I've heard that the NRSV had "liberal bias" and many conservative Christians do not use the version because of this but instead adopted the ESV(other versions are popular), which seems like a "conservative" version of the NRSV (having same readings in many places) that reads poorly.
The only thing that I can really find on what these "liberal" elements are is the usage of Young-maiden over Virgin, in reference to the birth of Christ. Which to me doesn't seem to affect the Virgin birth.
Can someone explain the
other translation issues? And if you think it is a good bible to use or not.
It went way into the inclusive language translation process, so would be the liberal equivalent of the Niv 2011 !
Not a bad translation, but definitely into that gender rendering business!
From what I've read the NIV 2011 doesn't seem that bad. mainly rather than "brothers" it reads "brothers and sisters", this to me isn't a issue as often bothers is used for both(mixed group). Has it been used differently in either translation?
The MLV renders the emphatic Greek for "not in any way" as "may never*."
In the 2019 revision "should never*."
A little better.
Still wishy-washy.
". . . and I give to them everlasting life, and they should never* perish . . . ." -- John 10:28.
I would think, "will never*" would have been better.
Not sure how that was relevant to what I was talking about. The NASB does not even italicize all added words, that is a misleading statement. Any translation there are going to be added words. They only italicize words that are supplied on top of the standard translation to add meaning. Honestly, many of their additions are unnecessary.
What examples do you have on the ESV, out of curiosity, with the same supplied words that would be italicized in the NASB?
No I prefer the ESV as my primary translation. I see it at about the same accuracy as the NASB. Others argue otherwise, but just being literal all the time is not necessarily more accurate.