Does the NRSVue Compromise on Homosexuality?

[@TurtleTrackin]

I've often found it interesting that the Romans 1 passage is apparently too complex for it to be undone by a simple quibble over the definition of a single word

[@DiscipleDojo]

Well done, man. Beautifully succinct and clear discussion of the issue in a way that anyone can grasp. *tips imaginary cap*

[@wardonwords]

Many thanks, James! It really means a lot when someone with your skill gives such kind words.

[@F_Cad]

🙄

[@alpha4IV]

Usually I side with the translators, even with the most liberal translations but this does seem flagrant. I think you got this criticism/critique spot on. I’m glad I subbed to your channel.

[@helenaholcomb3004]

agree!!!

[@F_Cad]

@@helenaholcomb3004 Both you two and Mark are wrong.

[@billyb7465]

@@F_Cad How?

[@F_Cad]

@@billyb7465 See my first post here. Mark telling me to talk about the above video. I did.

[@rev69]

If he got it spot on can you explain why the words homosexual and homosexuality and the phrase men who have sex with men are to be found nowhere in any Bible anywhere before 1946? That is thousands of years after the Bible was written.

[@CaseyFleetMedia]

Such a great video… I must say though… This is the reason many stick with KJV and NKJV

[@MAMoreno]

In this case, the KJV is quite unhelpful. It translates arsenokoitai as "abusers of themselves with mankind." Even if you comprehend the meaning of the words, you're still left with the wrong impression. The phrase "abusers of themselves" suggests auto-erotic acts, and "with mankind" suggests assistance in those auto-erotic acts from a male partner. It doesn't specify that both partners are male, and it gets the specific sex act wrong. The NKJV is, uh, better, I guess. But its translation of malakoi as "homosexuals" is even less helpful than the KJV's translation of it as "effeminate." Perhaps if you combined the two together as "effeminate homosexuals," you'd be closer to the meaning of the word. But since "homosexuals" carries the idea of erotic desire, it's still misleading. Plenty of young men in the ancient Greco-Roman world submitted to dominant partners for reasons other than desire, especially since those dominant partners were usually of a higher social class. Also, the word "homosexuals" applies to both men and women, while the word malakoi refers specifically to males who "play the woman's role" in the bedroom. The NKJV's use of "sodomites" is certainly an improvement on the KJV, since it gets the actual sex act correct. But it has two problems. First, it's an archaic English word that essentially means "male homosexuals" (as the NKJV's footnote explains), which makes it both outdated and inaccurate. Once again, these sexual encounters were often about asserting power rather than fulfilling desire, so "sodomizers" would be more spot-on than "sodomites." Second, any word derived from "Sodom" would suggest a linguistic connection to Genesis 19 that simply isn't there in the Greek word's etymology. That's a real problem in a Bible that adheres to formal equivalence and strong concordance between related words.

[@CaseyFleetMedia]

@@MAMoreno that is all correct… However the point had zero to do with the rendering… It has everything to do with translations constantly changing. The question now is… Why translations will follow NRSV?

[@MAMoreno]

@@CaseyFleetMedia The NRSV stayed the same for a full three decades, which isn't bad. I'd say the ideal amount of time between revisions is 50 years, which was the gap between the ASV and RSV. If you wait any longer than that, the language and scholarship become outdated.

[@CaseyFleetMedia]

@@MAMoreno well if you pay close attention… Translations are revising much faster than 50 years.

[@MAMoreno]

@@CaseyFleetMedia Yes, but some of the translations are more stable than others. - The NIV committee waited about 20 years before releasing the TNIV (though they replaced both editions with the current NIV a mere six years later). - The NASB committee waited 18 years before releasing the 1995 edition, then another 25 years before releasing the current edition. - The RSV saw its second edition nearly 20 years after its first edition. Then the NRSV's first edition arrived nearly 20 years after that. And now the NRSV Updated Edition has arrived a little over 30 years after the 1989 edition. The really unstable ones are the (H)CSB, the NLT, and especially the ESV.

[@ThriftStoreBibles]

This translation in the UE has caused a small stir, and I'm glad to see you address it as I always appreciate your takes. I was not surprised by the vagueness of the translation, as I assumed an updated NRSV would take into account various views on what is meant here. But the footnote really irked me. Knust states "This translation signals the likelihood that the term was coined based on the Greek version of the Levitical commandments" but I would never have got that from the translation or the footnote. What bothers me more is that I don't feel certain that this is being done in an entirely neutral and academic spirit. I want to believe it is. But when the board president of the NCC releases a video promoting the NRSVue with a rainbow flag behind him (kzbin.info/www/bejne/oWO4emx4oq6cgdU), it seems to me to send a message that this is a translation for Mainline, theologically liberal Christians, which is what the NRSV has long been seen as by wary Evangelicals. I've used the '89 NRSV despite being in broadly Evangelical circles myself, and have always felt it to be defensible as an academic, ecumenical translation. I'm not so certain I can do the same with the NRSVue. I'm not sure I can still claim it's attempting to be neutral. This, combined with the poor marketing and incredibly long wait to get a physical copy of the UE has caused me to lose the excitement I first had for the NRSVue. At this point I've decided instead to start checking out the CSB and spend some time with it as I'm not very familiar with it but have heard many good things.

[@MAMoreno]

It's at the very least a case where you'd have to explain what the translators (apparently) meant with their poorly-worded translation as you preach or teach it: "Men who engage in illicit sex [with each other]." If nothing else, their footnote should've said something like this: - _illicit sex:_ a compound word in Gk., likely based on Lev. 18.22 LXX; the precise meaning is uncertain

[@joest.eggbenedictus1896]

​​@@MAMoreno Thats where the problem lies. That phrase is not a translation, but an interpretation. Interpretation always carries some bias. Objectively, thats always been an issue with the NRSV, but its also an issue with the ESV and every other translation in the world. But I would argue that "homosexual" is also an interpretation which no longer applies because our use of that word now means nothing like it was used previous to even the 1960s

[@MAMoreno]

@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 I had previously posted a comment that discussed why the word "homosexual" should not appear in the text, but I deleted it because it contained some speculation about the NRSVUE's intent in using the word "illicit" that was subsequently rendered moot by the Bible Odyssey article.

[@joest.eggbenedictus1896]

@@MAMoreno ooh very interesting!

[@ThriftStoreBibles]

@@MAMoreno That would be a solid footnote - I think I'll add it myself whenever I get my hands on a physical copy of the NRSVue.

[@dedmanraizd]

The NET bible translates it as "...passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,...". The notes have some interesting and useful perspectives. The notes write how the word "effeminate" could be confused by our contemporary English to mean demeanor rather than behavior. Also, male prostitution could be confused to mean males who sell their services to females, thus the translation choice.

[@wardonwords]

Right! The NET is a great place for this kind of insight. I'm not convinced that demeanor is excluded from that word; I am convinced that behavior is primary.

[@Hospody-Pomylui]

As soon as I saw this video title I felt relieved to get a real answer and thought "if anyone is going to come at this subject with a balanced, unbiased and scholarly perspective it's this guy". Please receive this honest compliment to your knowledge and integrity. Your ministry is valuable.

[@wardonwords]

Thank you. This is very kind and very meaningful to me.

[@haachamachama7]

The NLT says male prostitutes once and later, "[those who] practice homosexuality" in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Not sure if they just threw in both just in case because of the ambiguity of the word Paul used?

[@MAMoreno]

Much like the NRSV, the NLT understands _malakoi_ to mean "male prostitutes," who were most likely catamites, i.e. underage males who would be exploited by pederasts. (Hence the NABRE's more pointed gloss "boy prostitutes.") The MEV also reads "male prostitutes," as do a number of more obscure translations. (For a drastically different take on the word's meaning, which has some support in ancient usage, see the NJB's "self-indulgent.") The NLT is translating _arsenokoitai_ when it says "practice homosexuality." Similar wording is found in the ESV, HCSB, and NET Bible. Other translations, such as the RSV (1971 edition) and the REB, are more ambiguous than the NRSVue, preferring the term "sexual pervert[s]" without even bothering to specify that the "perverts" are male. The earlier NRSV used the archaic term "sodomites," which can also be found in the NKJV, NABRE, and NJB.

[@saulm58]

It seems to me that those involved in the NRSVue have just tried to not lose some of the terrain 'gained' by their predecessors in the RSV 1971 edition, who already presented a very dishonest translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: they rendered together both 'malakoi' and 'arsenokoitai' as "sexual perverts", which of course carries a too general/undefined sense that not even refers specifically to males. Even beyond religious considerations, such attempts to change what an ancient text says is absolutely disgraceful and shameful. If something like this were done to a text of Aristotle of Plato, those translators would become the laughing stock of Academia. Sadly, it seems though that when it is about Christianity everything is allowed.

[@MusicalRaichu]

the original rsv translators in 1 cor 6.9 had "homoxesuals". this translation was challenged. in the revised edition, they replaced it with what you quoted, demonstrating that they accepted that "homoxesuals" was an error. unfortunately, other translations developed in the intervening years did not see the correction and copied the mistake. thus a generation of people grew up reading in their modern english bibles that it was a sin. a decade later, arguments and theology were invented to support the mistranslation, the kind you hear in this video, that quickly became entrenched in spite of how illogical they are and the harm they do. while such an error is obvious to us today when we have a better understanding of secs orientation, in those days they thought it was a disorder, so it's understandable there was confusion. for example, it says "such were some of you" when today we know that people cannot change their orientation so it's clearly not about homoxesuality. this destructive misinterpretation of the Bible is now being challenged. hence the attempt by the nrsvue to do something about it.

[@saulm58]

@@MusicalRaichu I think it is worthy to share here a more precise information to clarify what the original manuscripts really say. In short, the reason given by the translators of the RSV 1971 to 'challenge' the translation of 'arsenokoitai' (ἀρσενοκοῖται) as 'homosexuals' was that 'homosexuals', as a single term, didn't exist in Koine Greek. Then, for some reasons that I am not going to discuss here, they decided to translate 'arsenokoitai' in a nonspecific way, namely, as 'sexual perverts'. But this is precisely something that any serious translator will find quite dishonest (dishonest because it is not the academic qualifications of the translators which is being questioned, but their honesty), because it is inconceivable to assume that the translators of the RSV 1971 did not know (any scholar of Ancient Greek should know) that 'arsenokoitai' has a very specific sense. This Greek term is comprised by two words: "arsen”: man, and 'koite' or 'koitas' or 'koitai', which means 'bed' (yes, from this term derives 'coitus'). So, it specifically refers to 'men who lie in bed with other men'. As you can see, the sense can be equivalent with what the term 'homosexuals' expresses in modern English. We could of course translate 'arsenokoitai' in other equivalent ways, but 'sexual perverts' (or 'male prostitutes' or 'male who engage in illicit sex') loses the specific sense of homosexual relations between men. It is not accurate then to affirm that other translations later decided to copy what was a previous mistake in the original RSV (New Testament in 1946), because the original RSV didn't insert the term 'arsenokoitai' in the Bible: this term is in the manuscripts, with its specific sense. In any case, you can consult any Greek New Testament and Greek-English lexicon/dictionary to verify it for yourself. Of course, it is a different discussion if someone wants to 'challenge' what is originally written in the Bible in connection to current debates about sexuality. My purpose here is to just point out that it is the translators of the RSV 1971 (and the NRSVue) who purposively distorted what the original manuscripts say. I am sure they had their reasons to do that but, clearly, those reasons are not fidelity to the original text.

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@saulm58 Bottom line is, no one knows what it means, easy to demonstrate by comparing every translation side by side and seeing how inconsistent they are. Even if the denotation was men who go to bed with males (which is possible), what are the connotations? Why would it be condemned? Why does it refers to behaviour that people had changed? We know today that gay people can be in committed loving relationships harming no one and even beneficial, so there is no basis for condemnation. They are unable to change their orientation, so the word must be about something other than being gay. It's immoral to misapplying a text that fails to describe someone in a way that does incredible harm. Didn't you know countless children died as a direct result of this mistranslation? You need to look no further than what was happening in society at the time to see why Paul would consider men going to bed with males was incompatible with God's kingdom. Many men including men married to women, more than can be accounted for by variation in orientation, were poking themselves into males (most notably slaiv boys) as an act of denigration and domination, to make themselves feel more masculine. That fits everything we know about the word including why it was wrong and why people could stop doing it. But loving relationships based on mutual attraction simply do not fit the constraints we have.

[@saulm58]

@@MusicalRaichu We know that what is written in that passage, as well as in other passages of the Bible (in particular in the Old Testament), is not compatible with current views on sexuality. My comment is not focused on that discussion, I have no intention here neither in making moral judgements on the way how people relate to each other nor on the attitude that each individual should have with respect to what the text says. That is a personal subject to be discerned by each of us. My interest, here, is specifically on the intellectual honesty of translators. So my comment is focused on the loose way how the translators of the RSV 1971 proceeded with respect to that specific passage, and I think that it is pretty clear, as shown above, that they ended up distorting what the original text says by using a non specific expression. Seeing your observations though I think some additional details can help to get a clearer picture: It is clear that Paul, who was from a devout Jewish family, coined the term 'arsenokoitai' using the Scriptures (Old Testament). For example, see Leviticus 18.22 (in the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and was the text used during the time of the Apostles): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"; and see especially Leviticus 22.13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." In this verse you can even find the words 'arsen' (man) and 'koitai' (bed) or 'koite' next to each other. So there is no controversy, for any honest translator at least, with respect to the meaning of ἀρσενοκοῖται, for we can even discern how Paul coined the term. A different topic is of course if we have moral objections with respect to what a text says. But I think readers should be treated with enough respect so as to allow them to form their own opinions without the translators distorting what the original text is saying. Finally, as I also mentioned above, 'arsenokoitai can indeed be translated in equivalent ways, and that doesn't make it lose its meaning and the general reference (there can be differences in translations). The problem with the 1971 RSV translation is that it tries to hide that meaning by appealing to a non specific expression. In my opinion, the only reason why there seems to be controversy here is the 'intentional' loose way how those translators proceeded, which has brought confusion to many people.

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@saulm58 having considered your argument, it has led me to conclude that a vague translation is justified. We do not know what it was used to mean. All we can say from etymology and context is that it was some kind of deliberately hurtful secs-related behaviour involving at least one male that people could repent from. My suggestion above is only a theory and may or may not be correct. The idea that it has to do with homoxesuality, however, is patently incorrect, for it cannot be about something the very text fails to describe. That it originates from Leviticus is conjectural, circumstantial, and unlikely IMHO. Paul's teaching on morality was founded on love and the fruit of the Spirit, not on following Mosaic rules. Leviticus was from a different culture centuries and continents apart so how can you know that what it prohibited was the same as what concerned Paul? While both are unclear, Lev 20.13 seems consensual while 1 Cor 6.9 sounds abusiv so they probably do refer to different things. But if they both refer to some kind of behaviour involving males in bed, obviously the words male and bed are likely to be used, even if it is coincidental. For these reasons, I now think a vague translation is justifiable, especially if there's a footnote pointing out why.

[@tamarafox1585]

Mark Ward, I have a question for you. Not sure exactly where I should place this question, so here it goes: In Genesis 37:3 regarding Joseph’s coat, there seems to be a difference between translations whether the Hebrew word means long-sleeved robe, ornamented tunic or a coat of many colors? In the notes in my MacArthur Bible it says that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Would you happen to know what the Hebrew word that is used in that verse is and why there is uncertainty? I am confused as to why it is confusing. 😀. Thank you!

[@wardonwords]

Excellent! May just do a video on this!

[@roelallen]

@@wardonwords 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰. 𝘛𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨. 👍

[@bradb2680]

This comment is regarding the footnote reading "meaning of gk uncertain". I find that, at least in the case of the NRSV, it is used quite liberally especially as a flag that the refrant is somewhat unusual (keeping with its goal as an academic project). I think even if we assume your opinion that particular footnote would still be consistant with the use of "meaning of gk uncertain" elsewhere.

[@dustinburlet7249]

As an Old Testament expert, one of the things that I appreciate the most about certain translations (such as the NLT as compared to, let's say, the ESV) is how often they ADMIT that the Hebrew is uncertain. While in New Testament studies it is far more unusual to encounter the same sort of challenges, it is true that the original languages are often more full of nuance and interpretive possibilities than most EVV indicate

[@AFrischPerspective]

Excellent overview and analysis, Mark!

[@wardonwords]

Many thanks!

[@TurtleTrackin]

Not sure about the UE, but the prior NRSV's translation of Daniel 7:13-14 ("one like a human being") makes it harder to connect it to the Son of Man references all over the Gospels. Also, its infernal pluralizing of the Psalms makes it difficult to make Messianic connections as well.

[@fashionofthechrist]

@@TurtleTrackin hmm fancy that

[@jojitsu5620]

Thank you for your steadfastness to unbiased integrity in your commitment to The truth

[@djpodesta]

Thanks again Mark. Another balanced overview… siting questionable renderings while not neglecting to highlight other areas of correctness. Your integrity, as shown through your presentations, continues to demand my admiration.

[@DrGero15]

What are the mainline and evangelical translations? How do you differentiate?

[@wardonwords]

Source. That’s really all. If I spent enough time at it, I’ll bet I could track down some renderings that have a believable connection to mainline theology. But I’m not certain.

[@DrGero15]

@@wardonwords Which sources are mainline vs evangelical?

[@wardonwords]

Abingdon: mainline. Crossway: evangelical. I can go on!

[@DrGero15]

@@wardonwords Please do, I'm very interested in the differences.

[@wardonwords]

Tell me more about what you’re after.

[@matthewarney]

Appreciate your well thought and balanced examination, as has come to be expected. I just preached through the passage in 1 Tim. It is not convenient in our culture to speak the truth, but it is necessary and ultimately loving to do so!

[@wardonwords]

Amen!

[@F_Cad]

He's mistaken. Easily dis-proven.

[@matthewarney]

@Anonymous you are free to express your opinion, however God's Word is truth regardless your opinion. God's Word says any intimate relationship outside of one man and one woman for life is sin. Sin requires repentance or punishment. Truth is not subject to your opinion.

[@F_Cad]

@@matthewarney It's not an "opinion" if it's Biblical. You need to re-think where you get your information that informs your own opinion on this matter.

[@F_Cad]

If you hear the video again, Mark says several times he's "pretty sure this is what it means" without using those exact words.

[@sburns90]

Subscribed. I appreciate the calm and level headed approach you have taken to such an important issue. Thanks for your desire to adhere accurately to the original text and sound doctrine.

[@wardonwords]

Thanks and welcome!

[@calebschaaf1555]

Thanks, Mark. Another good one. It's tough for modern english speakers to imagine a culture that doesn't have the concept of "sexual identity," so this passage is particularly difficult. I agree with you, though, the Berean Study Bible knocks it out of the park.

[@wardonwords]

I've got some thoughts about "homosexuality" as a rendering in 1 Cor 6. I wouldn't choose it, but I don't think it's truly wrong. I need to develop this into a video or article.

[@michaelgilbert8794]

Hi. The link to Jennifer Knust’s article is no longer working? Do you have another link that you can post for us?

[@wardonwords]

Yes; I updated the link in the description. The article is still there.

[@michaelgilbert8794]

@ thank you Mark!

[@alexvig2369]

To be completely honest, and I don't disrespect your opinion, I think it's a little bit of an overreaction. Even in 2023, most English-speakers would think of "men who commit illicit sexual acts" as homosexuals - especially in the context of the Bible. The Greek is suggestive anyway, so an obfuscated translation isn't uncalled for. Illicit sexual behavior could also include fornication with women, although it is redundant to mention that when it was already mentioned in the same passage. One would still have to bend over backwards really hard to interpret it wrong even in the NRSVue.

[@2Snakes]

Agreed.

[@wardonwords]

I think the problem is that one would have to bend over backwards to interpret it correctly. David DeSilva, an evangelical on the NRSVue committee, felt the same as I do.

[@MAMoreno]

I'm almost in agreement with you (and I would say that it's easy enough to explain properly in a homily or sermon even with this wording), but considering that some progressive Christian bloggers have already been appealing to this translation's ambiguity, I'd say that the wording could use some clarification. Even if they want to retain an ounce of obfuscation for certain members of their mainline Protestant demographic, they should at least go for a clever double entendre like "men who join in illicit sex." (If you're reading, National Council of Churches, you can have that one for free.)

[@realtsarbomba]

Most English speakers definitely wouldn't think of homosexuals when hearing "Men who commit illicit sexual acts," the vast majority would think of rape.

[@VicRibeiro777]

Thank you Mark. Please highlight more issues in different translations. It is of great help to people that is in a position where they have to make suggestions about translations to potential clients.

[@josiahforlong4963]

I have to say I didn't expect your conclusion at the end. Bless you! Sticking up for the word of God, and showing that this is not only unbiblical, but it is not being honest with those of that group whom we love like everyone else. Who we want to join the Father in heaven

[@wardonwords]

Right! That has to be our motivation! Love.

[@josiahforlong4963]

@@wardonwords I just watched again, was a nice reminder that i must be more graceful. Thanks mate!

[@sigalius]

You say "I have studied these two Greek words carefully", yet it's obvious you have not, and it's evident that your study was limited heavily to the confines of New Testament Greek and Evangelical sources. This is ridiculous and your masquerading as a well-informed scholar on this topic is shameful. If you did your due diligence, then you'd know that Greek has a wide variety of sources and texts to confer and form sound basis on philological and etymological grounds. We can also look to the general corpus of Greek literature and ascertain the meanings (plural) of any given word, with few exceptions. And the exceptions, specifically, are hapax legomena. One such hapax legomenon is arsenokoitai, for which there is NO other case of any other Greek writer using it to be found. Paul evidently invented the word, and we do NOT have any sound basis for which to define it. Every definition is conjecture. However, given the cultural context and general milieu of 1st century Palestine and Koine Greek in the Roman Empire, it's safe to say (as most honest Biblcal scholars will tell you) that the notion of "homosexuality" is a modern one and would have been foreign to Paul. It is therefore highly unlikely that arsenokoitai translates literally to "homosexuals". Secondly, you said that malakoi means "effeminate or the passive partner in a homosexual act". This is even easier than aresnokoitai because we DO HAVE many other references from Greek writings to understand the meaning of the word. Yes, literally it translates to "effeminate" or "weak". But the problem is, very much like amartia, the connotations assign to the word (in other words, how it was typically understood at the time) was not simply in the direct, literal sense. Amartia should not be rendered too literally, but rather, as any proper Biblical scholar knows, as "error, misstep, or misunderstanding", not "juridical offense". So too we know the common usage of malakoi, which meant "morally weak". In countless examples of Greek literature from that time we see where authors used the word to refer to precisely this: people who are soft, feeble, cowardly, lacking self-control, indulgent, gluttonous, etc. THAT is the definition of malakoi; not homosexual. Your assertion that this refers specifically to--and for shame, that you insist it is "best translated" as--the passive partner in a homosexual act is simply astounding ignorance and dishonesty. I feel ashamed that I even commented on your video and thus give more attention to you from the algorithm.

[@wardonwords]

I stand with all of Christendom throughout time, with the clear testimony of Genesis and Jesus (and Paul), and with every person who has repented and been cleansed from their homosexual sin.

[@sigalius]

nice job deleting my comments to curate your channel to be free of anything that proves you wrong

[@wardonwords]

@@sigalius I did not delete any of your comments, my friend. KZbin does automatically delete some comments that I never see. There is a kind of "trash" folder for some of these, but some I simply have no access to.

[@MAMoreno]

I would suggest consulting John Granger Cook's "μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται: In Defence of Tertullian’s Translation" (New Testament Studies, vol. 65, no. 3, 2019, pp. 332-352). Surely a Cambridge UP journal article can be regarded as outside "the confines of New Testament Greek and Evangelical sources." Cook argues for sticking with the Latin translations of these Greek words: _molles_ and _masculorum concubitores._ These Latin glosses are translated by the Rheims New Testament as "effeminate" and "liers with mankind," respectively.

[@sigalius]

@@wardonwords So if you "stand with Christendom throughout time" then surely you believe in the intercession of saints and the real presence in the Eucharist, correct?

[@Airik1111bibles]

There was a transsexuals add at the end of your video. Some type of product or medication to help with changing their body shape. Confirmation on why that translation is so important for this lost world , especially the time we are living in.

[@wardonwords]

Right!

[@Poppop-yp7zm]

Thank you for this. It is very concerning!

[@wardonwords]

Agreed.

[@GregHahn4]

Very well done, brother. I've been concerned about this change since the NRSVue debuted in late December.

[@wardonwords]

Thank you, Greg, for the kind word!

[@antiheroes7972]

I have reconnected with some old friends of mine who used to be mormon. They have left the mormon church, but still believe in God(ranging from agnostic to "spiritual Christian") They have no interest in organized religion at this time, but they do seem interested in finding a protestant Bible. I trust your ministry and know you use the ESV, but I currently plan to bring a few Bibles over to them of various versions, so they can see the differences and pick for themselves. Perhaps the ESV, NIV, CSB, and NKJV. Is this a good idea? Do you have specific recommendations for a family struggling with trust and faith (even trusting prayer is hard for them now)? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

[@wardonwords]

I don’t actually think I would hit them with different protestant Bibles. I’d bring the ESV because it will be recognizably close to the king James. Or the New King James. Honestly, that would probably be better. They need the shortest bridge possible from what they already know and sort of maybe possibly trust.

[@nerdyyouthpastor8368]

I'm with you all the way on this one, brother!

[@wardonwords]

Thank you!

[@gmac6503]

try studying how the greek and romans dealt with same sex. This guy has no idea

[@dino575]

Just found your channel - as was searching for just this subject regarding the NRSV and the NRSVUE - I do not understand why the translation team would ever do this. And yet the RSV beautiful translation keeps for the most part the tract intact. Parts of the NRSV can be wonderful to read but wonderful/ pleasing - is different from Gods truth. Thank you for giving a very balanced and calm overview of this.

[@jasonhamilton7147]

Hi Mark what do you think of the nrsv translation as everyone keeps saying it's liberal but I like it and I come from a Pentecostal background. Thank you from across the pond.

[@wardonwords]

Most Bible translations most of the time are fine. If all I had on a desert island were the NRSV 1989, I'd be happy. If all I had was the NRSVue, I would also be grateful. But I'd also hope that a Greek New Testament washed up on the beach with it. And that's because I already know Scripture.

[@sorenpx]

Everything affiliated with the NRSV seems to be poisonous. I once purchased a copy of the NRSV and quickly gave up on it once I realized how absolutely insistent the translators were about never using male language unless there was no way around it. I don't see any reason to ever use the NRSV (or any updates) when there are far better options. Over the past few years I have become a Textus Receptus guy, but even if someone wanted to stick with the Critical Text I think there are far better options.

[@michaelkelleypoetry]

The original NRSV translated malakoi as "male prostitute" too. The only change in the NRSVue is the translation of arsenokoitai.

[@wardonwords]

✔

[@miketisdell5138]

I think you handled the issues with the NRSVue well, but I do wonder why you where not nearly so troubled with The Message which offers even more troubling translations of these exact same verses? Even the Romans 1 passage is compromised in The Message! Why condemn the NRSVue for these translation issues while giving a pass to The Message?

[@wardonwords]

Because I didn’t think anyone was using The Message to form doctrine. I could be wrong on that point!

[@miketisdell5138]

@@wardonwords I do think you are wrong on that point. This is the version chosen by many "affirming" churches precisely because of its translation of these verses.

[@wardonwords]

Links? Willing to do a video.

[@miketisdell5138]

@@wardonwords I will see if I can get some for you.

[@Perktube1]

7:27 - however those two passages also include "those who practice homosexuality", in my NLT, so that covers all imo.

[@danielblakeney7575]

I really appreciated this presentation and in the vast majority, I agree with what was stated. Especially about the "male prostitutes" translation choice. When it comes to the choice of "Illicit Sex" I actually think it is technically more accurate than the two previous RSV translations. The problem is their choice is very vague. For example, if someone did not understand that sex between two men was "illicit" according to God's Law, and the primary focus of what Paul is going for here, it can remain ambiguous to a new Bible Reader. The greater fear I have is theological liberals using the translation choice here to run wild and say that the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts. Then again, they would be doing so with complete disregard to the other passages rendered more clearly in the NRSVue. Despite not having done as much study on this as you have, Mr. Ward, I have to agree that the Berean study Bible renders this the best, and my second choice would be the ESV's rendering. However I do think that "Men who engage in illicit sex" is a better translation than "Homosexuals" (NASB), "Sodomites" (NRSV), and "Sexual Perverts" (RSV) as these can connote an identity or disposition to modern readers, as opposed to the acts that are often outcomes of these identities and dispositions. Which I believe is the real target of what Paul is warning against here, the actual acts, since (I believe) society did not think of being "Homosexual" then the same way society thinks of it now. I prefer the NRSVue translation to "Sodomites" because it is a more sweeping condemnation in my opinion, and my preference over "sexual perverts" is a slim one. I think I prefer "men who engage in illicit sex" mainly because I've seen new believers get caught up in the encompassing language. In other words, I've seen many read something such as "sexual perverts" and think that if they've ever done anything sexually perverted, then they now are "Sexual Perverts" and can never enter the kingdom of Heaven. I know that the following verse after this, "these were some of you", should bring relief to this line of thinking, but I just have experience with many who struggle with assurance of salvation because of some of the language choices here.

[@wardonwords]

Thoughtful comments. I've come to feel that "homosexuals" is an acceptable rendering, especially when we have multiple Bible translations available that can go slightly different ways with these words. I think this because translation always involves trade-offs, and the clarity and perspicuity (tons of people know the word) afforded by "homosexual" outweighs the detriment of some people possibly concluding that Paul was talking about an identity and not about specific acts. Personally, I think the likelihood of that minor misinterpretation is rather low, and that the identity is to tied up with the sinful desires and acts Paul is proscribing that I don't see much of a problem generated by the (again minor) confusion. So I'm curious to hear a little more about your last line. Am I missing something? Are there celibate men who fight same-sex attraction, who believe the gospel, and who are concerned because of the NASB rendering that they're not saved?

[@MAMoreno]

I don't want to get into a big argument over this issue with Mark Ward, but I am inclined to agree with you, Daniel Blakeney. However, I'm not particularly satisfied with the translations in the BSB or ESV, either. The use of the word "homosexual" or "homosexuality" imports 19th century psychological terminology into the discussion, which feels utterly anachronistic. It's akin to translating Deuteronomy 22.5 to say, "A woman shall not experience gender dysphoria, nor shall a man experience gender dysphoria." Yes, gender dysphoria may be the most common cause of crossdressing, but it is not equivalent to crossdressing (nor is it the only possible explanation for why someone would engage in crossdressing). The NRSV opens Leviticus 20.13 with these words: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman." In my view, this verse is where we will find the best language for translating _arsenokoitai_ in 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.10. It's a bit wordy as a gloss for a single Greek term, but "men who lie with a male" would be the clearest equivalent in English. By consciously paralleling the word choice in both testaments, we make it clear that Paul is alluding to the Levitical passage and not just expressing some personal prejudice (contra many of his modern critics, some of whom have dubiously tried to portray him as a self-hating closeted gay man). And at this point, "the meaning of the Greek" is no more or less certain than the meaning of the Hebrew laws it cites.

[@danielblakeney7575]

@@wardonwords Thank you very much for your reply! I agree with you that "Homosexuals" is an acceptable translation, I just believe the NRSVue, BSB, CSB, and ESV render it better. You make a great point about trade-offs and it may be best that we have versions that fall on different sides of this issue and it can be useful for the NASB, LSB, and NKJV to render it as such. The literal translation is "Man-bedder" as opposed to "one who beds men," right? That would serve a literal interpretation to be rendered in the modern "Homosexuals." The issue is what does the word "Homosexuals" mean in modern vocabulary? I believe it is usually thought to mean (and I very well could be wrong) one who has same sex attraction. So maybe my comments about identity were a bit off in my first comment, the disposition is more of my main concern. I do not know someone specifically who is a celibate, same sex attracted Christian who struggles with assurance because of this wording. However, I do know Christians and Non-Christians who either struggle with, or believe, that you cannot be a Christian if you have same sex attraction. A specific example of the "encompassing language" I mentioned in my first comment, that I personally know of, does not actually have to do with the two translated words mentioned in the video, but with the prior word "adulterers." Someone I know who had years previously engaged in an affair and has long since repented, and was new to studying the Bible, was initially afraid that them being "an adulterer" excluded them from the Kingdom of Heaven. I pointed to verse 11 right after and they were relieved. However, if someone reads the word "homosexuals" and believes it means "someone who has same sex attraction," and has that disposition, verse 11 "these were some of you..." does not bring that relief. Even though they may be choosing to be celibate, if they still have the attraction, then they will still think that they are in the wrong and not right with God. There are Christians who are heterosexual who believe this as well and that can further enforce the idea that one cannot have same sex attraction at all and be saved. Anyway, I am so sorry for the delayed response and the longevity of it. I just wanted to be precise in my concerns with the "homosexuals" rendering. It very well may be that my concern is for a very small subset of people and that "homosexuals" better renders Paul's meaning here, but if his focus is on condemning acts, as opposed to dispositions, then I believe the rendering of "Homosexuals" is not ideal. I really appreciate you engaging in the comments and I think your videos are very well done and greatly informative!

[@robertmyatt2755]

“Blind and completely decieved in darkest. How dark is your darkness. Come out if it brother you be. Big real love in Christ 👍🙏 Gods word never changes. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:18-19, 24-27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

[@johncrawford6640]

A great and meaningful piece, my first experience of your channel Mark. Subscribed!!! Many thanks .

[@wardonwords]

Welcome aboard!

[@DocLarsen44]

I absolutely and unequivocally agree with you. Thank you, once again, for your commitment to TRUTH.

[@wardonwords]

Thanks for watching, and for the kind word.

[@brotherarn]

Good work , well done 👏. You have drawn the line. Now you will be fired upon by the evil one. I will be praying that you will endure the enemies false accusations against you. Live dangerously and enjoy the journey for soon it will come to an end.

[@wardonwords]

Thank you! But I'm taking a standard position that's shared even by many theological liberals-who nonetheless find ways to relativize Paul's perspective, but who agree that it was his perspective. I probably won't face much blowback. But I'm willing to if I must, out of love for God and neighbor.

[@Migz2682]

What did the editor say?

[@wardonwords]

No response to my piece. I don’t demand or expect one.

[@therealkillerb7643]

This is not new for the RSV. Didn't the original exchange "expiation" for "propitiation" because they thought the Gospel was "too bloody...?"

[@MAMoreno]

They replaced "propitiation" with "expiation" because, right or wrong, they thought that the concept of propitiation was too pagan.

[@underoverafterbefore]

I am personally reading my way through the New Oxford Annotated Bible 5th ed., which is a secular annotation of the NRSV from 2018. The NRSV uses "male prostitutes, sodomites", and their annotation for the verse agrees explicitly with your interpretation of the 1 Cor. verse, and again this is from authors that do not treat the bible as divinely inspired. I guess maybe their secular perspective might be why: similar to theological conservatives, they do not work with consideration for how the text can be adapted for modern Christian values. Interestingly, the next edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible will switch to the NRSVUE, and I am now curious what the annotations will say about these updates.

[@wardonwords]

Very, very interesting. I didn't think to check that.

[@MAMoreno]

The notes in 1 Corinthians are written by Laurence L. Welborn of Fordham University. He is definitely a mainline Protestant with all that moniker entails, but he is also a serious (if decidedly non-evangelical) scholar who has written extensively on the Corinthian letters. I'm considering whether or not I want to pick up the SBL Study Bible this November precisely for the sake of checking out the 1 Corinthians 6 notes.

[@nguyenagain7897]

What is the best 1611 with original translations notes/apocrypha/reproduction that can be bought? I want to see and feel and read all of it...as well as having a copy to show others. Also, I am constantly being told by the KJVo crowd that the Apocrypha being included in the 1611 wasn't evidence the apocrypha was inspired (like the rest of the KJV purportedly was), rather that it was included as "church history." Does the intro to 1611 state that the apocrypha was church history and not "inspired" (as if they would make claims that their translation was inspired)? I don't understand where the evidence for that claim is coming from (that the apocrypha is not inspired, but the rest of the 1611 is...and how would one know if this distinction is not made in the intro to the 1611??) Thank you for any assistance you can render!

[@MAMoreno]

You can get exact facsimiles of the first edition, but they will cost you $400 or more, and they're quite large. Otherwise, the Hendrickson 1611 Edition should be fine as a basic representation of the original KJV's complete contents (if you can accept the smaller size and the change from Gothic to Roman font). I don't recall anywhere in the 1611 edition where the Apocrypha is declared to be anything other than Holy Scripture, but the translators' decision to set those books outside of the Old Testament section reflects the books' secondary status in Anglicanism. (The 6th of the 39 Articles says that "the Church doth read [the Apocrypha] for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.") At the same time, there are cross-references in the main canon that lead back to these books.

[@wardonwords]

What you want is this: digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:60609#?c=&m=&s=&cv=23&xywh=-244%2C-1008%2C4867%2C8757

[@curtthegamer934]

I usually just pull up scans of it online if I want people to see it. Internet Archive has a full scan, and there are many other websites with scans of all the pages as well.

[@nguyenagain7897]

@@MAMoreno Thank you! That was very helpful. I have looked into the Hendrickson, and was worried that the font change would invite skepticism from the start (from those knowledgable enough to recognize 1611 and 1769 are vastly different). I appreciate your statement that it would be otherwise acceptable. My concern was that other changes were introduced.

[@nguyenagain7897]

@@wardonwords WOW. Yes, this is exactly it. Thank you!

[@clarkemorledge2398]

Thanks, Mark. What do you think of the Common English Bible's rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Timothy 3:2 (faithful to their spouse), and similar Titus 1:6 ? Freakout? Or wince a little bit?

[@wardonwords]

"Faithful to their spouse" is a wince, for sure. I think you freak out over gospel-denying problems. I'd have to look up the other passages… Got a second to do that for me? =)

[@clarkemorledge2398]

@@wardonwords 1 Timothy 2:12 "I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband. Instead, she should be a quiet listener." It takes word for wife/woman and goes for "wife" exclusively

[@MAMoreno]

The translation "faithful to their spouse" isn't that far off from the NIV & NLT's "faithful to his wife," but it does use a gender-neutral pronoun that takes it beyond just trying to interpret the Greek idiom. The rest of the passage continues to use the pronoun "they" in order to avoid reflecting the typical Roman cultural gender roles assumed by the original text. I don't think that "faithful to their spouse" is the best understanding of the idiom, anyway. I would instead go with the NRSVUE and NABRE's "married only once." (And lest you think that those translations are trying to hide the bishop's assumed gender as the CEB is doing, they both use the pronoun "he" in 1 Timothy 3.4-5 and Titus 1.7-9.) As for 1 Timothy 2.11-15, it's worth noting that major translations from the Evangelical (NIV), Catholic (NABRE), and Mainline Protestant (NRSVUE) traditions all offer the wife/husband interpretation in the footnotes, so the CEB is unique only in its decision to favor this reading in the main text--and that's assuming that we're not digging out Young's Literal Translation, which did the same thing back in 1862, or John Wycliffe's Bible, which did the same thing in the late 1300s! However, the CEB is rather inconsistent on the issue, since it doesn't translate these same words as "husbands" and "wives" in verses 8-10. There's no clear shift from women in general to married women in particular.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Bro…solid work as always.

[@wardonwords]

Thank you!

[@geektome4781]

The old RSV, upon which the NRSV and NRSVue are based, goes even further from what Paul actually wrote, using the phrase “sexual perverts.”

[@MAMoreno]

That's the 1971 edition. The 1946 RSV New Testament used the word "homosexuals," as did the complete 1952 RSV text, and that term is still used in the RSV Catholic Edition. A few earlier translations had used "sodomites," but I suppose the translators wanted to use a more modern word. But since "sodomites" is more accurate than "homosexuals," the NRSV 1989 reverted back to the somewhat archaic term.

[@FredRickenbacher]

At 6:40 you assert that the NRSVue "says what the Hebrew says". But that's not correct. The Hebrew says that a man shall not "lie in the lyings of women" with another male. Judaism is exceptionally concerned with purity of strain, therefore it makes more sense to read it as a prohibition against threesomes, which would blur lineage / descent. This is also consistent with Amos 2:7. In fact, a clear condemnation of homosexuality is found in the NT but not in the OT, so the NRSVue has it backwards.

[@19king14]

I can’t help but notice how often times the New World Translation is looked at with “malicious eyes” 0:10 1 Cor 6:9 the NWT is very much like the Berean Study Bible; “...men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality.” as far as 1 Timothy 1:10 likewise; "men who practice homosexuality.”

[@wardonwords]

You are probably right in that first line. I stand by the orthodox understanding of John 1:1, but I still think you're probably right.

[@19king14]

@@wardonwords Thanks for your kindly reply, Mark. I do my best to be as respectful to you and others as possible too. I can understand why the orthodox understanding of John 1:1 is so widely accepted. About two years ago I got the NET bible (printed version - sorry Logos guy! :) ). I’m actually somewhat confused with their rendition and footnotes on John 1:1. The footnotes lean toward the anarthrous “God” as “qualitative” and offer “word was divine” as an option (NWT has “divine” on its footnote of John 1:1c), yet the NET text has “was fully God” which doesn’t seem line up with the sentiments of the footnotes (at least to me). Might either one of these be classifiable as orthodox?

[@LovelyLadyLissett]

Do you have a video or can you give me more info on the word Eunuch in the Bible? What does Jesus mean about the 3 different eunuchs? I've heard this is in reference to transgender ppl but I trust your interpretation. Thank you kindly!

[@wardonwords]

What Bible study resources do you have for the book of Matthew?

[@MAMoreno]

Josephus, who was not quite a contemporary of Jesus but who wrote in the latter half of the First Century CE, had this to say about eunuchs: *Let those that have made themselves eunuchs be had in detestation: and do you avoid any conversation with them, who have deprived themselves of their manhood, and of that fruit of generation which God has given to men, for the increase of their kind. Let such be driven away, as if they had killed their children; since they before­hand have lost what should procure them. For evident it is, that while their soul is become effeminate, they have withal transfused that effeminacy to their body also. In like manner do you treat all that is of a monstrous nature, when it is looked on" (Antiquities 4.8.40).* His attitude may reflect a more general Jewish perspective from the period. However, there are references to a type of person known as a "tumtum" in the Mishnah and later Jewish sources. This "tumtum" category often comes up alongside references to intersex people, but there is a rather strange statement in the Mishnah Bikkurim (c. 200 CE) about the "tumtum," stating that "sometimes he is a man and sometimes he is a woman." (Later commentators would suggest that the "tumtum" has a layer of skin covering the genitals, thereby making sex assignment at birth impossible.) Any attempts to tie the words of Jesus in Matthew 19.12 to either of these ancient Jewish sources is speculative at best, but they at least offer some idea of Jewish thought from this period. The most likely meaning of the verse in question is the following: "Some people are born with genital defects that leave them incapable of producing offspring. Others are neutered or castrated by a person with authority over them. And a third group chooses celibacy out of religious devotion."

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

I see inconsistency in this video. The NRSVue is only going back to the reading of the RSV, and I still see conservative brothers and sisters, using that translation and recommending it: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6‬:‭9‬ ‭RSV‬‬ Why does the RSV get a pass, and it’s still recommended by conservatives quite often, but the NRSVue doesn’t? I think this is the pot calling the kettle black. I’m very much AV-preferred. I have no particular reason to defend the NRSVue besides the fact that I find it very useful & accurate in comparing translations, but if those for the critical text argue that it is OK to remove the whole ending of Mark (because we still have resurrection appearances, and the Ascension in other places) or the Godhead of our Lord in 1 Timothy 3:16 (it’s OK because Jesus being God is in other places), why is it not OK for the NRSVue to have an argument to remove what it says on homosexuality in first Corinthians and first Timothy, when there are still our many passages in the NRSVue which condemn homosexuality? Almost every critique that I’ve heard from conservatives against the NRSVue can easily be found in one of the conservative translations of our day that conservatives recommend and endorse even the Isaiah 7:14 issue.

[@MAMoreno]

You do have a point, but a translation from 1971 (the RSV 2nd edition) is a translation from 1971. It's too late to say anything about it that hasn't already been said. There's no fixing it--or warning people off it--over 50 years after its release. The first edition infamously (and wrongly, in my opinion) used the technical term "homosexuals" as a gloss, whereas the updated edition went too far in the other direction and hid the meaning behind a euphemism. The RSV is mostly used by lay Catholics today (on a regular basis and not as a novelty from a bygone time in English Bible history), and the Catholic edition retains the original "homosexuals" wording rather than "sexual perverts." The 1989 NRSV course-corrected with a gloss that was more accurate than either of the ones used by the RSV, though "sodomite" has the disadvantage of suggesting a connection to Genesis 19 rather than Leviticus 18. Despite this problem and the general datedness of the term they picked, it's still better than the ESV's no-one-talks-like-this wording, "men who practice homosexuality." (What? Did they open a gay law firm?) But the NRSVue has managed to marry the ESV's awkwardness (How many people "engage in . . . sex," according to natural English idiom?) with the RSV's unhelpful vagueness. If you squint really hard, you can figure out that the men are having "illicit sex" with each other, but the translators are banking on you getting lost in the verbiage. The key point here is that a revision should make something better, not worse. And when it fails to do so in the eyes of some readers, we can expect those people to say, "Save your money and stick with the previous one." (See also the common critiques of the NASB 2020 from people who see it as compromised.) I'm willing to say that the RSV 2nd edition was generally better than the first, which itself was generally better than the ASV. And the original NRSV was better than the RSV for the most part, while the NRSVue offers some notable improvements over the earlier edition. However, there are places where the ASV did it better than the RSV, the RSV did it better than the NRSV, and the NRSV did it better than the UE. It's only fair to point out the faults of the revision when all they had to do was leave it alone.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

@@MAMoreno I hear you, I definitely hear you there. You’re right about the RSV, that certainly puts it in the proper perspective for today, and I agree that the NRSVue regressed in 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10 and revisions are to get better so it is something to call out. I simply desire to see brothers that prefer the critical text and translations from it to be more consistent with their critiques of the NRSVue and their allowance of many of the same problems in the NIV, ESV & NET. Thank you for the pushback, I really appreciate your thoughts brother!

[@2Snakes]

@@MAMoreno I think the NRSVue's translation here is fair. "Men who engage in illicit sex" would include homosexuality and other perverted acts for Paul (Romans 1). The NRSV's translation of "sodomites" is quite misleading if one turns to Ezekiel 16:49-50. "Men who engage in illicit sex" is not specific enough for evangelical's but I think we should expect that due to the fact that the NRSVue is not an exclusively evangelical translation.

[@2Snakes]

@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever I think the NRSVue's translation here is fair. "Men who engage in illicit sex" would include homosexuality and other perverted acts for Paul (Romans 1). The NRSV's translation of "sodomites" is quite misleading if one turns to Ezekiel 16:49-50. "Men who engage in illicit sex" is not specific enough for evangelical's but I think we should expect that due to the fact that the NRSVue is not an exclusively evangelical translation.

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

@@2Snakes very interesting thought. I’m going to mull over that. Thank you!

[@JCATG]

Praise the Lord for your uncompromising honesty about this obviously liberal passage translation. To be loose where the Word of God is clear is to downplay Godʼs judgment on an already sinful and dying world. I am usually forgiving and accepting of the more dynamic translations as I have been doing over the years but this is dangerous for a generation that is already vastly uninformed about proper reading of the Scriptures. This is a much needed critique from a scholar like you, sir. God bless this ministry of yours. Soli Deo gloria!

[@gmac6503]

lol. you gotta be kidding me

[@JCATG]

@@gmac6503 Youʼre probably a ABCUSA Baptist, UMC Liberal, or PCUSA member with that kind of reaction. LOL

[@gmac6503]

@@JCATG typical emotional response from an ignoramus that doesn't know anything about the Greek Roman days the New Testament was being written. He has done absolutely no study about it, and all he does is project that I must be of some kind of a denomination and then he laughs. The ignorant people in Christianity are abundant and that's why I address people who are bigoted. Here we meet another one. Do you think he's gonna study the issue? I doubt he's even read the Bible from cover to cover. I wonder what he thinks about Sodom and Gomorrah. Gee, I bet you he thinks it's about homosexuals. However, what you're not gonna see is someone wanting a discussion about it. All they do is laugh at you and pretend like they know your denomination, but they have no idea what they're talking about. They don't read scholarship.

[@gmac6503]

@@JCATG well, you can only guess and you're wrong but I bet you didn't know that the word homosexual is a mid 19th century new word. Wow. Now what do you think this guy or this person thinks about homosexuals? Do you think he's a bigot or is he just misinformed? do you think he'd be willing to discuss it and study it? I don't think so.

[@gmac6503]

@@JCATG ladies, and gentlemen, here we have another misogynist and complementarian. End of discussion.

[@knightrider585]

How are these words somehow of "uncertain" meaning when there is a continuous christian church with the same interpretation of them going back about two thousand years?

[@wardonwords]

I believe that is true. I have not personally dig into the history here, but I know a book that does.

[@MusicalRaichu]

Because of the ambiguity of "soft" and unknown meaning of "male bedder", translators have always struggled how to express them. That few translations are consistent among each other adequately proves this. I think the KJV did a reasonable job for their day, even if rendering "soft" (morally weak) as "effeminate" is highly unacceptable today. Rendering "male bedder" as those who treat a male like a master-bay-shone manikin pretty much describes what people were doing in Paul's world at the time.

[@TheRealRamora]

I've just picked up a NRSV and absolutely love it. Its great seeing your view on it. Overall I love the clarity and readability

[@wardonwords]

Great to hear!

[@jrpeet]

Nicely done

[@wardonwords]

Thanks!

[@RobbyLockett]

Hi Mark, Sidestepping the main point here. Is there a method to the madness of man/male, woman/female in the NRSVue? In the verses you put on screen, it seems like haphazard choices of those words. Is there something in the Hebrew and Greek that drives the choice between a biological sex word or a gender word, as we’d split the male/man pair these days? Or are they perhaps flirting with the newest third rail in the culture wars?

[@MAMoreno]

Romans 1.26-27 uses the words θήλειαι/θηλείας for "women" instead of the more common word γυνὴ. In every other instance where the New Testament uses a form of θῆλυς instead of a form of γυνὴ, it is quoting or alluding to Genesis 1.27 in the LXX (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ = "male and female"). The same Greek word for "males" appears in both Genesis and Romans, too, but that word is used a few times outside of the Genesis citations, so it's not quite as strong an indicator of an allusion to Genesis as the word for "females" is. Thus, the NRSVUE interprets Paul's words in Romans 1.26-27 as a reflection on how the created order of Genesis 1.26-27 has been distorted by the "unnatural" sexual relations practiced by the pagan idolaters. The 1989 NRSV failed to make this linguistic connection by using "women" and "men" instead of "females" and "males," so this is a case where the 2021 NRSV has improved the accuracy of the English translation.

[@RobbyLockett]

@@MAMoreno Thank you for that! Two questions from someone who doesn’t really have Greek: 1) the difference you’re pointing to is in the Greek words underlying “God created *man* in his own image . . . *male* and *female* he created them,” in the LXX, correct? 2) Does the NRSVue in fact handle that well across the board? Mark had some other OT verses in the video where man/woman and male/female seemed sort of blended together, but if my Greek is super-extremely limited, my Hebrew is basically not there (I got ruach and Adam and not much else!). Overall, I’ve found the UE to be a really useful translation. The big misses make it hard to recommend, but I’m well-enough versed in the background to those that I feel fine using it myself. The 1989 and UE both read very well and generally stay pretty transparent to the original languages as far as I can grok, but a couple of spots make it hard to really get behind the NRSV project.

[@MAMoreno]

@@RobbyLockett I'll answer the second question first. The Greek word ἄρσεν (or arsen, if transliterated) is always translated as "male" in the NRSVUE. The only outlier is the compound word discussed in this video: ἀρσενοκοίται (or arsenokoitai, which might be very literally rendered as "male-bedders"). The translators would have been more consistent with themselves if they had translated this word as "males who engage in illicit sex" or (more likely, considering other examples of this compound construction in ancient Greek sources) "those who engage in illicit sex with males." The first question will require far more elaboration. We will look at the key Hebrew and Greek words found in Genesis 1.26-27 and 2.23. The LXX thankfully tried to be careful about offering different Greek words for each Hebrew word. In Genesis 1.26, God says, "Let us make humans [אָדָ֛ם or adam in Heb.; ἄνθρωπον or anthropon in Gk.; replaced with Αδαμ or Adam in Gk. beginning in 2.16] in our image" (all English quotes from NRSVUE). In Genesis 1.27, the narrator states that "male [זָכָ֥ר or zakar in Heb.; ἄρσεν or arsen in Gk.] and female he created them." In Genesis 2.23, Adam states that his partner shall be called Woman, "for out of Man [Heb. אִ֔ישׁ or ish; Gk. ἀνδρὸς or andros] this one was taken." This differentiation of terms is also apparent in the NRSV's handling of Leviticus 20.13, which begins with the words, "If a man [Heb. ish, as in Gen. 2.23] lies with a male [Heb. zakar, as in Gen. 1.27]." (The RSV, NASB, NKJV, and ESV make this same distinction.) That latter word (zakar) is also the one that appears in Leviticus 18.22. Unfortunately, the LXX translates Leviticus 20.13 with the words, "καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος." In English, that would say, "And he who beds with a male." So it keeps the latter word (arsen) for the sake of translation concordance, but it replaces the former word (andros) with a masculine pronoun.

[@RobbyLockett]

@@MAMoreno Again, thank you for the time to explain. My homework is to develop a deeper understanding of word sets like Adam/ish/zakah and anthropos/andros/arsen. Using the English set of mankind/man/male without explaining how they key to the originals is probably dragging an inappropriate connotation into the mix: I’m guessing the idea that man means biological sex and male means perceived gender is either totally absent in Biblical Hebrew or at least based on something fairly different than our modern chromosome/psychology split of the ideas. The translators’ is not an easy task. Many modern versions more or less ignore the current gendered language uproar, just setting us back to 1980 for those words, for better or worse. The NRSVue seems to try to take on the challenge of minding these differences. I’m becoming much less sure that these language changes are actually occurring outside the ivory tower and certain corners of Twitter, but if the NRSV committee thinks they are happening, good on them for trying to meet the challenge.

[@MAMoreno]

@@RobbyLockett I think it's the other way around. In English, "male" is more associated with biological sex, while "man" carries all the baggage of gender. No one argues over whether or not you're a "real male," but they might question if you're a "real man" depending on your conformity to cultural norms. And the zakar/ish distinction might work in a somewhat similar way. Zakar is the far less common term, much like "male," and it's frequently used in a more technical sense that's tied to biology: as a pair with נְקֵבָה (or neqebah: "female"), with the implication of reproduction (see Gen. 1.27 for humans and 6.19 for the animals on the ark); for circumcision regulations (see Gen. 17.10-23); for sex-specific animal sacrifices (see Exod. 12.5 and Lev. 1.3). Meanwhile, ish is very common. Zakar appears barely over 80 times in the Tanakh, while ish appears over 2,000 times. And, as with the English word "man," it's usually just taken as a synonym for zakar, but it can sometimes carry gendered assumptions that zakar never does. It is the word that often gets translated as "husband" (see Gen. 3.16), and it can carry connotations of machismo (see 1 Sam. 4.9). So yes, it's true that the ancient Israelites were not well-versed in Third Wave Feminist theory, but their words do function in somewhat similar ways, and the NRSVUE's decision to treat these words differently is appropriate.

[@TheJesusNerd40]

Mark, Dr. Gagnon refuted these two renderings in the NRSV update.

[@wardonwords]

Yes, I know!

[@roelallen]

𝘊𝘢𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘣 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘳 𝘎𝘢𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘯'𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘙𝘚𝘝 𝘜𝘌'𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘴. 👍

[@doctorforesight1480]

I had never heard of the Berean Study Bible before. I'll check it out.

[@wardonwords]

I haven't actually taken a look; a trusted friend likes it, though.

[@destiny0004]

Can i ask a question what's the best Bible and the most complete one?

[@wardonwords]

I have a whole video on this! Which Bible Translation Is Best? kzbin.info/www/bejne/nXfWgqltj5mdn9U

[@edwardgraham9443]

I was kind a hoping that Bible translators would really try to translate the Bible into what the writing actually said and not misrepresent them. I know we are living in a post-modern politically correct world where the Bible is anathema to most non Christians and to some Christians an ancient book of moral virtues and their contrary vices which to them has no place on our age. Sad as this is, this seems to be the norm and almost all the updates being done to our Bibles seems, to me at least, going into this direction. With every new or updated translation of the Bible, something changes, whether brethren or brothers becomes brothers and sisters, or men or man becoming humanity, humankind or people or whether pronouns are changed from being singular to be plural so that it can fit the gender changes, it is becoming mainstream today. Of course, it's being prefaced by it being gender accurate, but I'm very sure that the writers of the Bible knew what they were doing and I'm pretty sure too if they wanted to brothers and sisters, they could have because they knew the word for sister. Also, if they want to say humanity or humankind or people instead of man, they could have. If the writer of Psalm 1 wanted to say blessed is the person, or how blessed is the person who does not walk in the council of the ungodly, he could have, but he said blessed is the man. Why do we need to please the crowd or bend to the desire of the liberals and changed what the writer said to what the translators think they meant. It is my greatest desire that the ESV doesn't update its text or the NKJV. I also hope that the NASB 1995 will never go out of print. I worry that someone is going come out with a translation were God is no longer the father, but find some way of neutralizing him so that all male references to him will go away. I shudder to think of such a time, and for what, all in the name of making the Bible fit for the times.

[@victorialw1]

I agree with you 100%.

[@dustinburlet7249]

Excellent excellent video Mark - great job dealing with a divisive issue in a judicious and academically rigorous manner

[@wardonwords]

Many thanks, Dustin!

[@FaithLikeAMustardSeed]

One wonders who and what motivated this "update"

[@SeverEnergia]

Oooh CEB shout out!

[@mj6493]

With Bruce Metzger no longer at the helm of the translation committee this was bound to happen. He was known to have kept some of the agenda driven translation choices away from the NRSV.

[@wardonwords]

I'm not the only supposedly serious person who has said this. David DeSilva has complained about this same passage.

[@mj6493]

@@wardonwords Don't sell yourself short. I think you're a serious person. 🙂

[@2Snakes]

@@mj6493 I think one could argue that no bible translation is free from agenda driven translation choices.

[@malcolmhayes9201]

I have liberal translations like the Common English Bible and the NRSV and try to treat them with respect but what the NRSV did is insane to me. If you’re going to translate something. Then translate it in its original condition. Don’t change it because you don’t like that it doesn’t agree with your political choices.

[@wardonwords]

I have to agree.

[@hestia598]

what nrsv is that? protestant? i have both protestant and catholic edition

[@JonClash]

Great video!

[@wardonwords]

I'm sad I had to make it.

[@InkRavenLion]

Thank you for this review. Now I won't waste my money on a NRSVue bible. I am a new Christian and need all the help.

[@wardonwords]

It's not all bad. It really isn't. But that one verse is bad, it really is.

[@user56233]

@@wardonwordsis it just the NRSVue? Or does NRSV do this too?

[@ReformedBaptist.1689]

​@user56233 in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the NRSV uses sodomites. As a long-time NRSV reader, I've noticed that the NRSVue improves a lot of verses and moves it more in line with evangelical translations. So far, with what I've read, with the exception of those two verses, the NRSVue seems to be a better translation.

[@viewermc9128]

The rsv is okay but the recent updates have gone way downhill

[@kdeh21803]

I "like" most of the modern translations, but having lived enough to deal with those who had problems with the RSV and also being in churches that wrote about it in their constitutions in days gone by. The reason I have trouble with it is because it was done by the National Council of Churches and since they did not believe in the Virgin Birth they were sure to downplay that aspect by not using the term.................

[@MAMoreno]

To be fair, the RSV, NRSV, and NRSVue say "virgin" in Matthew 1.23 when translating the word _parthenos._ And the word _almah_ in Isaiah 7.14 is the feminine form of the Hebrew word for "young man," so it's not inaccurate to translate it as "young woman." The issue comes in the interpretation of Isaiah 7.14. Does it merely refer to the birth of Christ, or does it initially refer to the birth of a child during the reign of King Ahaz? The larger context of the verse would seem to suggest the latter option. With that in mind, we should ask, "Is the Immanuel from Ahaz's time the result of a miraculous virgin birth?" That seems unlikely, and it would cheapen the uniqueness of the Incarnation if it did. Of course, it could still mean "virgin" in its immediate context if the young woman was a virgin when the prophecy was given to Ahaz, only to lose her virginity soon afterward. Even if this is the case, the significance of her being a virgin at the time of the prophecy is unclear at best. (By contrast, Mary's virginity is an essential detail in the text of Matthew's Gospel.) As such, there's no clear advantage of "virgin" over "young woman" in the immediate context. With all of this in mind, it's worth noting that the NET Bible has followed the RSV in saying "young woman" in Isaiah 7.14. The NET Bible was produced by Dallas Theological Seminary, which could hardly be accused of promoting skepticism toward the Virgin Birth. So it's possible to be an evangelical and still think that the RSV's "young woman" was accurate, regardless of the theological problems in the National Council of Churches.

[@kdeh21803]

@@MAMoreno I come from a time when only liberals used the RSV, and it was even written into the Bylaws of our church that that translation would never be used.....and I'm not going to change now.

[@susyhebner2543]

Very good! Thank you for the clarification, truth!❤

[@wardonwords]

You are so welcome!

[@PatriotPaul759]

Do you have a list of Evangelical Bibles, and a list of Main Line Bibles?

[@wardonwords]

The lines are not really absolute, but here are the main Evangelical Bibles off the top of my head and KJB, ESV, NASB, CSB, NET, NLT. Mainline CEB, NRSV, NRSVUE. My friend M.A. could probably give a longer list for both.

[@PatriotPaul759]

@@wardonwords Thanks for your response. Who is M. A. ?

[@wardonwords]

He comments often here. I thought I could induce him to comment!

[@MAMoreno]

I wouldn't classify the KJV as an Evangelical Bible or a Mainline Bible, as I think that's a bit of an anachronism (though I suppose you could see the KJV as a "mainline" Anglican response to the very low-church "evangelical" perspective of the Geneva Bible). It's once we reach the late 19th century that we have the Modernist/Fundamentalist controversy that defines the categories of "Mainline Protestant" and "Evangelical Protestant." Arguably the first Mainline Protestant Bible is the Revised Version of 1885, along with its U.S. counterpart, the American Standard Version of 1901. Some of the committee members on both sides of the Atlantic were Unitarians, and they had a mild influence on the end result (especially in the ASV's footnotes, which were quick to point out that the "worship" Jesus received could be directed toward a created being). Concern over this fact was one reason why the KJV was never successfully replaced by this revision. The ASV was the basis for the Revised Standard Version of 1952, which came courtesy of scholars who were well-known for their acceptance of Modernist beliefs such as the Documentary Hypothesis, and it shows in a handful of decisions they made: they sometimes worded things in a way that emphasized the disjointed nature of the text rather than attempting to harmonize details. They also made an effort to tone down some of the more overt Christian interpretations of the Old Testament in favor of Jewish interpretations, thereby making it more suitable for interfaith use. The RSV received a Catholic edition in 1966; a slightly revised New Testament followed in 1971; and an expanded Apocrypha with more Eastern Orthodox books followed in 1977. When work began to update the Old Testament, it developed into a full-on revision of both testaments that pushed the translation of the Hebrew text even further in the direction of non-traditional interpretation and introduced extensive gender-inclusive language throughout the Bible. This New Revised Standard Version came out in 1989, and it has recently received its own Updated Edition as of December 2021, courtesy of the mainline/secular Society of Biblical Literature. The "main line" of Mainline versions: RV ASV RSV NRSV Additional translations would fall into the Mainline Protestant camp, though only a few of them are worthy of note. Perhaps the most prominent one is the New English Bible of 1970, which was a British translation conducted by scholars who decided that a further revision of the 1885 Bible (i.e. the RSV) was the wrong way to go. They instead started from scratch, taking a more idiomatic approach to translating the text while also playing fast and loose with its structure. Certain passages were shuffled around based on scholarly conjecture, and bold interpretations of certain words were introduced courtesy of a head translator who relied very heavily on cognate words from other Semitic languages. The translation proved popular in the UK but less so in the States. Because the NEB was so fast and loose with its treatment of the text (resulting in a Bible that makes the NRSV look like the NKJV by comparison), it was deemed unsuitable for liturgical use and was intended instead for personal reading. But people began using it in church services anyway, and the ecumenical committee behind it soon determined that their work would need to be revised to be more appropriate for the lectern. Hence, the Revised English Bible was introduced in 1989, rolling back some of the more extreme interpretations found in its predecessor. As the NEB was proving successful in Britain, a fresh New Testament translation from the American Bible Society was finding an audience among the countercultural youth in the United States. The Good News for Modern Man, a.k.a. Today's English Version, came about largely from a Baptist translator working for the ABS. Acceptance of this version was mixed because it appeared to have a Modernist bias, and this slant became even more apparent when the Old Testament was added. Despite being affiliated with the Southern Baptists, the head translator held views more in line with Mainline Protestantism, and when he openly expressed those views, the Evangelical camp pushed back against the TEV. It received a mild update in 1992 (which toned down a few of the most criticized translation choices) and a rebranding as the Good News Translation. The ABS has since released a somewhat more Evangelical-friendly alternative, the Contemporary English Version of 1995. More recently, concerns over the difficulty of the NRSV for less literate readers spawned the creation of the 2011 Common English Bible, which is nearly as readable as the New Living Translation (an Evangelical revision of the paraphrastic Living Bible). It reached only a mild level of success, in part thanks to some odd departures from traditional English wording (such as "Human One" instead of "Son of Man"). The release of the 2011 edition of the New International Version probably did not help things either: despite being an Evangelical translation, the updated NIV made a number of changes that turned it into a more viable option than its predecessor for Mainline churches. The truly modern Mainline Bibles: NEB TEV REB CEB Additionally, the rise of Catholic translations breaking from the Vulgate tradition has resulted in a few versions that come from scholars who identify as Roman Catholic but who have Modernist beliefs largely identical to those of their Mainline Protestant peers. The first such translation was the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, adapted from a French translation of the same name. Notable in part for the involvement of JRR Tolkien on the book of Jonah, this Catholic Bible featured extensive footnotes that were not unlike those one would find in the RSV Oxford Annotated Bible. The Jerusalem Bible has received two revisions, both by the hand of Catholic scholar Henry Wansbrough. The first, the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985, sought to make the version a tad more literal. (It had been even looser than the NEB, but now it was inching more in the direction of the NIV.) The more recent update, the Revised New Jerusalem Bible of 2019, has not seen as much attention as its two predecessors, but it has moved the JB even more toward literalism while still attempting to retain some of its beauty. The American Catholic scholars had been working on their own new English Bible, an incremental update of the Challoner edition of the 1610 Douay-Rheims which they were calling the Confraternity Version, but once the Vatican declared that their work need not be based on the Vulgate, they largely scrapped their previous work and started on something drastically different. Bringing in a few Protestant scholars along the way, they made a somewhat ecumenical if still generally Catholic translation called the New American Bible (not to be confused with the Evangelical Protestant version called the New American Standard Bible) and released it in 1970. The notes of the NAB, much like those of the JB, were leaning in the direction of Modernism, sometimes outright questioning church tradition. It has received criticism from some traditional Catholics for this reason, though the American bishops have insisted that it be used in non-Latin services. When the New Testament received an update in 1986, it was redubbed the Revised New American Bible; a new edition of the Old Testament in 2011 resulted in a rebranding of the text as the New American Bible, Revised Edition. The notes have become more "mainline" over time. The Mainline-esque RC versions: JB NAB NJB NABRE

[@stevegroom58]

I expected to not care about what I perceived was an obscure Bible translation. I learned translational insight I can apply as I read all Bible translations. Mark Ward does it again, both educates and entertains. The clever sports analogies were a home run too. Worth sharing!

[@brendaboykin3281]

Hi Steve, agree with you, BUT... the NRSV is considered obscure only among evangelical Christians. In liberal institutions, it holds the same position of respect as the NASB95 and the ESV. 🌹

[@bradb2680]

The NRSV is also what is almost always cited in academic or more advanced study materials.

[@dustinburlet7249]

@@brendaboykin3281 I think the better caveat is that the NRSV is only considered obscure among SOME evangelical Christians . . . clearly it is not unknown or obscure among the educated

[@dustinburlet7249]

@@bradb2680 Preceisely . . . this is usually because it is considered an ecumenical translation . . . not necessarily because of any "liberalism" within its translation . . . the Common English Bible is also ecumenical

[@brendaboykin3281]

@@dustinburlet7249 thank you, Brother in Christ 🌹🌹🌹🌹

[@nietobeltran7880]

I literally just bought a premium NRSVue bible. Making me regret it now 😅

[@wardonwords]

There is much good in the rest, I feel certain!

[@marklehigh1040]

"NRSV Updated Edition Removes 3 Biblical Condemnations of Homosexuality, Keeps Others"... Ok, I only count two... 1 Timothy 1:10... 1 Corinthians 6:9-10... What's the third?

[@lokimni6327]

The third one in the New Testament is Romans 1:25-27: "25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse[a] for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse[b] with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error." - NRSVue :-)

[@wardonwords]

Two in 1 Cor 6 and one in 1 Tim 1.

[@aperson4057]

@@lokimni6327 the Romans passage sounds pretty explicit on the condemnation of the homosexual practice here.

[@NormanF62]

The NRSV is a literal translation in the KJV tradition used in college courses in the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Accuracy and prudence in scholarship is important. If you can’t understand what the Bible said, there’s no point in studying it.

[@williambrewer]

Very well done!

[@wardonwords]

Thank you. Pray for the truth to be persuasive to others!

[@marcwilliams4097]

Much Respect.

[@wardonwords]

Much gratitude!

[@billyb7465]

Just wanted to let you know that interestingly, Jennifer Knust's piece is no longer available to read.

[@wardonwords]

Oh my! I'm surprised! I need to get a copy of it before it dies off the internet…

[@billyb7465]

@@wardonwords Huh, actually looks like you can still find it if you remove the "en/" from the link.

[@ReuvenGoldstein1]

I thought this was a pro-LGBT video....

[@wardonwords]

Quite the opposite.

[@samf8192]

I appreciate the expertise of this channel.

[@wardonwords]

Many thanks. There are highly intelligent people behind the NRSVue, of course. Experts. Experts can go wrong. I'm sure I do! God help us all!

[@drewgardner7456]

The NRSVue might not overturn all condemnations of "homosexual behavior" on the face of it, but this is clearly just a crafty way to do just that. All one has to do is cry "ambiguity" in Leviticus and Romans 1 and cite "clarity" in their rendering of 1 Corinthians. They could easily say, "Leviticus and Romans are not talking about ALL homosexual activity, just the religious homosexual activity of pagan cultures. We know that because of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians..." and refer to their rendering of that passage. I think you are spot on with your conclusions, Mark, but I would not be charitable at all with the translators' choices. I would conclude that they are definitely trying to change the Bible's teaching on homosexual behavior in the craftiest way possible.

[@wardonwords]

I have to agree that this appears to be both purposeful and ideologically driven. God will judge.

[@langreeves6419]

"Young woman" is not a wart. It's the correct translation of the hebrew book of Isaiah. "Young woman" would be incorrect if youre wanting a translation of the Septuagent.

[@wardonwords]

I actually don't think I said it was, did I? Didn't I speak of it as a perceived wart? Can't remember!

[@langreeves6419]

​@@wardonwordsbetween 1:30 and 1:45

[@wardonwords]

@@langreeves6419 You are right. I should have spoken differently. My thinking on this has evolved somewhat over time.

[@langreeves6419]

@@wardonwords oh yes, my understandings have evolved a lot during my life.

[@MAMoreno]

I'm convinced that the 1966 Jerusalem Bible did it best when it used the word "maiden." It's an English word that explicitly denotes "young woman" and subtly connotes "virgin." The British Catholic scholars who made the Jerusalem Bible were sensitive to tradition without being unduly restricted by it.

[@justinjones2160]

Good job!!

[@properpropaganda9831]

I also find it bizarre how Jennifer Knust states in her article: "The NRSVue chose to translate arsenokoitai as “men who engage in illicit sex,” with an explanatory footnote “meaning of Gk uncertain.” This translation signals the likelihood that the term was coined based on the Greek version of the Levitical commandments...." How does the translation signal that? It doesn't. The text note doesn't signal it either.

[@wardonwords]

See comments from M.A. Moreno on this thread. I took this the same way you did. He, I think, may have discovered what she actually meant. I think I understand her now. But it really takes reading her piece-and specifically that line-to uncover her intended meaning. And that's a problem. Paul wasn't that unclear.

[@suiko2fan2]

Thank you, Mark. I always appreciate your calm demeaner and fairness in these matters. And your sincere honesty to call a spade a spade when you see it. Thank you for all your hard work. I'm subbing!

[@mrtdiver]

I too am a translator. Long ago I seen the signs, the liberal translation committees, the compromises, the dumbing-down of the Scriptures to make thing simpler. ESV Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.

[@definitionhighguy]

Wish I knew this before I picked up one of them. Thanks for the info

[@wardonwords]

It's not all bad. There's tons of precious truth in there. You won't be declared unclean for touching one! Read, but be aware.

[@hestia598]

@@wardonwords so what is the mistranslation on the book? what nrsv you have? i have both protestant and catholic

[@wardonwords]

@@hestia598 I’m talking about the new NRSVue. Came out last year.

[@hestia598]

@@wardonwords in nrsvce "do you not know the wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? do not be decieved! fornicators, idolaters, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, robers - none of these will inherit the kingdom of God." what do you think?

[@wardonwords]

That’s the NRSV, not the NRSVue.

[@derekchayel6292]

Goodbye NRSVue.

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

Good video Mark. Have you noticed 'The Message' removes both homosexuality and eternal punishment?

[@wardonwords]

I do have concerns here. I have enjoyed several Peterson books (especially Eat This Book), but I am not a fan of the man himself. =( But to me, as long as people know The Message is a paraphrase and they treat it like one, I have little concern that bad things will happen. It still isn't best. I wish he'd done differently. But The Message isn't made for regular preaching in church or regular reading over a lifetime. If it's used in those circumstances, yes, that's a problem.

[@PeopleoftheFreeGift]

I agreed with almost everything you said until you said that those who practice malakoi and arsenekoite would be kept out of Gods kingdom. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 does not say “enter” the kingdom. It says “inherit” the kingdom. If you would like to talk further about this, I would welcome the discussion, perhaps on my channel.

[@wardonwords]

Go ahead and explain, friend!

[@MAMoreno]

After spotting this comment, I watched your video on the topic from August 2018. Have you revised or elaborated upon this argument in the last four years, or should we consider that video to be a complete representation of your current position? My initial thoughts upon your idea come in the form of two questions: - Do you think that Paul used the language of inheritance in a different way than Jesus did in Matthew 25.34, 41 and God did in Revelation 21.7-8? - If not, then how would you interpret those two passages? Here are the verses in question. All English quotes are from the NRSVUE, but I have inserted the corresponding transliterated Greek words for "inherit" in brackets. 1 Cor.6.9-10: "Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit [kleronomesousin] the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, men who engage in illicit sex, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers-none of these will inherit [kleronomesousin] the kingdom of God." Matt. 25.34, 31: "'Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit [kleronomesate] the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" . . . Then he will say to those at his left hand, "You who are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."'" Rev. 21.7-8: "'Those who conquer will inherit [kleronomesei] these things, and I will be their God, and they will be my children. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the sexually immoral, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.'" As you can see, they're all forms of the same Greek word. (The NRSV is very consistent on this front--every single use of "inherit" or "inheritance" in its New Testament reflects one of a small number of Greek words with the same "klero" root. And while I didn't compare the Apocrypha as exhaustively, it appears from a glance at Tobit and Judith that the NRSV translators followed the same standard there. Gotta love literal Bible translations.) Of course, it's not impossible for Paul to use the same words in a different way, but he really would be the odd person out if he did. (See also Hebrews 1.14, which speaks of "those who are to inherit salvation.") And while you're correct that Paul discusses being "saved, but only as through fire" in 1 Corinthians 3.15, he doesn't use the language of inheritance for what is lost. Rather, he compares it to being a builder whose work is lost in a fire.

[@PeopleoftheFreeGift]

@@MAMoreno all of the verses you mentioned use the language of inherit. I simply pointed out that "entering" the kingdom is different than "inheriting" the kingdom. Entering are those who receive salvation. Matt 5:20; 7:21; 18:3; 19:23-24; Mark 9:47; 10:15, 24-25; Luke 18:17, 24-25; John 3:5; Acts 14:22 use this language. All of these passages speak (some harder than others to understand) of receiving salvation to enter the kingdom of heaven. Then there is a separate set of verses that speak of inheriting the kingdom. You've already listed several. You also brought up 1 Cor 3:5, which is one example among many that speak of a distinction between some believers who are saved, but suffer loss, abstain from their reward, saved as through fire, have their crown stolen, etc... 1 Cor 6:9-10 can be read one of two ways. 1) There are believers who practice "such" things and enter, but do not inherit the kingdom. 2) Believers are no longer defined by these practices. Such "were" some of you.

[@PeopleoftheFreeGift]

@@wardonwords I simply point out that "entering" the kingdom is different than "inheriting" the kingdom. Entering are those who receive salvation. Matt 5:20; 7:21; 18:3; 19:23-24; Mark 9:47; 10:15, 24-25; Luke 18:17, 24-25; John 3:5; Acts 14:22 use this language. All of these passages speak (some harder than others to understand) of receiving salvation to enter the kingdom of heaven. Then there is a separate set of verses that speak of inheriting the kingdom. These verses speak of a distinction between some believers who are saved, but suffer loss, abstain from their reward, saved as through fire, have their crown stolen, etc... 1 Cor 6:9-10 can be read one of two ways. 1) There are believers who practice "such" things and enter, but do not inherit the kingdom. 2) Believers are no longer defined by these practices. Such "were" some of you. What is your take? I would love to discuss this further with you. I love your videos by the way. Keep up the good work.

[@MAMoreno]

@@PeopleoftheFreeGift I brought up 1 Corinthians 3.10-15 precisely because you seem to be reading it into your interpretation of inheritance. The problem is that this passage doesn't use the language of inheritance. It uses the language of building upon the foundation of Christ and receiving wages. You can't interpret what Paul means by "inherit" by using a passage that's based around an entirely different metaphor. It would be akin to interpreting Paul's frequent description of himself as a runner in a race by appealing to his description of the church as the body of Christ. They're unrelated concepts. And in the context of 1 Corinthians 1-4, it's probably best to understand the "builders" of 1 Corinthians 3.10-15 as church leaders in particular, not as Christians in general. Paul has already described both himself and Apollos as workers throughout verses 5-9. He admittedly does modify his labor metaphors (switching from farming to construction), but he signals the transition with a segue, saying that "you are God's field, God's building" (1 Cor. 3.9 NRSVUE). He sees the people in the Corinthian church not as fellow "coworkers" (v. 9) or "master builder[s]" (v. 10), but as the thing being built up on the foundation of Christ (v. 11). Pastors and missionaries are thus said to be judged for the results of their labor, and while they will not lose their salvation for failing to do their jobs well, they will lose the "wages" (vv. 8, 14) they would have received otherwise. (See also John 4.35-38 for the idea of church leaders or missionaries as laborers who receive a wage, directed in that context to the disciples of Jesus, presumably the twelve apostles.)

[@williamearle6281]

Great vid. I confess the way you opened about rolling your eyes and such made me fear you were another silver tongued devil out to mock defenders of the faith, but well done. BTW, NIV 84 had a couple of homosexuals on the translation team, what were they thinking? Also, re not all verses obfuscated, incrementalism is the long game tactic of the Revelation 2:9 etc gang via the institutions.

[@wardonwords]

You may want to do some more digging into the NIV 1984. The one homosexual woman, Virginia Mollenkott, a graduate of my alma mater, Bob Jones University, played a role in the translation as an English stylist but had no discernible effect on the translation. And, importantly, she was not "out" as a lesbian until after her time working on the NIV.

[@williamearle6281]

@@wardonwords FWIW, I heard 2, but 1 or 2, open or secret, the proof is in the pudding. False coversos subverted the Church by not being open about it. Money, status n propaganda win them allies as well.

[@aperson4057]

I read Gagnon's comments on this and had to agree with this one. I usually side many times with the "liberal" translation of various passages. I think for example that Genesis 1 is handled best by the NRSV (except verse 2). Though many know better than I, the NET along with the NRSV also chooses the young woman translation in Isaiah 7:14 and explains in its footnote. But this example is a flagrant mistranslation. I was hoping for the best since this would use the best up to date critical texts. But I consider this verse a flagrant mistranslation of Scripture.

[@dustinburlet7249]

Since you seem to concur with the NRSV with respect to Gen (except for verse 2) I might encourage you to check out the Common English Bible instead - I find it's renderings hard to beat usually With respect to Isa 7:14 it has long been known that the passage in the MT is clearly understood as a young woman but because of the canonical influence of Scripture (as provided through the LXX) the term virgin is often understood - there is no compromise with respect to either of those decisions so long as the interpretive possibilities between the versions are noted in a footnote - it is a text-critical issue not a theological matter Glad to see that you note the NET Bible footnote

[@aperson4057]

@@dustinburlet7249 thanks for the suggestion. So far I’ve liked the renderings of the CEB, except the replacing of “Son of Man” with “Human one”. Oh, how I would want a translation with all the renderings I agree with. I guess you can’t have everything

[@hannahb5840]

THank you Mark. I was unaware of the significant input on this topic from the Greek Lexicon you mentioned. Looks like I'll be adding another Greek lexicon to my library. I've been looking for this exact thing recently and am familiar with the counter arguments for the relevant passages but haven't done enough research, like I should, on the etymology of the two words.

[@wardonwords]

Then do watch my other video on ἀρσενοκοίτης! I linked to it within this video.

[@WgB5]

The New Catholic Bible messes up 1st Cor while taking 1st Tim 1:10 and putting in the word- sodomites.

[@MAMoreno]

Both the NCB and the NABRE include footnotes identifying the participants as catamites and pederasts. They take a narrower view of the meaning of these words than most versions do. But even if you disagree with their view, at least it's more specific than the NRSVue's "Meaning of Gk uncertain" note.

[@acts413biblecollege8]

I think the LEB did the best job on 1 Corinthians 6:9.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

Mark, thank you for this insightful video. I read your article at TGC. Excellent! I recently purchased the NRSVue and, frankly, have enjoyed reading it for the most part. There are some aspects to the translation, like "the faithfulness of Jesus," or "work on your salvation," that aren't necessarily bad, just different. And the inclusive language can be a little excessive. But what I wanted to ask you about was the continuing mitigation of homosexuality.😅 In addition to the passages you pointed out, in the OT there are four other passages which I think are quite problematic. I'm going off the top of my head, but believe they are Deut 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; and 2 Kings 23:7. All of these make reference to male temple prostitutes, but not the NRSVue. Their translation is "illicit priests". I checked out about 20 different English translations and none of them support the NRSVue rendering. Your thoughts?

[@jamesbarksdale978]

I have no idea how that emoji got there! Must have hit something by accident.

[@MAMoreno]

It's important to note that the translation also rejects the notion that the feminine form of the word means "prostitute" in Deuteronomy 23.17. (More on that point in a moment.) The Hebrew noun is related to a verb that is often translated as "consecrate" (see Exodus 28.3 in reference to Aaron's priesthood) or "sanctify" (see Genesis 2.3 in reference to the Sabbath). So "illicit priest" seems like a fair translation. After all, these people are in some way regarded as "holy" despite being outside the legitimate priesthood. The issue is that the aforementioned feminine form (qedeshah) is frequently mentioned in conjunction with prostitution. In Genesis 38.15, Tamar poses as a "prostitute" (zanah). Judah lies with her, and when he later returns to find her, he calls her a "consecrated worker" in verses 21-22 (CEB, translating qedeshah). But then she is again called a "prostitute" (zanah) in verse 24. The pairing of these two words suggests that qedeshah is either a synonym for zanah or a euphemism for it. We can see these words together again in Deuteronomy 23.17-18. While verse 17 bans both female and male Israelites from being a "consecrated worker" (CEB, translating qedeshah and qadesh, respectively), verse 18 states that temple payments cannot be made with money gained by a "prostitute" (zanah) or a "dog" (NRSVue, translating keleb; "male prostitute" in CEB). So too, Hosea 4.14 parallels "prostitutes" (zanah) with "consecrated workers" (CEB, translating qedeshah; "female attendants" in NRSVue). All these parallels suggest that the "illicit priests" were associated with prostitution. While the word may more literally mean "consecrated worker," it carried certain connotations that went beyond a mere violation of the Law's regulations on priesthood.

[@joest.eggbenedictus1896]

NRSVue gets it right. You said yourself there's an active and passive partner. This kind of sexual sin is about power not consensual sex. So "homosexual" is misleading in our current usage of the word. That's why there's language of honor and shame in Romans 1. Our culture does not have notions of honor and shame and the power associated with it in the ancient world. The NRSVue is more accurate in its terms and context. Some time ago, in a similar thread, you mentioned that your background isn't in social scientific research. These passages are about abuse of power not about two consenting adults. Now, on the other hand, you can argue that the Lord's vision for sexual intimacy is heterosexuality, and I think you thread this needle in the second half of your video. (Your discussion on "men bedding" is accurate in my opinion.) You can't treat the language in question without hitting the language regarding honor and shame surrounding it. I give Rom. 1 a full treatment in a Bible study video on my own page. I guess my concern is that if one is willing to say that Scripture condemnes an entire group of poeple are kept from the kingdom of God, we need to have all of the interpretative tools at our disposal, not just one interpretive lens.

[@MAMoreno]

At most, I could see the word being translated as "males who sexually dominate other males." That phrasing implies the shaming involved without obscuring the word's meaning.

[@joest.eggbenedictus1896]

In most cases of one dominant and one passive partner, especially when young boys are involved, it's always about power. For someone to become passive was a step of relinquishing what they believed to be inherently ascribed honor as a male.

[@wardonwords]

All sex includes a power dynamic, as I saw someone say somewhere. I mainly encounter appeals to honor-shame the same way I encounter appeals to the supposed original Aramaic of Jesus' sayings: as a way of destabilizing and averting what the NT says. Let's take the other sins in the vice list. Is sexual immorality only wrong if it's exploitative? Is idolatry wrong only if it's shaming? Is getting drunk wrong because it brings shame? Yes, surely, I have read repeatedly in responsible writers about the Roman world that being the penetrated male was considered shameful. But that only enriches the interpretation I'm giving. It doesn't avert it.

[@micahwatz1148]

Dude, you’re wrong bro. Lol

[@micahwatz1148]

“They were serious about the beastiality and incest, but when it came to homosexuality we have to consider the power dynamics” 😂😂 youre joking right? Its not like the Bible is talking about farmers or tribal war or anything where you want traditional gender roles to maximize reproduction rates or anything…

[@properpropaganda9831]

Well, suffice to say, it's a lot easier to justify homosexual marriage with the NRSVue now. Also, this obfuscation is a strike against the NRSV's academic integrity.

[@wardonwords]

Agreed.

[@kpwillson]

The term homosexuality and even the concept of sexual orientation was developed in the 19th century. In the ancient world, sex was viewed as a 1 person action. One person was dominant and the other was penetrated. This application of 21st century understanding of sex to ancient texts is dishonest at worst and misguided at best. The historical context of texts matters when translating them.

[@MAMoreno]

Regardless of how sexual orientation was understood in antiquity, the point remains that the NRSVue made the meaning of the word _arsenokoitai_ far more obscure in English than it need be. Conversely, the CSB's "males who have sex with males" sufficiently communicates the idea without tying it in any way to a person's psychological proclivities. Translating this word is not a zero-sum-game between the possibly anachronistic "homosexuals" of the 1946 RSV and the dubiously nonspecific "sexual perverts" of the 1971 RSV.

[@gmac6503]

Good point, but nobody really dealt with it. The de Young and the Gagnon and the James White people and the other fundamentalists have no idea of how Greek and Rome were and they still to this day think Solomon Gomorrah was about homosexuality. They are bigots, and they remain bigots. There's plenty of books on the topic, but they're scholarly books and apologists like this guy and the others I mentioned aren't interested in scholarly books. Most of the scholars have never even heard of these people. Apologists are the scum of the Earth.

[@gmac6503]

I mean, this guy's credentials are Bob Jones University. Eww, I wonder what they think of blacks and homosexuals and other groups? Lol Well he's got an apologetics PhD. He's got one up on James White with his fake PhD. At least he came out of King James only. You would think someone like him would like recommended books that he could study on the culture and what same-sex was about in the New Testament era but these people have morals that are not only twisted while they misinterpret the Scriptures to make it mean what they want it to mean, but they want the rest of the world 2000 years later to follow their twisted interpretations of what the Bible even says. Not sure what this guy thinks about Sodom and Gomorrah and the story but it's not about homosexuality.

[@gmac6503]

Yeah, this guy is always complaining that other people aren't nice and even his response to me, instead of just asking me to be more specific, just blows it off. He's harsh and acts like an animal when he critiques people who disagree with him but these apologists are just crybabies. They're so immature and they're not historians so they use their Greek or whatever they claim is their specialty to match their theology which comes first. If homosexuality is a sin then that's the way they're going to read the Greek into it and they're going to find as many followers as they can get and hope to find some scholars like Danker. It's amusing. It's also irritating but This guy has nothing to offer. Anyway, I have some really good books on the history of Greek/Roman culture. Siker's book is really good and the de Young, Gagnon, white, Michael brown people are just laughing stocks and bigoted . It's funny because 20 minutes after I critiqued his ESV praise Dan McClellan came out with a video using the exact words I used. Misogyny and complementarianism

[@MisterDevel]

This is kind of true. However, the translated words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 means both the active and inactive parties. Learn Greek!

[@felixmarinjr.66]

Thank you for this video post. I was going to but the NRSVue but after watching this I changed my mind. I have been using the new NASB2020 and like it and thought the NRSVue would be a good companion to it. But no thanks.

[@wardonwords]

There is a ton of good in the NRSVue; I feel very confident of this. I have only made these very specific complaints.

[@felixmarinjr.66]

@@wardonwords Hi Mark, I had compared over 22 random verses from it to the NASB 2020, and the NKJV. I came up with a score for the NRSVue almost twice as high than the other two, for being, in my humble opinion, more accurate. I was going to order a copy but decided to look at any reviews on KZbin. After watching your review on the passages you showed, many Christians and Bible students will not trust it. It will be hard to use it as a reference as well.

[@dannyiselin]

🎶Remember the popular R&B 60's song "Tell it... like... it... is.....🎵." Liberal theology along with its hallmark version of the Bible is NPR politically correct, and offensive to none, though offenders as named by divine revelation need to be labeled LIKE WHO GOD SAYS THEY ARE." Just another marketing ploy.