Any here use the NRSV?

I use the NRSV New Testament. It's in the margin of my McReynolds interlinear. I'm not familiar enough with NIV2011 to compare them, but I think the NRSV is an excellent translation.

In the ranks of NKJV, it's refreshing because I typically use NASB95.

 

Does that mean you place it around the same level of quality as the NKJV, or something else?

Okay.

 

There is some comparison; however it is closest to the ESV. It is as close to the ESV as the 84 NIV is to the 2011 NIV.

 

By the way, Clint Kritzer's Bible reading postings have always been from the NRSV.

 

And here's my often-repeated D.A. Carson quote :"The NRSV is a jolly good translation."

 

Use it all the time, great translation. Pew bibles and SS material are NIV 2011, which I like very much, so preach from that translation. Also use the new Common English Bible, which is good, like NLT is to NIV. Most scholarly work is done if not from authors own translation from the NRSV, though I'm sure there are some exceptions out there.

 

I'll referenece it occasionally during sermon study and have made several citations using it over the past year. The translation is generally fine, though with some issues. One of the things that I like most about the translation on my shelf is that it contains the Septaugint. However, since I'm almost entirely digital now in much of my sermon and teaching prep, it rarely gets used in physical form.

The translation is okay as I mentioned. Using highly credible mainline scholars certainly helped. It does have some issues at critical junctures. In general I prefer other translations.

 

Too bad the ESV was based on the RSV, it would have been much better if based on the NRSV.

 

Interpreting masculine aspects of the Bible? Huh?

Have you ever owned an ESV? Have you ever looked at its footnotes? If the alternate renderings found there were put in the text you would have absolutely no reason to utter a word. As it is you are still peddling junk.