Tuesday, June 25, 2024
HomeExclusiveWhat Is Wrong With The Rsv Bible

What Is Wrong With The Rsv Bible

Being Subject To Authorities

Choice of NIV or NKJ Super Giant Print Classic Bible with Alberti Popaj

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is Gods servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid Gods wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

The Revised Standard Version

Nearly fifty years passed before the next major translation was done. The impoverished style of the ASV prompted the International Council of Religious Education to recommend a revision. The work began in 1937 and the committee of 32 scholars consciously tried to make the RSV preserve the qualities of the KJV that had made it so great.

The RSV is a product of American scholarship. It is very much in the spirit of the KJV, and should be regarded as the seventh revision of the KJV.

On the first day of publicationSeptember 30, 1952it sold one million copies. Among many churches in America, it quickly replaced the AV. It is still one of the most popular translations ever done. It is powerful in its simplicity and directness. The conservative NT scholar, F. F. Bruce, gives it high praise:

for the English-speaking world as a whole there is no modern version of the Bible which comes so near as the R.S.V. does to making the all-purpose provision which the A.V. made for so many years.1

But not everyone took a liking to the RSV. It is in fact the most hated English translation of all time.

The first half of the 20th century saw two new major translationsthe ASV and the RSV. But the second half of the 20th has seen a multitude of new translations. Why the change? What was the catalyst that spawned all these new versions? It was primarily the RSVand fundamentally it was a negative reaction to the RSV.

Another preacher sent the ashes of the RSV to the senior editor.

What Is The American Standard Version

Revised Version, Standard American Edition of the BibleAmerican Standard VersionAmerican Standard VersionEnglish Revised VersionRevised Standard VersionAmplified BibleNew American Standard BibleRecovery VersionThe Living BibleAmerican Standard VersionAmerican Standard Version – Translation methodNestle-AlandMasoretic TextKing James BibleJehovahâs WitnessesNew World Translation of the Holy ScripturesWatchtower SocietywhothatwhichHoly SpiritHoly GhostAmerican Standard Version – Pros and ConsNew American Standard BibleAmerican Standard VersionAmerican Standard Version – Sample Verses

For Further Study

You May Like: Everyone Is Born A Sinner Bible Verse

The New International Version

In the 1960s a meeting of Protestant scholars and clergy, largely Evangelicals, formed the Committee for Bible Translation in order to produce a modern translation of the Bible that, it was hoped, would balance the power and literary style of the original text with contemporary English. The International Bible Society undertook the translation and produced translations first of the New Testament and then of the complete Bible . Scholars from various Protestant traditions participated. The New International Version subsequently became the best-selling English-language translation by the early 21st century and the most popular with Evangelicals. However, some scholars raised concerns about the rendering of some key passages of Scripture, most notably in St. Pauls letters, which they felt had been distorted by an overt evangelical agenda. Further, an attempt at introducing gender-sensitive language attracted such antipathy that a 1997 revision was abandoned. A gender-inclusive Todays New International Version attracted the scorn of traditionalists. In 2011 the NIV was revised again, this time to much broader acceptance by traditionalists. However, some fundamentalist denominations, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, rejected the new translation.

Second Edition Of The New Testament

The Bible RSV Revised Standard Version (abe) RS53 1984 Burgandy ...

On March 15, 1971, the RSV Bible was re-released with the Second Edition of the Translation of the New Testament. Whereas in 1962 the translation panel had merely authorized a handful of changes, in 1971 they gave the New Testament text a thorough editing. This Second Edition incorporated Greek manuscripts not previously available to the RSV translation panel, namely, the Bodmer Papyri, published in 195661.

The most obvious changes were the restoration of Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53-8.11 aka The Pericope Adulterae to the text . Also restored was Luke 22.19b-20, containing the bulk of Jesus’ institution of the Lord’s Supper. In the 1946-52 text, this had been cut off at the phrase, “This is my body”, and the rest had only been footnoted, since this verse did not appear in the original Codex Bezae manuscript used by the translation committee.

Some of these changes to the RSV New Testament had already been introduced in the 1965-66 RSV Catholic Edition, and their introduction into the RSV itself was done to pave the way for the publication of the Common Bible in 1973.

The Standard Bible Committee intended to prepare a second edition of the Old Testament, but those plans were scrapped in 1974, when the National Council of Churches voted to authorize a full revision of the RSV.

Also Check: Does The Bible Say Anything About Living Together Before Marriage

Whats The Difference Between A Catholic Bible And A Protestant Bible

Understanding of the Bible

For Protestant Christians, Luther made clear that the Bible is the Sola Skriptura, Gods only book, in which He provided His revelations to the people and which allows them to enter in communion with Him. Catholics, on the other hand, do not base their beliefs on the Bible alone.

Why So Many Versions

Editors note: This is the fourth part of a four-part series of lectures that were delivered at Lancaster Bible College in March, 2001, for the Staley Bible Lectureship. Dr. Wallace is available as a conference speaker on The History of the English Bible. If your church is interested, contact him for details.

You May Like: What Order Should You Read The Bible

The American Standard Version

  • The RV was primarily a British effort, but there were a few Americans who worked on the translation. By contractual agreement, the Americans promised not to publish their own translation until the RV had been on the market at least fourteen years. This would give the RV time to become established and overtake the KJ. As it turned out, 14 years or 140 years would still not be enough time for this stiff British translation to displace the AV.
  • The ASV was significantly better English than the RV. But it was still quite stilted. It is the most literal translation ever done in English that qualifies as passable English.
  • Like the RV, this translation was a revision of the KJthe sixth revision.
  • The ASV was immediately recognized as vastly superior to the RV. It became a great study Bible, though it is now outdated by new discoveries.

Problems With The Rsv Preface

EWTN Religious Catalogue – 2013-05-20 -20 The Navarre Bible: Pentateuch & Inside the Bible

The RSV preface leaves the impression that there are lots and lots of important mistakes in the Greek text underlying the KJV New Testament. This just isnt the case. Even after fourteen centuries of copying, the text of the latest biblical manuscripts is still extremely similar to that of the earliest copies we have. The differences are almost all excessively minor. Subsequent history shows that the RSV translators should have been more deferential to the Emperor of English Bibles. Their words only succeeded in making KJV readers mad.

Words like these just were not calculated to win people over:

The King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation.

Also Check: What Does God Say About Worrying

The New English Bible

The first completely new English Bible since Tyndale was the NEB. It was conceived in 1946, but not completed until 1970. Done by British scholars perhaps an overreaction to the dismal failure of the RV.

Nevertheless, it is a very fresh and very readable translation. It is the most beautiful translation of the 20th century and in many places has moving and powerful passages.

The great NT prof at Cambridge, C. H. Dodd, was the project director. Dodd had a brilliant mind and a quick wit. He had memorized the entire NTin Greek! He knew several languages, ancient and modern. And his skills in both Greek and English would be the 20th century equivalent of Tyndales in the 16th century.

Just two examples:

Luke 11.48In Jesus scathing rebuke of the religious leaders, the passage in Greek is beautifully terse. But many translations get wordy and cumbersome. The KJV: Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

NEB: and so testify that you approve of the deeds your fathers did they committed the murders and you provide the monuments. This comes as close to picking up the snappy feel of the original as any translation Ive seen.

John 1.1Virtually all translations follow the KJV, which follows Tyndale: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


New American Standard Bible

In 1963-71, conservative American Protestants produced a new translation to counter the RSV, the New American Standard Bible . It retains the word ” thou, ” using it to address the Lord . It is a careful translation which sticks as closely as possible to the original Greek and Hebrew. The publishers claim that ” the translators of the NASB kept the original word order wherever possible, believing that this was a means the writer used to accent and emphasize what he deemed most important. Words are often faithfully reproduced in the NASB, even to conjunctions such as ” and ” in the belief that these, too, helped to mirror the writers’ style and manner of expression. These are often ignored in other translations. This emphasis on accuracy and loyalty to the original tests makes the NASB unique.”

The NASB places such stress on accuracy that it attempts to reproduce even the nuances of Greek verbs, which are often entirely different from English. As a result, the English translation is generally wooden and heavy. We are told how the ancients said it we are not told how that same idea could best be expressed in modern English. The NASB is a good Bible to use for study purposes, but it does not make easy reading.

Also Check: Loneliness Bible Verses

The Rsv Takes On The Kjv

The translators of the Revised Standard Version didnt mince words when comparing their work to the King James Version. The KJV has grave defects, they said. Its underlying Greek texts were marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries.

The RSV translators, on the other hand, possessed more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. They were far better equipped to recover the original wording of the Greek text.

Although Ive written my own book taking an honest look at the King James Version, I dont think these comments were fair. Or nice. Or helpfuleven if they contain a kernel of truth.

What’s Wrong With The New King James

The Bible RSV Revised Standard Version 1971 Black Hardcover ABE
  • Issue Date:

Question: What is wrong with the New King James Version ? All it does is modernize the words of the King James Bible, right? Why should I read the King James and not the helpful New King James?

Answer: The New King James is not a King James Bible. It changed thousands of words, ruined valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead copied the perverted NIV, NASV or RSV. And this you must know: those who translated the NKJV did not believe God perfectly preserved His words!

I have gotten more letters on this question than almost any other. This is very important to those who want God’s truth in the English language. I myself used the NKJV for a decade before I learned the truth about the preserved words of God. Here is some of what convinced me to switch to the King James Bible from the “New King James.”

  • Go to Gehenna?

    The NKJV claims to be “more accurate” because it leaves untranslated words like “Gehenna,” “Hades” and “Sheol.” What do they mean? You will know from the King James the exact meaning: “hell.” We know what that means. Meaning is very important. When’s the last time you heard someone told to “Go to Gehenna”?

  • Which is correct?

    The NKJV consistently uses terms that don’t mean the same as in the King James Bible. Here are some examples:

  • Both translations cannot be correct. If one is right, the other has to be wrong. No matter how you slice it, the NKJV does not have the same meaning as the accurate King James Bible.

    Read Also: How Many Times Is Fear In The Bible

    Biblical Studies: Too Many Bibles

    Not many years ago, if you walked into a book store and asked for a Bible, you could be pretty sure of what to expect. The salesperson would hand you a copy of the Authorized or King James Version of 1611. Your only problem would be to decide which binding you preferred, the size of the print, the quality of the illustrations, and how much you wanted to spend. If you specified that you wanted a ” Catholic Bible, ” you would be handed a different book, one with the complicated sub-title of Rheims- Douai-Challoner Version , which was translated in 1582 and revised in 1750 by Bishop Challoner for English-speaking Roman Catholics. If you asked for an ” Orthodox Bible, ” you would be answered with a blank stare.

    An Orthodox Critique Of English Translations Of The Bible

    “Every translator is a traitor.”

    “Because no translation of the Bible is perfect or is acceptableto all groups of readers, and because discoveries of oldermanuscripts and further investigation of linguistic features ofthe text continue to become available, renderings of the Biblehave proliferated.”

    It was in A.D. 1382 – about 70 years before the invention of theprinting press – that the first entire Bible was translated intoEnglish: The Oxford / Wycliffe hand-written edition. Lastspring, the latest translation of the English language Bible was made availablefrom the eight publishers that were licensed to print it. Thetranslating committee of the NRSV worked under the auspices ofthe National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA,which also holds the copyright.


    The NRSV is the most recent revision in a family lineage ofBibles. Here is a brief look at them:

    The WYCLIFFE BIBLE was, in part, an absolutely literaltranslation of the Latin, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts then available.But it also contained very free renderings into 14th-century colloquial English. The WycliffeBible was immediately condemned by the Western church hierarchy.

    The preparation of all these Bibles was purely a Protestanteffort . All have used amodified Elizabethan or Shakespearean, 17th century-English. Upthrough the 1950s, people thought that the King James Bible waswhat the Bible should sound like .



    Recommended Reading: Old Testament Stories In Chronological Order

    What Is The Revised Standard Version

    Revised Standard Version â HistoryRevised Standard VersionAmerican Standard VersionRevised Standard VersionReaderâs DigestRevised Standard VersionRevised Standard VersionRevised Standard Version â Translation MethodNestle-Aland Greek textRevised Standard Version â Pros and ConsRevised Standard VersionRevised Standard Version â Sample Verses

    For Further Study

    Alterations In 1962 Printings

    Scripture and Tradition with Fr. Mitch Pacwa
    Learn how and when to remove this template message)

    Approximately 85 alterations to the RSV text were authorized in 1959 and introduced into the 1962 printings. At the same time, as Thomas Nelson & Sons was not keeping up with the public demand for the RSV Bible, the NCC authorized other publishing companies besides Nelson to print it, including the American Bible Society, Cokesbury, Holman, Melton, Oxford University Press, World, Collins, and Zondervan. Some of the changes included reverting to the Greek phrase “the husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3.2, 12 and Titus 1.6 , quoting the Roman centurion who witnessed Jesus’ death and called him “the Son of God” in Matthew 27.54 and Mark 15.39 , and changing “without” in Job 19.26 to “from” .

    In 196566, the Catholic Biblical Association adapted, under the editorship of John Archibald Henslowe OrchardO.S.B. and Reginald C. Fuller, the RSV for Catholic use with the release of the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition . A revised New Testament was published in 1965, followed by a full RSV Catholic Edition Bible in 1966. The RSV Catholic Edition included revisions up through 1962, a small number of new revisions to the New Testament, mostly to return to familiar phrases, and changes to a few footnotes. It contains the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament placed in the traditional order of the Vulgate.

    Don’t Miss: What Does The Bible Say About Mary Magdalene


    Most Popular