Great perspective! I was nearly dissuaded from using the NRSV early on, especially because of some of the arguments I heard which you outlined in the video. Fortunately, I learned that *every* translation has its issues that somebody somewhere thinks is a deal breaker, and the important thing is to find one you like and live with its flaws. That's what I've done with the NRSV! Besides a great defense of the NRSV, I think you've given a strong case for the NLT too. I've mostly used it as an audio Bible but perhaps I should try reading it more myself.
@@desireegrosgebauer6526 It is a great one to listen to, and read! I've read from it quite a bit since I commented on this video, including the entire NT.
I started seminary several months ago and use the Oxford NRSV for classes and the NLT filament for long readings and devotions. You have a very nice church by the way.
Thank you! What seminary, and what kind of work do you want to do? If you need pastoral resources, let me know. I have minister manuals, Greek resources and the like. If you're in the US I can send them your way.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 Wow, thank you! I am attending Liberty University, Rawling School of Divinity. I am in law enforcement and the MDiv degree course I'm doing is geared toward Chaplaincy. I would definitely appreciate anything that you'd be willing to send. I am especially interested in the Greek material.
I'm watching this over, and you've made me appreciate NLT. Thanks again for commenting on the NRSV Frisch Perspective video. I also like The Living Bible that evolved into NLT. And I do adore Eugene H Peterson, so I'm a fan of The Message Bible too!
I enjoyed your thoughtful explanation. I have a NAB Catholic Bible with annotations and it says that "Almah" in no way can be interpreted as virgin. They have in a more vested interest in Mary's virginity.
Your video has kind of moved me from a rigid "none gender inclusive" view point to more of a middle ground. I do get what you mean now especially from your POV when you are speaking to your congregation. Thoughtful video that has got me thinking about my "old stuck in the mud" ways, -- thank you ) ++
This video gives me a good example how it is different between reading the Bible privately and reading in front of the congregation. I like your explanation. Thank you.
The Dean of my seminary, his father worked on the Good News Bible, so I have a personal connection with that one. If you watched some of my other videos, you will see I try to find these odd Bibles. Im currently looking for a leather or nicer bound Good News Bible. Im sure it will come my way eventually! Thank you for subscribing.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 I've watched your Cambridge NRSV unboxing and now it's inspired me to get the hardback version. Yours looks beautiful but being in Australia, the anglicised just means that it's British spelling, as it should be. 😂😏😉 Hahaha! Also, your name makes me want eggs benedict for breakfast!
After seeing your review on your Bible, I went ahead and ordered the French Morocco. As you say, it's not as premium as premium Bibles; and it's actually very difficult to find a good quality NRSV with Apocrypha anywhere, I don't know why!
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 look on Canadian, British, Irish, or almost any other English speaking country bookstore websites. There is a Good News Translation bound in what I think is faux leather or leatherette and even with a zipper! I hope that this helps.
With the release of the NIV 2011 several years ago and the 2020 NIV Study Bible, would you think shifting to the NIV considering that the 2011 NIV update is already gender-neutral? I also heard from Beau Tate, another Bible reviewer, that the 2020 NIVSB may even be better than the highly scholarly and preferred ESV Study Bible. What are your thoughts about it?
Im uncertain. As you may tell, I enjoy older, used Bibles, so Im not up on the newer versions. People like Beau Tate are much better versed in this. We do need an updated NRSV though!
Thank you for an interesting, and well done review of the NRSV. Nice to see a positive approach to it. I use the NRSV both publicly and for personal reading. I don't find the gender inclusiveness of the NRSV much different from the NLT - for example Psalm 1 is almost identical in both translations in the use of gender language. I do read and enjoy the NLT, but because of the 'conversational' tone of the language overall.
What are your thought about the removal of the Holy Spirit in the NRSV in Genisis 1? That was my main issue. I invested heavily in this translation to do study with. I personally could not get over this issue and haven't been much interested sense.
There is a footnote in the NRSV that states wind is interchangeable with spirit. When I read it for public worship, I always provide an aside of what Ru'ach means, which is more of a brooding, hovering wind or spirit. To me it gets at the maternal nurturing of the Holy Spirit. I recommend you watch my History of the Bible series re: Old Testament formation, where I explain that Hebrew is notoriously difficult because it is a language based on images (more based on oral culture) not easily translated to English, a written language. You may also note from my video that I rarely use the NRSV for personal devotion. Bottom line: when I read it I see ru'ach, not wind or spirit. My brain is trained. And I try to preach it that way. Thank you for watching and subbing!
I don't mind the NRSV either. I am having a very hard time finding one that is NOT anglicized text version though. I am a Catholic, in the US and the only English versions I can find for purchase are Anglicized and it drives me nuts. Any idea where I could find one that isn't?
Try the NRSV single column reference Bible Premier Collection from Zondervan. It's a little bit pricey, and doesn't have the apocrypha. But it's not the Anglicanism text.
I think the most important thing, no matter which translation that you are using as a minister, you have to do your own language work, and look behind the translation you are using. No translation is perfect (not is our own judgment when doing language work too though!!), and we need to look into where the gender inclusive language works, and where it doesn’t. Charity towards all is needed most in this discussion I suppose. Great video, thanks for making it!
Thanks for a thoughtful, interesting video. I have a lot of respect for the NRSV overall. But I cannot use it as a primary Bible or recommend it because the gender policy of the translators went beyond dealing with "brothers/brothers and sisters." That is a logical translation where the Greek clearly intends to address all believers. My issue is where they deliberately twist text around to eliminate a pronoun, resulting in plurals everywhere and potentially misleading renderings. Some examples are switching "husband of one wife" to "married only once" and substituting "mortal" for "Son of Man." You can appreciate how that alters the meaning and potential interpretation. If you read what the translators themselves wrote, you will find that some sought to introduce "gender accurate" language while others were seeking to wipe male pronouns out of scripture. In my opinion, the end result was a compromise. I believe the NIV, CSB and NAB do a better job of seeking gender-accurate language without doing violence to the text unnecessarily. Peace to you sir!
I know this is 7 months old, but I don't know why I didn't respond more thoroughly. Prob because I appreciate your words and needs no further comments. Thank you for this thoughtful post. I agree with you about "mortal". I agree with the NRSV with "married only once" because people don't see "husband" as gender inclusive, which it can be. Of course, I have served in churches where there were elders who were wives of one husband.
The lack of gender inclusiveness is what made me not like the ESV as I would have to explain, even to myself, so frequently this means sisters too - I was at a church that was mostly men and I think the ESV was the reason. I like the CSB at the moment but most churches here in the UK use the NIV or ESV - I think the NRSV might be a good option for public teaching from as it is basically an inclusive ESV. And as you said if you don't like a rendering of a passage you can full on another rendering from the ESV or NKJV.
Thank you for watching and commenting! To answer your question: First, I don't have an opinion about the ESV. I know very little about it. I like the NRSV, but I think the NIV is the best modern translation in contemporary history, and have expressed that elsewhere. And lastly, I dont know what an anglophone is.
Do You have a an email I like to talk with you please P.s I got an NRSV Friday it's the Catholic edition I believe I don't know what year. And only have enough for a short time I can say this about that transmission. Very easily
I agree with you on this wholeheartedly. I don't really care for the NRSV due to the way some verses read, such as Psalms 23, so many people know verse 4 as walking through the valley of the shadow of death. I prefer the traditional sound, BUT I have many friends who have never read the Bible, and some have preconceived notions about it due to the old English, and being able to quote from something that's gender inclusive so I don't have to do the extra interpretation steps for them is very nice.
Well said! I am beginning to get frustrated with Bible reviews that knock the NRSV for inclusive language. I thinking has to do, primarily, with my profession: I am a writing professor. We must consider the audience (which you covered well in your video) and the purpose for the Bible, mainly to deliver God's message to the people. This means all people, men and women. Also, language changes. It is a fluid, not stagnant, thing. The male pronoun (he) was once used as a gender neutral pronoun. But, that has changed. It has been changed for decades. That is the way language works. Lastly, the NRSV translators provide the original in the notes. And, like you said, if one doesn't like it, he or she can "change" it as they read. My rant is over! Your video is very well done. Great job.
@@Sirach144 actually, the gender neutral use of "he" or writing using male pronouns in the singular format fell out of favor years ago, even before I graduated high school and I am middle-aged. Language changes; it is fluid. If one does not like inclusive Bibles, then he or she can buy one that has the archaic language preserved. That is the beauty of freedom.
@@Sirach144 As has already been said, "he" hasn't been gender neutral for decades, but even if it were wouldn't that mean that you agree that the gender neutral language used in the NRSV is an equally valid translation? After all, if God wanted it to say "he" instead of using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, it would, right?
@@FernandoSerna1654 I dont plan on reading it beyond the Proverbs because the CSB is my 2023 Bible of choice. I'm the same with the ESV: you'll never hear me comment on the text because Im unfamiliar with it
An intereting viewpoint. When people ask me 'what is the Bible?' I always point to the title page of the Authorized Edition: 'Appointed To Be Read in Churches'. I still think that the NRSV loses a lot of messianic prophecies by changing passages like Psalm 1 to plural.
Nope, they are in the text and the ones that were never in the original texts are included (still not left out) in the bottom of the text in footnotes.
The NRSV is my co-primary translation, along with the ESV (which is practically the same translation outside of a handful of translator biases in both translations). The scholarship in the RSV tradition is second to none, as far as I'm concerned. In the realm of gender inclusive translations, I'm also fond of the REB and CSB, and I've recently been checking out the newest edition of the NASB (which sticks the gender inclusive wording in italics, a fair compromise).
@@thomasmaloney843 I find that formatting to be too distracting. It's useful in a few cases, when the supplied words are speculative (see, for instance, 1 Samuel 13.1 in the NASB) or somewhat interpretive, but most of the time, those added words don't warrant special attention.
People can discuss anything they want… they can choose to interpret the way that it seems that it can fit best their lifestyle… but friends there is only one Truth. And The Bible is The Living Word of GOD. And GOD’s Words won’t change. It does not matter the version of the Bible, the colors of the cover, the language, who is reading it, who is listening, etc… GOD’s Word is written and HIS Truth is there. It will NEVER change. The person who’s reading or listening may change and with the Help of The HOLY SPIRIT can see the only Truth of JESUS regarding any matter in Bible. Friends GOD Created man & woman. GOD Himself has design that. And HE loves everyone but HE condemns sin and other lifestyles. Besides, it doesn’t matter how we want to interpret or do this or that. The Truth will always be The Truth, and o e day we will be in front of JESUS. Amd HE will judge us all. So please, remember that. That it will NEVER change either.
Although I have very little against the NRSV as a translation, I don't know if your argument defending gender neutrality in the NRSV would really hold up in most circles. When you make mention of additional interpretation when using certain pronouns in the text, a similar argument could be made that in the NRSV attempt to be gender-neutral, it actually makes some verses more complex than necessary to understand. Some would argue the neutral pronouns that are used make some sentences overly complex and less natural when reading publically. I often find it ironic that the NRSV is considered in some circles to be scholarly but at the same time uses gender-neutral language when the Greek in some instances clearly does not.
I agree with you about the complexity of some of the sentence structure. The NRSV is in need of a good revision because of it. A revision is scheduled for release later this year, so we will see.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 Agreed. As a personal preference, I liked many things that were done in the RSV but many would be critical of that stance. I think the NRSV has a great opportunity with the revision. I just pray that they stay within the context of the original of our Father's word and not give in to the current immoral trends of our society.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 if you feel "excluded" when the Bible says "he" instead of "he or she" then you're casting unnecessary stumbling blocks in front of yourself.
Its good to see a positive video about the NRSV translation. Nothing is wrong with translations having brothers and sisters instead of brothers or brethren. However, for hundreds of years, women heard "brethren" instead of "brothers and sisters" and no women complained. So, I have to wonder why women would start complaining about it. As for Isaiah 7:14, I am aware of a rabbinical translation from the Middle Ages where the word almah was left untranslated. Since the Hebrew word doesn't really mean virgin, but is used for a woman who probably but not necessarily is a virgin, if I were preaching a sermon which included Isaiah 7:14 as the text, I would briefly explain the definition of the Hebrew word almah. As long as virgin is given as the optional reading for the word in a footnote, I can live with young woman, though I believe maiden might be a little better. Don't consider my comment as pushback, but just as my opinion. 🙂
The word could mean brothers and sisters depending on the context. In a Dan Wallace video he highlighted a piece of secular text around this period that used the word to refer to siblings of a man both male and female.
You do know that you could use the Owner's Guide from your personal vehicle as the basis for your preaching? Your congregation will get as much spiritual sustenance from being read the fuse box schematic as they apparently do being taught "scripture" from someone worried about "gendered" language. Teach them Subaru brand loyalty; you'll not be doing anything more to hinder their salvation by doing that than what you've already done.
After everything I've learned about the nrsv it blows me away that a preachers would want to preach this to their congregation. It's subtly misleading and leaves out verses.
Hey, brother, great video! I might have watched this 4-5 times. Love it!
Great perspective! I was nearly dissuaded from using the NRSV early on, especially because of some of the arguments I heard which you outlined in the video. Fortunately, I learned that *every* translation has its issues that somebody somewhere thinks is a deal breaker, and the important thing is to find one you like and live with its flaws. That's what I've done with the NRSV!
Besides a great defense of the NRSV, I think you've given a strong case for the NLT too. I've mostly used it as an audio Bible but perhaps I should try reading it more myself.
Kind words, Sir, thank you. Im currently reading Romans in the NLT, and have never been so moved by the book before. Its a beautiful rendering.
The NLT is the only audio Bible I can listen too unless I am reading along with the text!
@@desireegrosgebauer6526 It is a great one to listen to, and read! I've read from it quite a bit since I commented on this video, including the entire NT.
I feel it over does it with gendered language. Especially in some of the Psalms and revelations using comrades instead of brothers
I started seminary several months ago and use the Oxford NRSV for classes and the NLT filament for long readings and devotions. You have a very nice church by the way.
Thank you! What seminary, and what kind of work do you want to do? If you need pastoral resources, let me know. I have minister manuals, Greek resources and the like. If you're in the US I can send them your way.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 Wow, thank you! I am attending Liberty University, Rawling School of Divinity. I am in law enforcement and the MDiv degree course I'm doing is geared toward Chaplaincy. I would definitely appreciate anything that you'd be willing to send. I am especially interested in the Greek material.
@@philr3381 Sounds good. If you're comfortable with that, please email joebiblio@gmail.com with address
Hi Phil, that offer still stands. So if you get a chance, you can email me at the email above and I'll ship you a package.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 sorry for the delayed response, just replied to you via email.
I'm watching this over, and you've made me appreciate NLT. Thanks again for commenting on the NRSV Frisch Perspective video. I also like The Living Bible that evolved into NLT. And I do adore Eugene H Peterson, so I'm a fan of The Message Bible too!
Thank you for the kind words! God's Word is God's Word!
I enjoyed your thoughtful explanation. I have a NAB Catholic Bible with annotations and it says that "Almah" in no way can be interpreted as virgin. They have in a more vested interest in Mary's virginity.
Your video has kind of moved me from a rigid "none gender inclusive" view point to more of a middle ground. I do get what you mean now especially from your POV when you are speaking to your congregation. Thoughtful video that has got me thinking about my "old stuck in the mud" ways, -- thank you ) ++
Glad I can help, and thank you for your kind words!! 🥚👻
This video gives me a good example how it is different between reading the Bible privately and reading in front of the congregation. I like your explanation. Thank you.
I subscribed because of your comment on an NRSV translation review. Thank you! I'm a KJV, NRSV, Good News Bible.
The Dean of my seminary, his father worked on the Good News Bible, so I have a personal connection with that one. If you watched some of my other videos, you will see I try to find these odd Bibles. Im currently looking for a leather or nicer bound Good News Bible. Im sure it will come my way eventually! Thank you for subscribing.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 I've watched your Cambridge NRSV unboxing and now it's inspired me to get the hardback version. Yours looks beautiful but being in Australia, the anglicised just means that it's British spelling, as it should be. 😂😏😉 Hahaha! Also, your name makes me want eggs benedict for breakfast!
After seeing your review on your Bible, I went ahead and ordered the French Morocco. As you say, it's not as premium as premium Bibles; and it's actually very difficult to find a good quality NRSV with Apocrypha anywhere, I don't know why!
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 look on Canadian, British, Irish, or almost any other English speaking country bookstore websites. There is a Good News Translation bound in what I think is faux leather or leatherette and even with a zipper! I hope that this helps.
@@austinmyers1262 So that's where all the Good News is!!
Interesting argument appreciated it.
With the release of the NIV 2011 several years ago and the 2020 NIV Study Bible, would you think shifting to the NIV considering that the 2011 NIV update is already gender-neutral? I also heard from Beau Tate, another Bible reviewer, that the 2020 NIVSB may even be better than the highly scholarly and preferred ESV Study Bible. What are your thoughts about it?
Im uncertain. As you may tell, I enjoy older, used Bibles, so Im not up on the newer versions. People like Beau Tate are much better versed in this. We do need an updated NRSV though!
Thank you for an interesting, and well done review of the NRSV. Nice to see a positive approach to it. I use the NRSV both publicly and for personal reading. I don't find the gender inclusiveness of the NRSV much different from the NLT - for example Psalm 1 is almost identical in both translations in the use of gender language. I do read and enjoy the NLT, but because of the 'conversational' tone of the language overall.
Thank you for that kind word!
Yes same I also like the that the nrsv let's you do the interpretation of passages
What are your thought about the removal of the Holy Spirit in the NRSV in Genisis 1? That was my main issue. I invested heavily in this translation to do study with. I personally could not get over this issue and haven't been much interested sense.
There is a footnote in the NRSV that states wind is interchangeable with spirit. When I read it for public worship, I always provide an aside of what Ru'ach means, which is more of a brooding, hovering wind or spirit. To me it gets at the maternal nurturing of the Holy Spirit. I recommend you watch my History of the Bible series re: Old Testament formation, where I explain that Hebrew is notoriously difficult because it is a language based on images (more based on oral culture) not easily translated to English, a written language. You may also note from my video that I rarely use the NRSV for personal devotion. Bottom line: when I read it I see ru'ach, not wind or spirit. My brain is trained. And I try to preach it that way.
Thank you for watching and subbing!
I don't mind the NRSV either. I am having a very hard time finding one that is NOT anglicized text version though. I am a Catholic, in the US and the only English versions I can find for purchase are Anglicized and it drives me nuts. Any idea where I could find one that isn't?
Yes, get the Cambridge with apocrypha. It comes on non anglicized.
Or the Oxford Annotated NRSV fifth edition
Try the NRSV single column reference Bible Premier Collection from Zondervan. It's a little bit pricey, and doesn't have the apocrypha. But it's not the Anglicanism text.
I think the most important thing, no matter which translation that you are using as a minister, you have to do your own language work, and look behind the translation you are using. No translation is perfect (not is our own judgment when doing language work too though!!), and we need to look into where the gender inclusive language works, and where it doesn’t. Charity towards all is needed most in this discussion I suppose. Great video, thanks for making it!
Thats a good word, thank you! And thank you for subscribing!!
Thanks for a thoughtful, interesting video.
I have a lot of respect for the NRSV overall. But I cannot use it as a primary Bible or recommend it because the gender policy of the translators went beyond dealing with "brothers/brothers and sisters." That is a logical translation where the Greek clearly intends to address all believers.
My issue is where they deliberately twist text around to eliminate a pronoun, resulting in plurals everywhere and potentially misleading renderings. Some examples are switching "husband of one wife" to "married only once" and substituting "mortal" for "Son of Man." You can appreciate how that alters the meaning and potential interpretation.
If you read what the translators themselves wrote, you will find that some sought to introduce "gender accurate" language while others were seeking to wipe male pronouns out of scripture. In my opinion, the end result was a compromise.
I believe the NIV, CSB and NAB do a better job of seeking gender-accurate language without doing violence to the text unnecessarily.
Peace to you sir!
I know this is 7 months old, but I don't know why I didn't respond more thoroughly. Prob because I appreciate your words and needs no further comments. Thank you for this thoughtful post. I agree with you about "mortal". I agree with the NRSV with "married only once" because people don't see "husband" as gender inclusive, which it can be. Of course, I have served in churches where there were elders who were wives of one husband.
View number 900 right here… oooooohhhh guuurl (and guy)
Oooh baby!!
The lack of gender inclusiveness is what made me not like the ESV as I would have to explain, even to myself, so frequently this means sisters too - I was at a church that was mostly men and I think the ESV was the reason. I like the CSB at the moment but most churches here in the UK use the NIV or ESV - I think the NRSV might be a good option for public teaching from as it is basically an inclusive ESV. And as you said if you don't like a rendering of a passage you can full on another rendering from the ESV or NKJV.
Thats about right. Cambridge makes a good anglicized NRSV too.
Do you think NRSV and ESV are the two best modern English language translations of Bible for the Anglophone people?
Thank you for watching and commenting! To answer your question: First, I don't have an opinion about the ESV. I know very little about it. I like the NRSV, but I think the NIV is the best modern translation in contemporary history, and have expressed that elsewhere. And lastly, I dont know what an anglophone is.
@RaymondSaint Thank you for your thoughts and for tuning in! Appreciate it!
@RaymondSaint The current NIV is excellent.
@RaymondSaint You need to actually read it for yourself. To categorically state that it "is no good" is absurd.
Yes, what is an anglophone please?
Do You have a an email I like to talk with you please
P.s I got an NRSV Friday it's the Catholic edition I believe I don't know what year. And only have enough for a short time I can say this about that transmission. Very easily
Sorry, I just saw this comment this evening!! Still want to chat?
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 when time permits :)
I agree with you on this wholeheartedly. I don't really care for the NRSV due to the way some verses read, such as Psalms 23, so many people know verse 4 as walking through the valley of the shadow of death. I prefer the traditional sound, BUT I have many friends who have never read the Bible, and some have preconceived notions about it due to the old English, and being able to quote from something that's gender inclusive so I don't have to do the extra interpretation steps for them is very nice.
Well said!
I am beginning to get frustrated with Bible reviews that knock the NRSV for inclusive language. I thinking has to do, primarily, with my profession: I am a writing professor. We must consider the audience (which you covered well in your video) and the purpose for the Bible, mainly to deliver God's message to the people. This means all people, men and women. Also, language changes. It is a fluid, not stagnant, thing. The male pronoun (he) was once used as a gender neutral pronoun. But, that has changed. It has been changed for decades. That is the way language works. Lastly, the NRSV translators provide the original in the notes. And, like you said, if one doesn't like it, he or she can "change" it as they read.
My rant is over! Your video is very well done. Great job.
Thank you, Rachel, and thanks for watching. Nice to have an erudite out there!
"He" as gender neutral hadn't changed. We say "guys" for all people. If God wanted it to say sisters it would have.
@@Sirach144 actually, the gender neutral use of "he" or writing using male pronouns in the singular format fell out of favor years ago, even before I graduated high school and I am middle-aged. Language changes; it is fluid. If one does not like inclusive Bibles, then he or she can buy one that has the archaic language preserved. That is the beauty of freedom.
@@Sirach144 As has already been said, "he" hasn't been gender neutral for decades, but even if it were wouldn't that mean that you agree that the gender neutral language used in the NRSV is an equally valid translation? After all, if God wanted it to say "he" instead of using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, it would, right?
Have you checked out the NRSV updated edition?
Yes, if you check out my channel, I did a brief review on one recently! Enjoy!
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 Yes, I guess I was looking for your assessment of the changes in translation
@@FernandoSerna1654 I am not familiar enough with it to give that kind of assessment. But Im reading the Proverbs in it now, so we will see.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 ok, let’s see what you find
@@FernandoSerna1654 I dont plan on reading it beyond the Proverbs because the CSB is my 2023 Bible of choice. I'm the same with the ESV: you'll never hear me comment on the text because Im unfamiliar with it
I just got the NRSV C.S Lewis edition.
I saw that recently. I wonder how it is.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 it’s really good. I love the reflections it’s easy to read and so well put together.
An intereting viewpoint. When people ask me 'what is the Bible?' I always point to the title page of the Authorized Edition: 'Appointed To Be Read in Churches'. I still think that the NRSV loses a lot of messianic prophecies by changing passages like Psalm 1 to plural.
Does NRSV leave verses out?
Nope, they are in the text and the ones that were never in the original texts are included (still not left out) in the bottom of the text in footnotes.
Thx for your fast response.
The NRSV is my co-primary translation, along with the ESV (which is practically the same translation outside of a handful of translator biases in both translations). The scholarship in the RSV tradition is second to none, as far as I'm concerned. In the realm of gender inclusive translations, I'm also fond of the REB and CSB, and I've recently been checking out the newest edition of the NASB (which sticks the gender inclusive wording in italics, a fair compromise).
Awesome, that new NASB sounds interesting. Let us know how it works out! Thanks for watching!
I like NKJV and NASB as they italicize supplied words.
@@thomasmaloney843 I find that formatting to be too distracting. It's useful in a few cases, when the supplied words are speculative (see, for instance, 1 Samuel 13.1 in the NASB) or somewhat interpretive, but most of the time, those added words don't warrant special attention.
People can discuss anything they want… they can choose to interpret the way that it seems that it can fit best their lifestyle… but friends there is only one Truth. And The Bible is The Living Word of GOD. And GOD’s Words won’t change. It does not matter the version of the Bible, the colors of the cover, the language, who is reading it, who is listening, etc… GOD’s Word is written and HIS Truth is there. It will NEVER change. The person who’s reading or listening may change and with the Help of The HOLY SPIRIT can see the only Truth of JESUS regarding any matter in Bible. Friends GOD Created man & woman. GOD Himself has design that. And HE loves everyone but HE condemns sin and other lifestyles. Besides, it doesn’t matter how we want to interpret or do this or that. The Truth will always be The Truth, and o e day we will be in front of JESUS. Amd HE will judge us all. So please, remember that. That it will NEVER change either.
Amen to dat!
I love seeing people speak from translations like this. Makes it easy to see who's Godly and who's worldly.
Although I have very little against the NRSV as a translation, I don't know if your argument defending gender neutrality in the NRSV would really hold up in most circles. When you make mention of additional interpretation when using certain pronouns in the text, a similar argument could be made that in the NRSV attempt to be gender-neutral, it actually makes some verses more complex than necessary to understand. Some would argue the neutral pronouns that are used make some sentences overly complex and less natural when reading publically. I often find it ironic that the NRSV is considered in some circles to be scholarly but at the same time uses gender-neutral language when the Greek in some instances clearly does not.
I agree with you about the complexity of some of the sentence structure. The NRSV is in need of a good revision because of it. A revision is scheduled for release later this year, so we will see.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 Agreed. As a personal preference, I liked many things that were done in the RSV but many would be critical of that stance. I think the NRSV has a great opportunity with the revision. I just pray that they stay within the context of the original of our Father's word and not give in to the current immoral trends of our society.
10:50 RED FLAG!
Cant use multiple translations when preaching? Really?!
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 Talking about changing whatever you feel like. You nullified your own original premise.
@@bradleygilmore5638 Yes, the preacher can use whatever translation communicates the clearest message in the moment. That's what preaching is.
I find the "inclusivity" to be dangerous and watering down the God's word
So being exclusive and discriminatory is Godly? I dont think so.
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 if you feel "excluded" when the Bible says "he" instead of "he or she" then you're casting unnecessary stumbling blocks in front of yourself.
Its good to see a positive video about the NRSV translation. Nothing is wrong with translations having brothers and sisters instead of brothers or brethren.
However, for hundreds of years, women heard "brethren" instead of "brothers and sisters" and no women complained. So, I have to wonder why women would start complaining about it.
As for Isaiah 7:14, I am aware of a rabbinical translation from the Middle Ages where the word almah was left untranslated. Since the Hebrew word doesn't really mean virgin, but is used for a woman who probably but not necessarily is a virgin, if I were preaching a sermon which included Isaiah 7:14 as the text, I would briefly explain the definition of the Hebrew word almah. As long as virgin is given as the optional reading for the word in a footnote, I can live with young woman, though I believe maiden might be a little better.
Don't consider my comment as pushback, but just as my opinion. 🙂
Thats a good word, thank you! And, yes, we all love NRSVs around here. Its my niche!
I feel like if God wanted "sisters" it would have been given by the holy spirit.
The word could mean brothers and sisters depending on the context. In a Dan Wallace video he highlighted a piece of secular text around this period that used the word to refer to siblings of a man both male and female.
I am a woman and I am against the gender inclusive language in a bible...
You do know that you could use the Owner's Guide from your personal vehicle as the basis for your preaching? Your congregation will get as much spiritual sustenance from being read the fuse box schematic as they apparently do being taught "scripture" from someone worried about "gendered" language. Teach them Subaru brand loyalty; you'll not be doing anything more to hinder their salvation by doing that than what you've already done.
After everything I've learned about the nrsv it blows me away that a preachers would want to preach this to their congregation. It's subtly misleading and leaves out verses.
yeah who cares what the bible actually says
Is that sarcasm I hear... You're pulling my leg!