I always thought that it was the NASV!
Revised Standard Version
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salty, Mar 2, 2018.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member
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
-
Seems like the article is a bit of an overreaction.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk -
newspaper article from 1953:
"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." -
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk -
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 -
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?
:) -
-
Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member
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! -
Seeing that the copyright holder is the National Council of Churches - would raise concern with me.
-
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. -
-
-
-
Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member
-
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. -
-
Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member
-
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." -
Saved-By-Grace Well-Known Member
Page 2 of 5