REVISED STANDARD VERSION

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#1
Does anyone have an opinion on the old Revised Standard Version?
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
685
113
#2
Never read it OH, I have checked it occasionally against other versions on the blueletter bible site.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#3
It says Jesus has an origin, I would think it's not inspired.

[h=1]Micah 5:2 Revised Standard Version (RSV)[/h][h=3]The Ruler from Bethlehem[/h][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]2 [a] But you, O Bethlehem Eph′rathah,
who are little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#5
It says Jesus has an origin, I would think it's not inspired.

Micah 5:2 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

The Ruler from Bethlehem

2 [a] But you, O Bethlehem Eph′rathah,
who are little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.

Well, since there is no such thing as an inspired translation, KJV not withstanding, I do not think that is much of a criticism. There is not a translation out there that does not have some issues. But, I do think this is an unfortunate rendering of this particular verse.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#6
It says Jesus has an origin, I would think it's not inspired.

Micah 5:2 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

The Ruler from Bethlehem

2 [a] But you, O Bethlehem Eph′rathah,
who are little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.

So Jesus did not origionate, or go forth from or precede from the past?

That does not say Jesus was crreated, I hope your not trying to say that is what is meant.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,540
3,503
113
#7
Well, since there is no such thing as an inspired translation, KJV not withstanding, I do not think that is much of a criticism. There is not a translation out there that does not have some issues. But, I do think this is an unfortunate rendering of this particular verse.
There are inspired translations throughout the "originals". Cannot our God inspire His preserved words into any language He so desires?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#8
Well, since there is no such thing as an inspired translation, KJV not withstanding, I do not think that is much of a criticism. There is not a translation out there that does not have some issues. But, I do think this is an unfortunate rendering of this particular verse.
I'm just pointing out an issue with the RSV. :)
 
S

SpoonJuly

Guest
#9
Why do so many people search out new translations? Not condemning nor judging, just wondering why.
Maybe I am the strange one because I have never done so. Just always stayed with the one I began to study 55 years ago.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#10
There are inspired translations throughout the "originals". Cannot our God inspire His preserved words into any language He so desires?
I am not going to waste my time debating that issue with you at the moment. I just want your opinion of the RSV.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,764
113
#13
Why do so many people search out new translations?
Actually the RSV is not a "new" translation but an ancient translation that has been junked and replaced because it was so "standard". It began to be published in 1946, and believe it or not, it even became a Roman Catholic Bible! It was actually derived from the American Standard Version, which was derived from the English Revised Version (RV), and that was definitely not a recreational vehicle.

In 1989 it became the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and then in 2001 it became the English Standard Version (ESV). So as Solomon said "There is nothing new under the sun".
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#14
I wanted do say "this will become another KJVO thread, trust me".

But I was not fast enough.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,142
612
113
69
Alabama
#15
Actually the RSV is not a "new" translation but an ancient translation that has been junked and replaced because it was so "standard". It began to be published in 1946, and believe it or not, it even became a Roman Catholic Bible! It was actually derived from the American Standard Version, which was derived from the English Revised Version (RV), and that was definitely not a recreational vehicle.

In 1989 it became the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and then in 2001 it became the English Standard Version (ESV). So as Solomon said "There is nothing new under the sun".
Yes, I am aware of the history
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,764
113
#16
What is your critical analysis? On what grounds do you find it inferior?
You might appreciate this critique published by Scion of Zion to show why the RSV is inferior.

https://www.scionofzion.com/rsv_exposed.htm

In a nutshell the translators fully accepted the notions of Westcott & Hort who revised the Greek text of the NT, and were primarily responsible for the Revised Version of 1881 (the RSV is merely a derivative). Leading textual scholars of the 19th century such as Dean Burgon and Prebendary Scrivener (among others) were totally opposed to these changes because they were traced back to a handful of corrupt Greek manuscripts.
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
4,273
1,410
113
#17
I'm just pointing out an issue with the RSV. :)
LOL! You are going to be labeled anywhere you go! You had best change your name!

(and you could just drop the KJV only thing awhile too! :rolleyes:
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
4,273
1,410
113
#18
Actually the RSV is not a "new" translation but an ancient translation that has been junked and replaced because it was so "standard". It began to be published in 1946, and believe it or not, it even became a Roman Catholic Bible! It was actually derived from the American Standard Version, which was derived from the English Revised Version (RV), and that was definitely not a recreational vehicle.

In 1989 it became the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and then in 2001 it became the English Standard Version (ESV). So as Solomon said "There is nothing new under the sun".
Thanks for that technical information: I knew the RSV was an older version I didn't see around much, but didn't know this history of it . . .
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#19
LOL! You are going to be labeled anywhere you go! You had best change your name!

(and you could just drop the KJV only thing awhile too! :rolleyes:
Oh trust me I have thought about dropping the name. :)

I might go with NIV 2012... that sound pretty good lol.
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,177
2,539
113
#20
Well I have never heard of it so I can't say either way