me of joke in one of my favourite TV shows from years gone by, referring to "practice" in a sense that the text probably doesn't justify. Oh dear!
@@richardvoogd705 I always picture it as an LGBT law office.
@@MAMoreno that's a more family friendly sense than the one I thought of.
I love the RSV. It's my 2nd favourite translation behind the KJV. That balance between the KJV and a modern translation is a great bridge between the two in my opinion. I think it's underrated and while I'm sure the ESV and NKJV are more accurate in certain places, I still think it's great.
Are these concerns more of an American Protestant thing? Do Catholic and Orthodox Christian’s who frequently use the RSV have these same translation concerns?
Catholics generally use the RSV-2CE when changes a lot of things.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Biblical accuracy hasn’t been a concern for the Roman Catholic Church for over a millennium.
I hope Thomas Nelson will reprint the RSV again with a comfort print in the 1952 edition. Thanks for the video, good stuff.
Thomas Nelson is introducing a new edition of the RSV in their 'Sovereign Collection' which will be available in August 2024. Christianbook is taking pre-orders. I'm pretty certain it will be the 1971 version, though. The poetic books will be single-column, which is a nice touch.
I have a copy of the new edition. It appears to be the 1971 edition.
Just checked my little RSVCE pocket New Testament and 1 Cor 6:9 is still translated in the traditional manner there.
The RSV Catholic second edition has corrected the liberal renderings. It's published by Ignatius.
Yes, but they’ve also gotten rid of the old English when addressing God.
I had a copy of RSV-CE, complete with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha, but it sadly got lost in a move. 😢
The RSV-2CE is, IMO, the best of all the RSV editions.
I fully agree
I don't know about the RSV.. I feel like it opened the gates of hellish liberal translation. I think I'd rather read the ASV instead of this.
But it also opened up the door for the incredible ESV.
And, that fact always gives me pause regarding the ESV. Why would the ESV translators choose to update (as it were) such a controversial translation as the RSV? I was born in 1954. But, even as I was growing up, the RSV was, as the comment above says, that which "opened the gates of hellish liberal translation." It may not have been as bad as we thought it was, and not as bad as the TEV which followed it. But, it did help to open the door for such liberal translations. Why would the translators of the ESV pay the liberal National Council of Churches for the rights to base their ESV off the RSV? It doesn't make sense to me.
@@sounddoctrine54 I agree. While I really like the ESV it boggles my mind they chose the RSV as a starting point.
@@sounddoctrine54my first Bible was a Good News Bible, also known as Today's English Version. Being a dynamic translation, it was a good starter Bible for me, but I have gravitated towards more literal or formal translations when participating in Bible Study groups. One I attend leans towards KJV/NKJV. Another I attend uses NIV, which probably wouldn't be my first choice.
I recently gave my own review of the RSV on my podcast. I happen to enjoy it quite a bit. I read the 1972 update.
Thanks Tim,i have a RSV and like very much
The translation of the Bible has been an interest of mine for MANY years.
Some of the verses from the RSV that I have research- and other translations -are: Ps. 23:1, Matt. 3:1, Matt. 5:14, Matt. 7:7, Matt. 23:23, Mark 7:19, Luke 2:10, Luke 3:33, John 3:16, John 5:10, John 10:23, John 21:15-17, Acts 14:13, Rom. 10:4, 1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Cor. 7:1, Gal. 2:21, Gal. 3:1, Eph. 2:8, Phil. 2:7, Heb. 10:31, Heb. 11:31, James 1:1, 2 Peter 2:4, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 3:2, Rev. 6:8, Rev. 12:10, and others.
I am not an expert in Greek. Yet there are certain readings that I wish translations had.
I LOVE the RSV Catholic edition. My Great Adventure Bible is my favorite bible.
Mr Nickels, I assume you are a conservative/evangelical Protestant, and so you must be commended highly for taking on both the reading and the release of a largely favorable review of the RSV, a translation that still generates much apoplexy among C/E Protestants. Thank you!
I have to remember when watch your reviews... you favor the NLT... which DOES use the word..."division"... at the end of that verse... many Modern translations... use the word "factions"... but the most reliable translations such as the KJV use the word. ."heresies"...
even the ASV states "parties"..
I favor the NLT? On what planet is that?
the KJV just translates that word in 1 Cor 6:9 as "effeminate"
I know it is an interesting choice.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews
that is why I am leaning... more toward this verse speaking in regards to the idea of transgenders... with that verse ...
not so much homosexuality Only.... but
women acting or pretending to be men... and men pretending to be drag queens.. as well as girls who wish to compete in sports with men... and vice versa...
If we were to translate that word as
"effeminate"... and people would heed it... we would have no need for uni-sex restrooms in public areas... such as schools or airports... which is getting closer to the norm these days..
I believe God in His infinite wisdom knew at the time the bible was written that this would be an issue.. in society.. and here is the warning against it..
The RSV is one of my favourite English Bibles. isaiah 7.14 is a quotation from a Ugaritic poem, & must be translated, not with eye on St Matthew 1.23, the NT passage that quotes it, but as the Hebrew requires. There is nothing godly about perverting the meaning of the Hebrew, in order to force it to agree with Greek of St Matthew 1.23. If honest & accurate translation of the two passages makes them disagree, so be it: *the accurate meaning of the texts is far more important than the doctrines people build out of them* .
That's similar to what I was thinking, if accuracy demands some level of disagreement, then so be it. There are ways of dealing with these disagreements, such as explanatory footnotes.