REVISED STANDARD VERSION
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
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.
There is a serious omission in that information. While Westcott & Hort (and their allies) were creating a the Revised Version (1881) in England, they invited their American counterparts to cooperate and work in tandem on the American Standard Version in America. So, in fact, the ASV and the RV are practically twins. And both are based on the corrupt critical text of Westcott & Hort.
The Revised Version (RV) was a MAJOR DEPARTURE from the King James Bible, not a "revision" as suggested in your post. If you wish to understand this better, I would suggest you read and study The Revision Revised by Dean John William Burgon.
Quoted from the Dedication to Viscount Cranbrook
Quoted from the Preface
The Revised Version (RV) was a MAJOR DEPARTURE from the King James Bible, not a "revision" as suggested in your post. If you wish to understand this better, I would suggest you read and study The Revision Revised by Dean John William Burgon.
Quoted from the Dedication to Viscount Cranbrook
Quoted from the Preface
More precisely, the RSV was a revision of the ASV which was a revision of the KJV. Strictly speaking it was a revision of a revision. I am well aware of the history of Westcott and Hort and there was nothing of corruption in their method of translation. What may have been unfortunate was the way in which they classified ancient manuscripts. It was a method that was widely used by scholars at the time and is still used today. However, these methods have been called into question since now, there are better methods for classifying biblical MSS. It is becoming apparent among researchers of textual groupings based on geographic areas that the old methods should be completely reexamined. To suggest that Westcott and Hort or any other group of researchers or scholars are some how involved in some type of translational conspiracy is absolutely absurd and irresponsible. I am completely fed up with this is the type of nonsense. These were honest men who may simply have been wrong in classifying MSS types.
I do not own a full copy of the RSV and I have never read it completely through. However, I have Greek UBS 4th edition interlinear, which I consult from time to time, which has the RSV as a parallel version. I often compare it to the Greek, and I like it better than the English translations below the Greek. It is close to word for word, but does modernize the Greek, from time to time, by adding a phrase to a word, or just clarifying a bit.
I also believe that the KJV is responsible for more heresies than any other version. Yes, more people read it in the past, but it is extremely difficult to understand the archaic and obsolete language, and especially when it tries to follow Greek word order when it is not possible to express something that way in English, especially noun cases.
May I ask why you are interesting in opinions about the KJV?
PS For those newbies who have not heard this before, I have read the Bible completely over 50 times, including NASB, ESV, HCSB, NLT, and I have read the entire Bible in French, the NT in Greek, and some books of the OT in Hebrew. I’m just reading the Bible in German, which is so similar to Greek in grammer. German is a pleasure to read the Bible in. Rest assured, I understand the Bible and theology, without ever having read the KJV. It is the height of presumption to say that only KJV Onlyers understand the Bible! And certainly there are literally millions of others who do not use the KJV only who know the Bible better than the KJV Onlyers! I have friends on the mission field, some in countries that are totally closed to the gospel. They know the Bible so well, they use other English language versions for their own devotions. Great men and women of God, who have studied to show themselves approved, are in God’s will and do not use the KJV.
Sorry, OH for the digression!
I also believe that the KJV is responsible for more heresies than any other version. Yes, more people read it in the past, but it is extremely difficult to understand the archaic and obsolete language, and especially when it tries to follow Greek word order when it is not possible to express something that way in English, especially noun cases.
May I ask why you are interesting in opinions about the KJV?
PS For those newbies who have not heard this before, I have read the Bible completely over 50 times, including NASB, ESV, HCSB, NLT, and I have read the entire Bible in French, the NT in Greek, and some books of the OT in Hebrew. I’m just reading the Bible in German, which is so similar to Greek in grammer. German is a pleasure to read the Bible in. Rest assured, I understand the Bible and theology, without ever having read the KJV. It is the height of presumption to say that only KJV Onlyers understand the Bible! And certainly there are literally millions of others who do not use the KJV only who know the Bible better than the KJV Onlyers! I have friends on the mission field, some in countries that are totally closed to the gospel. They know the Bible so well, they use other English language versions for their own devotions. Great men and women of God, who have studied to show themselves approved, are in God’s will and do not use the KJV.
Sorry, OH for the digression!
Did you know that the Revised Standard Version committee had Roman Catholic members on it: or that the RSV is the preferred choice of the Roman Church? Quote from the preface of this Bible: [TABLE]
[TR]
[TD] "The Revised Standard Version Bible committee is a continuing body, holding its meetings at regular intervals. It has become both ecumenical and international, with Protestant and Catholic active members who come from Great Britain, Canada and the United States."[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Since most of the citations in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first update of this catechism in some 400 years, are from the RSV, we can safely say that this translation has virtually become the official version of the Roman Church. In effect, the aim of the translators is ecumenical. They want all the churches, all religions, to unite under one supreme authority - the Pope! Several on the RSV committee regard the Scriptures as being on an equal footing as church TRADITION: for this is - and always has been - the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The RSV committee, in other words, is vastly different from the Protestant committee which produced the King James Version.
A brief look at some of the members of the RSV committee is startling to say the least.
[TR]
[TD] "The Revised Standard Version Bible committee is a continuing body, holding its meetings at regular intervals. It has become both ecumenical and international, with Protestant and Catholic active members who come from Great Britain, Canada and the United States."[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Since most of the citations in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first update of this catechism in some 400 years, are from the RSV, we can safely say that this translation has virtually become the official version of the Roman Church. In effect, the aim of the translators is ecumenical. They want all the churches, all religions, to unite under one supreme authority - the Pope! Several on the RSV committee regard the Scriptures as being on an equal footing as church TRADITION: for this is - and always has been - the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The RSV committee, in other words, is vastly different from the Protestant committee which produced the King James Version.
A brief look at some of the members of the RSV committee is startling to say the least.
- "Edgar Goodspeed was on the Revised Standard committee. Goodspeed did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. He looked at Jesus as a social reformer who gave his life as a martyr for a 'cause…' Goodspeed called Genesis the product of an 'Oriental story teller at his best.' " (page 197-198)
- "Julius Brewer, another reviser, stated, 'The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible turn out to be altogether unreliable.' " (page 199)
- "Henry Cadbury, another member of the Revised committee, believed that Jesus Christ was a just man who was subject to story telling. 'He was given to overstatements, in his case, not a personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the Oriental world.' " (page 199)
- "Walter Bowie was another revisor who believed that the Old Testament was legend instead of fact. He says in reference to Abraham, 'The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times; and how much of it is fact and how much of it is legend, no one can positively tell.' " (page 199)
- "Clarence Craig was one of the revisers who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ. 'It is to be remembered there were no eye witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus. No canonical gospel presumed to describe Jesus emerging from the tomb. The mere fact that a tomb was found empty was capable of many explanations. The very last one that would be credible to a modern man would be the explanation of a physical resurrection of the body.' " (page 200)
- "William Sperry shows his dislike for the gospel of John in the following statement. 'Some of these sayings, it is true, come from the Fourth Gospel (John), and we do not press that gospel for too great verbal accuracy in its record of the sayings of Jesus.' " (page 201)
- "William Irwin believed that the Jewish prophets inflated the position of God in the Bible. 'The prophets were forced by the disasters that befell to do some hard, painful thinking. They were forced by the history of their own times to revise their messages again and again in order to keep up with the progress of the age. The Assyrians and the Babylonians forced them to revise their conception of Yahweh from time to time until they finally made Him God of the universe.' " (page 201)
- "Fleming James doubted the miracle of the Red Sea crossing. 'What really happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW; but scholars are pretty well agreed that the narrative goes back to some striking and pretentious event which impressed Moses and the people with the belief that Yahweh had intervened to save them. The same may be said of the account of the plagues.' Concerning Elijah's action in 2 Kings 1:10, he said, 'The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon soldiers sent to arrest him is plainly legendary.' " (page 201-202)
