Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Pastor Larry, May 5, 2004.
Thanks Larry, that article is very interesting. The last sentence was a shocker . . .
I am not sure what to make of that.
I saw that. I found it interesting. I assume it is because they recognize the outdated language. They seem to believe (as I do), that out dated or hard to understand language is just as dangerous as weak translations. Either way, the word of God is obscured.
Since God is in overall control, I believe this mix of preferred versions reflects the diversity God has created among mankind. Whether any bigots like it or not, diversity of races, ethnicity, cultures, & Christian religious practices was created by God.
Notice this poll included great numbers of Lutheran, Methodist, et al who advocated the NRSV as #1.
The old KJV1769 (including virgin in Is 7:14 and condemnation of sodomites, etc) would NOT be "politically ocrrect" to those ministers or churches.
Hence the "least recommended" moniker.
Dr. Bob, do you feel the same way about the ESV since it had its roots in the RSV? I know Skan does not seem to think much about it. I was under the assumption that although many verses were the same, the problem verses were completely new. What are you thoughts?
I only bring this up in this thread because of your comments with the NRSV. How does the NRSV related to the ESV anyway, since the root RSV is the same?
Here is the ancestry tree regarding the variants based upon the ASV of 1901:
ASV (1901)---RSV (1952)---NRSV (1989)
ASV (1901)---RSV (1952)---ESV (2001)
ASV (1901)---NASB (1977)---NASBu (1995)
As you can see, the ESV and the NRSV are sisters, or sorts, sharing the same ancestry. The differences are that the NRSV was translated with the same philosophies as the RSV (i.e. young woman instead of virgin in Is. 14). Furthermore, the NRSV is more of a dynamics equivalent translation. The ESV on the other hand, utilized the RSV as a base text, but corrected the liberal bias as well as took into account newer translation techniques (i.e. see Mal. 2:15). The ESV is a very literal translation, but not unreadable.
Incidently, the NRSV is owned and copyrighted by the National Council of Churches (NCC) while the ESV is owned and copyrighted by Crossway Books.
I had the stigma of the liberal RSV engrained into my mind for many years. I started using the ESV 2 years ago, which included a "proving" time to make sure that the problems with the RSV weren't carried over. I have been very pleased with it and use it as my primary bible.
I hope that helps.
You are correct. I am surprised that either denomination even reads the bible, NRSV or otherwise!
Thank you mesly, I had the same stigma and was quite shocked when someone said the ESV came from an RSV and I compared some of the scriptures between the two and they were identical. Then I continued to study and found that many of the weaker verses seem to have been corrected. But, like you, I had a period of adjustment to get over this shock. Now, after using the ESV for a while and making comparisons, I find it very useful and (as you mentioned) also readable.
Maybe that stigma has been the problem with the ESV's marketing. Regardless of who you are, you are remembered as your dad's kid.
Thanks for the info.
I posted this on another post, but it is true.
One of our church members went to a big Methodist church in another town. They got into a debate over a scripture passage and they searched the church for two hours to find a Bible to settle it. When they couldn't find one, he left the denomination and became Baptist.
Wasn't there a time when the Methodists were relatively conservative? I seem to remember Methodist country churches that were stricter than many of the local Baptist churches. Of course, we are RIGHT in the middle of the Bible belt.
The local Methodist church (one of the conservative ones) way up here has 2 Bibles in every pew and about 20 more in the library room. A few years ago, there was talk of some conservative Methodist churches breaking off and starting a new group. I haven't heard much about that since then though.
Almost all of these mainline churches still have Bibles and use them. They get a bad rap, but most have Bible studies that parallel our ifb churches . . and more.
As for the ESV, that is gaining popularity among the "evangelical" churches. I do not have one - yet!
"Wasn't there a time when the Methodists were relatively conservative?"
Indeed they were. John Wesley could reasonably be described as a fundamentalist (he, unlike his brother Charles, was willing to separate from Anglicanism), and the tradition continued in America. It was common on the frontier for Baptists and Methodists, despite differing soteriology, to share space and even pulpits.
Socially, Methodists were more likely than Baptists to be tee-totallers (remember, Baptists invented Bourbon whiskey).
The divide arose in the late 1800s as the Methodists increasingly adopted the social gospel to a greater degree than Baptists and, IMO, in the early 1900s when the Pentecostal Holiness movement (a mixture of Wesleyan theology and soteriology and new-age charismaticism) siphoned off the enthusiasm of the established church into new denominations.
Southern churches continue to be more conservative than their northern counterparts, though I don't know of any organized effort to return to conservative roots.
The UMC, though technically hierarchical, is a good deal like Baptists on the local level. (It is well to remember that the the UMC incorporated the Methodist Protestant Church, which gave laity a larger say in church affairs than the episcopal system.) Yes, the bishop appoints the pastor, but woe should he or she flount the wishes of the local congregation.
Dr. Bob: Take the plunge and get an ESV. Then jump into the deep end with an NET.
You are correct. I am surprised that either denomination even reads the bible, NRSV or otherwise! </font>[/QUOTE]Not many in any denomination read the Bible. I have pastored enough churches to know that few do the work of ministry.
My neighbor is a Lutheran pastor and each NT text he preaches from he spends time translating the text from the Greek. He is well educated and I find it a delight to discuss theology with him. We certainly don’t agree on everything. But our dialog helps me to be more knowledgeable. Often we talk about things we learn from the Greek text. I have been able to discuss things like that with only a few other people. This man leads people to Christ. He invites them to give their lives to Christ. His family are Christians and they are godly people. They and their children share their faith. It has been a pleasant surprise for me. He has told me that there are men who are liberals. But I find him to not be one of them. I think we are living in the days when liberals are among all denominations and conservative are in the same denominations. We must take each church and pastor individually.