1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Revised Standard Version

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salty, Mar 2, 2018.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    32,155
    Likes Received:
    746
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I always thought that it was the NASV!
     
  2. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The RSV translation is a heretical one. Dr O T Allis in an appendix to his excellent book, "Revision or new translation?: " The revised standard version of 1946, " a comparative study. Revised version or revised Bible? : a critique of the Revised standard version of the Old Testament (1952)", shows the extreme Liberal views by the Committee of this version. I don't have access to this book now, but remember reading it many years ago. You can see some facts about this version, here A Critique of the Revised Standard Version
     
  3. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I see a lot of hype in the article and some weak arguments. The first person stating his led off with "this may or may not be true". Then began to list heretical doctrines held with any supporting documentation. Next argument is the Isaiah issue I mentioned in my 2nd post. I don't think this makes it heretical. The RSV acknowledges the virgin birth in the NT. What they avoided was a perceived implication that Isaiah's wife was virgin when she gave birth to their second child. A 2nd "fact they mentioned was that sarx was rendered as "body". Every lexicon I have, including the BDAG acknowledges this is a meaning of the word. A 3rd "fact" the present has proving it is heretical is the fact they fail to capitalize pronouns refering to the divine, such as "Son" ...or in the RSV's case "son".

    Seems like the article is a bit of an overreaction.

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    7,390
    Likes Received:
    225
    Faith:
    Baptist
    newspaper article from 1953:

    [​IMG]

    "The Rev. Guy Weniger, an Oakland Baptist minister...urged investigation of the 'Communist-front activities' of the translators of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible."
     
  5. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hahahaha

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
  6. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,677
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Two more proofs offered by the link above to support the claim that the RSV is heretical....

    "Psalm 45 are obscured by the Revised Standard rendering of "you" for "Thou" as if deity were not addressed."

    "It has been declared on good authority that upwards of $500,000.00 was spent to promote the advertisement and sale of the book. This huge financial venture on the part of the copyright-holding Council and the publishers constitutes a monopolizing commercial scheme which will enrich the NCCC"

    ...yeah....not putting much stock in the piece by DTS faculty from the 1950's

    Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
     
  7. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    7,189
    Likes Received:
    500
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Couple minor items which from current perspective might seem to view the arguments of the 50’s as silly.

    1) The “red scare” was a reality that few questioned. Communism was and still remains a threat, the socialist objective was never to obliterate, but as in the 60’s Khrushchev the U.S. would drop as a over ripe corrupt fruit into their hands. Pretty much their objective has been met.

    2) One must also remember that from the mid 50’s many adults in leadership moved to a reactionary rather then a fair analysis. Parents and scholars wrestled with the growing rebelliousness and anything “new” was looked upon as suspect. Therefore the reviews of the RSV would reflect that bias, imo.

    Ultimately, imo, the RSV could have been much better, and is not viewed in such a derogatory light, in modern times, primarily because of the stacks of other translations that are in deed even less credible (imo).

    If the KJV was good enough for Jesus to use, that should be the standard for everyone to use, even the nonEnglish speakers. Don’t you agree?

    :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,479
    Likes Received:
    532
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think Dick Cheney is ultimately responsible.
     
  9. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You speak of "hype", then I suggest you see some facts.

    1. Genesis 22:16, the RSV has rendered the Hebrew, "זַרְעֲךָ֔", by "descendants", whereas the Hebrew noun is masculine and singular. This is a Prophecy of Jesus Christ as Paul tells us in Galatians 3:16, where he makes the point in saying, "seed" and "not seeds". The RSV has no authority to change the singular to plural, and remove the fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

    2. For the all important verse in the Old Testament, for the "conception" of the Lord Jesus Christ, again, the RSV has rendered the Hebrew noun, "עַלְמָ֗ה", by "young woman". Two important points must be made here. Firstly, by doing so, they have removed any reference to this verse being a Prophecy for the Virgin Conception of the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, they have challenged the direct Inspiration of the Gospel of Matthew, who clearly says in his Gospel, 1:22, that this Prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Matthew also uses the Greek, "παρθένος (virgin)", and not "νεᾶνις", which is the word for "young woman". The RSV are saying that Matthew, who wrote under the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit, is wrong in quoting Isaiah 7:14 for Jesus Christ. Thereby denying the divine inspiration of this passage.

    see, The Promise of a Saviour-King - Edward J. Young

    3. In Matthew 1:25, the RSV against the greater textual evidence, have removed "πρωτότοκος", (firstborn), which is another reference to the Lord Jesus Christ' Birth.

    4. In Romans 9:5, another strong text for the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been changed, following the Liberal rendering of the Greek, "ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν." (Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen), to read, "to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.". The RSV has been very careful in their punctuation, to make sure that Jesus Christ is not the "God over all".

    5. In Colossians 1:14, the words, "διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ" (through His blood), have been removed.

    6. in 1 Timothy 3:16, another strong and clear text to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, has been corrupted. Where, instead of "θεὸς" (God), they have used, "ὃς". John Burgon, one of the best textual scholars the Church has had, did a masterful work on this verse, and over 100 years later, has nor can be refuted. You can read this for yourself here, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Jesus/1tim3_16_burgon.pdf

    7. Again, the clearest verses for the Holy Trinity, 1 John 5:7, was tampered with in the RSV, and made sure to remove any reference to the God, Whom is One Being, but Three Persons: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. I have done some personal studies over the years on this great and important verse, even though I first has some doubts on its genuineness.

    The Testimony of two early Church scholars, Tertullian and Cyprian, who wrote over 100-150 years before the oldest Greek manuscript that we have for this text, knew of it in their New Testaments, both Greek and Latin. Here is my personal research, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/cyptert.pdf

    Likewise for the man how was responsible for giving the Church the Latin Vulgate translation, Jerome, which you can read in my study, http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/jerome.pdf

    Lastly, but not least, I have shown from the internal Greek grammar of the entire passage that this verse is in, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove the words from the context, without causing problems which the Lord would not have allowed. http://www.trinitystudies.org/Trinity/1jn5.6-10.pdf

    Ad Dei gloriam!
     
  10. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    24,860
    Likes Received:
    530
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Seeing that the copyright holder is the National Council of Churches - would raise concern with me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had to use the RSV for a college course. I didn't like it very much. As a "modern" translation I will give it a 5.

    A.F.
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,479
    Likes Received:
    532
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hey A.F. I haven't seen you in these parts for about 32 months. Nice to see you again.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    32,155
    Likes Received:
    746
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The truth though is that one can for legit reasons translate either Virgin, or young woman in Hebrew text, but the Holy Spirit made it clear meant Virgin, so did the Rsv not call Mary a Virgin?
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    32,155
    Likes Received:
    746
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some areas where it can be improved upon, but overall "not that bad", but still would prefer the Esv to it!
     
  15. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are wrong as there is not a single use in the Bible, where the Hebrew, "almah", does not mean "virgin". The deliberate change by the RSV to "young woman", removes the fact that the person referred to in Prophecy by Isaiah, was a "virgin"; as a "young woman", may or may not be a "virgin".The Holy Spirit in BOTH Isaiah and Matthew meant VIRGIN, and nothing else. Give me the warrant that allows any version to render the Hebrew as not "virgin"
     
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,721
    Likes Received:
    3,344
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wrong again.

    Isaiah 7:14 is probably the most controversial passage in the RSV. It reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

    Some other translations read "virgin." The Hebrew word used here is "almah." It has been charged that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus.

    However, in Matthew 1:23, where the above passage from Isaiah is quoted, the RSV reads, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel." The Greek word used in the Matthew passage is "parthevos" which means "virgin; one who is chaste" (this is also the word the Septuagint uses in Isaiah 7:14).

    The real problem centers around how to translate the Hebrew word "almah." It literally means "a young woman; a maiden," and may or may not refer to one who is in a virginal state. The idea inherent within the word is one's youthfulness, not one's virginity. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethulah." In the writings outside of the Bible, the word "almah" was commonly used for any young woman (even those who were married). It was also a term used for young prostitutes (obviously with reference to their youth, rather than their virginity)!

    "Almah" appears only seven times in the OT writings, and interestingly enough the KJV translates it "virgin" in only four of these occurrences!

    The KJV translates it "maiden" twice (Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19) and "damsel" once (Psalm 68:25). The four other occurrences are Genesis 24:43; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14.

    The philosophy of translation of the RSV is that it will not read New Testament theology back into the Old Testament writings, but rather will let the OT say exactly what it says and leave the interpretation to others (a policy it should have followed more consistently, as was previously noted). Thus, by translating "almah" as "young woman" (which is exactly what this Hebrew word means) instead of "virgin" (which would have been a different Hebrew word) these translators have been severely attacked. It was their belief (though not always consistently followed) that translators did not have the right to read their theology (however correct) into a passage, but rather must let it stand exactly as written.

    Dr. Jack P. Lewis writes, "The RSV scholars decided not to read Christian theology into their translation of the OT passages that have been traditionally interpreted messianically, and they have been taken to task for it."

    Some people still maintain that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus because of their translation of this passage. However, there are numerous passages in the RSV (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-31 ... just to name a couple) that quickly put this fear to rest. It's not the virgin birth the RSV is denying, it's the notion that the Hebrew word "almah" MUST be rendered "virgin" in order to sustain a particular doctrine. One can deny the second without denying the first.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    32,155
    Likes Received:
    746
    Faith:
    Baptist
    They would not be reading the NT theology back into the OT passage, but were expressing how the hebrew would normally have understood it, and they also were connecting this to an immediate fulfilled of the prophet Isaiah own son being born...
     
  18. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I suggest you read the two excellent works done on this passage in Isaiah, with special attention to the Hebrew, almah, by Robert Dick Wilson and Edward J Young,which show beyond any doubt, that the ONLY possible rendering of the Hebrew is VIRGIN. These two scholars were among the best for Old Testament studies, and whose conclusions are irrefutable. You are mistaken to say that the Hebrew "almah" means "young woman", as this can be taken as someone who was not necessary a "virgin". The Hebrew very clearly shows that the "young woman IS a virgin", which is best rendered as "virgin", which removes any confusion.
     
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,721
    Likes Received:
    3,344
    Faith:
    Baptist
    LOL! ROFLOL! Yeah, and prostitutes are all virgins too! :D :D

    And, of course, the text in Isaiah is a direct reference to Isaiah's wife, who, obviously, was not a "virgin" but was undoubtedly a "young (married) woman." It is only by secondary application that it is applied to Mary.

    You really ought to study the bible a bit more and stop reading the internet to get your "doctrine."
     
  20. Saved-By-Grace

    Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    53
    Faith:
    Baptist
    so you know more than Wilson and Young? You have go to be kidding!
     
Loading...