Has the NRSV Update Gone Too Far?

[@charjohnnyo3655]

I agree. This is why I love NASB KJV NKJV and ESV. We should NEVER allow God's word to be softened so people feel better about their lifestyle.

[@The_Unpopular_Opinion_XII]

Every one of those translations have problems of their own. They are loaded with the theological biases of the translators just like the NRSVue. I could give plenty of examples, but this is not the right place for a lengthy discussion of the topic.

[@NeedAVacay-y5u]

It is debatable whether that can be translated homosexual. But luckily Romans 1 is far too in-depth to deny the homosexuality is a sin.

[@anthonym.7653]

I have an NRSV Bible which I have not read much. Doubt I will need to get this updated edition. Thanks for the review and info.

[@_quiara_]

I’ve read the scholarly arguments for the changes and they’re in line with my reading of the Greek and Hebrew. I don’t feel like any of these are actually the problems they’re being made out to be. I think it’s a very academically strong and faithful translation and I’ve really enjoyed using it.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Duly noted.

[@_quiara_]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews not to say your review wasn’t good. It was. I love your channel and your humble heart. Keep challenging us.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Appreciate it. I knew this video could be a bit of a ticking bomb. I just share my thoughts and leave it at that. I try to keep my responses as muted as possible to avoid undue conflict.

[@_quiara_]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I get that. I appreciate you and your perspective. We just come from different approaches. And that’s okay.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

I respectfully disagree. Please see my comment.

[@thomasshannon7793]

I agree about those paper liners. I have the same problem with Thomas Nelson Bibles in leathersoft. They're both owned by Harper Collins, so no big surprise. Those great text blocks do make awesome rebinds, like your beautiful Horween NKJV Maclaren you showed us awhile back. "We never need to help the Scripture say what it says . . ." Amen, brother! Another intelligent, well-informed assessment, something I've come to expect from you, sir, whether I choose to agree with you or not. Always a real breath of fresh air. Jesus on, indeed.

[@wbt46]

If I think it's a keeper I put book tape immediately on the hinge front and back. Learned in high school that is best way for support. It does help.

[@nan.starjak]

Thank you for pointing out that there were female deacons in the Bible! (sore point for this Catholic girl 😢 )

[@tony.biondi]

Thank you, Tim. Another spot-on assessment.

[@LBCBrandon]

Thanks for your thoughts, Pastor Tim. As a “United” Methodist, I just can’t help but see this in the context of the great push to the left in the UMC. I won’t belabor that here except to say that a lot of us are being dragged in a direction we don’t really want to go. Anything that the UMC is publishing right now is pretty aggressively pushing the NRSVue. It’s kind of disheartening for those of us who appreciate John Wesley’s theology but don’t like seeing it carried off in a totally different direction. Sorry for the rant, great video as always!

[@danielsteinberg5281]

This was a well thought-out and respectful approach to something that could have been done much more negatively. I was waiting for this video to come out and was concerned that I would hear a rehash of some of the arguments I’ve read online. I shouldn’t have been. Your approach has made me think more deeply on the matter and less defensively. Great video!!!

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Appreciate your comment!

[@vsaharc]

At 2:29 when you were turning the pages did the ones in the front got folded? I just can't unsee it 😂

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

They did indeed. I noticed it at the end and edited it out.

[@vsaharc]

​@@anickelsworthbiblereviews At least it wasn't Maclaren 😊

[@joshuaj50]

I totally agree the synthetic covers are much better, but why the paper liner??

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

🤷🏻‍♂️

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

Thank you, Brother Tim 🌹⭐🌹

[@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever]

I'm a firm TR/Authorized Versions user and lover and I'm considered very conservative but I love the NRSVue more than it's previous update. The texts you brought up in here are problems for sure but I dare say there are just as many problems in the NIV and CSB. I can show you places where the NRSVue gives more honor to Christ's deity than the LSB and ESV. Also, the homosexuality texts in 1 Timothy 1:10 & 1 Corinthians 6:9 are no worse than the RSV of 1971.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I point out some issues with the RSV as well in a separate video.

[@fftministriesmovingwithpurpose]

Great points and I totally agree with you thanks for sharing

[@windpeoples]

I like your take on things Tim. God bless!

[@saulm58]

Regarding 1 Cor 6:9-10, I must say that it is sad to see that we have arrived to point where, what today is announced as 'academic' work, has to pass regularly through the filter of those who want to see total subordination to their ideologies, so that, even regarding 'academic' translations of the Bible, the expert translators, knowingly and militantly, alter the meaning of words, making the text say something (or obscure it) they know it does not say. You can agree or not with their ideologies, that is another subject, but from a purely academic perspective, what they are doing is betraying their intellectual honesty. Thank you, Tim, for sharing your observations.

[@timwilkins2008]

I appreciate your video but disagree with your assessment. I have used the NRSV since 1989 and I am breaking in my Premier NRSVue. I agree with you about the construction of the leather soft. As a translation, It is still solid and I believe accurate. It may not cater to one’s theological biases in a way one would prefer, however. I feel that one’s agreement or disagreement with the text revision is based one’s theological viewpoint. I allow for the possibility for others to disagree with me as long as they are not disagreeable/rude about it. BTW, I also use the Common English Bible on a regular basis .

[@MAMoreno]

I would say that it doesn't go too far, but I do find its handling of one particular Greek word to be needlessly obscure. (You know the one.) But even in that case, I think it's more accurate than the 1971 edition of the RSV was when dealing with that exact same Greek word. Every change that it makes otherwise is completely defensible with reputable scholarship. In some cases, it makes a reasonable decision that will take a bit of warming up to, but I always have its close relatives (ESV, NASB) to give me the traditional wording if I need it. One change that comes to mind is Isaiah 1.18: Come now, let us argue it out, says the Lord: If your sins are like scarlet, will they become like snow? If they are red like crimson, will they become like wool? There's a very good argument to be made that these sentences should be hypothetical and interrogative (as they are here) rather than antithetical and declarative. By framing these statements as a challenge, the NRSVue aligns them better with the call to repentance in verses 19-20. So it's nice to have the option available within the Tyndale-KJV lineage. At the same time, I miss the more comforting language found in the older versions.

[@ThePolarBearProductions]

Yeah I’m not totally sold on the NRSVUE. My church is using it but I prefer the old NRSV and the KJB.

[@GuruishMike]

My biggest problem with it is I don't really think that the NRSV needed to be updated, or if it did need to be updated, not by this. I also don't like the stylizing of NRSVue, but that's minor.

[@PieceOfMyMind.]

I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during the interaction/discussion of the interpretations for God's words in the NRSV update. Is there any way to remove the political agendas from the different interpretations? Is there an English version of the bible that just interprets God's words and leaves the political agendas to be addressed in the notes and commentaries?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I believe most of the reputable translations do just that.

[@PieceOfMyMind.]

Thanks for your reply. I’m new to all of this. The different translations are boggling my mind trying to determine which translation is reputable and which is not.

[@Blakefan2520]

Interesting review. Thank you.

[@Charlene916]

I like the NRSVue enough, but I always use 2 or 3 translations to study the Bible. I put notes in the margin if the translation seems to be wrong in certain verses. My favorite is the NKJV at present.

[@ISayToMyself]

Thanks. I’ll pass on this version.

[@sandracoombs2255]

Great segment Pastor Tim. Please keep speaking out on behalf of God’s Word. I believe the NRSV UE has tilted too far and I don’t know why we are always updating Bibles. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is done in some cases to try to appeal to current western culture. But the Bible stands above all cultures. I tell my friends to get a hard copy Bible, e.g. not digital as they are automatically updated, and get an NKJV, ESV, or NASB 95 (certainly not the 2020). Thank you again. 😊

[@christinawynkoop4027]

It's very questionable. VERY QUESTIONABLE.

[@christinawynkoop4027]

I agree with you, Tim.

[@SteadfastBeard]

It for sure does. It’s not a translation that I feel I can fully trust. That’s enough reason for me to just steer clear. Nice Review.

[@awi77]

Thank you Tim! Well said!

[@danielhixon8209]

I’ve used the NRSV a lot over the years, and it is mostly pretty good (in fact I’d guess it is about 75% identical to the ESV). I’d say on sacraments, ecclesiology, and sometimes in poetry it is actually better than the ESV. But there were a number of places I know of that I think were badly translated: a couple of times it seemed they were going out of their way to avoid traditional renderings that are theologically important (as in Gen.1, Ps 22; Isaiah 7); in several cases (as in Daniel 7, Psalm 1, etc) the gender-neutral renderings actually obscure Messianic overtones. Now I will say that the classic NRSV has really good text notes, and you will almost always find the alternate/better rendering there. But when I heard that they were doing a text update I hoped (against hope) they would fix some of this stuff and bring it closer to the ESV/NIV. They did make some improvements I think, such as giving us “servant” instead of “slave” in some of the parables (like the ESV), but for the most part (from what I’ve seen), I think they made it worse, which doesn’t really surprise me, knowing how many of the folks involved are theological revisionists. I wish I could get the rights to issue a new edition that gave me a free hand just to swap the text note into the actual text in a few places

[@examineAUDITS]

I believe they were trying to eliminate when preachers say they can get married and divorced as many times as they want as long as they are not married to more than one woman at a time

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Sure, but is it accurate?

[@joesbibles5636]

Thank you for your thoughts, Tim. I will definitely NOT be reading the NRSVue.

[@jojitsu5620]

Please do a comparison between the Niv premium and the nrsv premium. Both nicely done, but which one is more true to God's word from the o g text. Not just the translation but theologically. I guess I'm asking is the nrsv more conservative than the Niv? What's your thoughts on this . Blessings and Jesus on🙏

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I’d have to read the NIV again, it’s been years, and I just don’t have it on the radar at the moment.

[@user56233]

1989’s NRSV needs no changes, such a great translation. Why do these publishers keep making new versions!!! Definitely staying with my NRSV, not the updated. NRSV and NASB has been such a good combo for me

[@RevDavidReyes]

NKJV

[@Kakaragi]

The KJV and the NKJV render the words malakos and arsenokoites as, "nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind," and "nor homosexuals, nor sodomites" respectively; however which is correct?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Well there’s a 400 year language difference. So I’d say in their time they were both right.

[@Kakaragi]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews But aren't sodomites and homosexuals the same thing?

[@madisonmonroe2414]

son of man to me almost implies he’s not the son of god, but since god came in human form it makes sense theologically that it says in human form or human being

[@jamesbarksdale978]

Overall, it's a quality translation. Too strong with inclusive language that negatively affects OT prophecy, and NT references and allusions to the OT. Definitely mistranslates texts on homosexual behavior. Not only in 1 Cor and 1 Tim, but in OT passages about male shrine prostitutes. Although I like the way it reads, and its overall accuracy, I can't fully trust it. There is no doubt that translator bias regarding same-sex behavior interfered with the translation process. Intentional? I'll let you decide.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Historically consistent to English? Yes. That topic is well addressed in the scriptures. And the compound word made up by Paul to denote a certain activity is pretty obviously NOT male shrine prostitute.

[@joestfrancois]

I don't have the updated version, and I have to take the word of others as to what the original languages say. I find the NRSV to be very easy to read compared to many other translations. That is important enough for me. If there are sections or words that are cited as problems I am going to get multiple sources anyway. Biblegateway is just a click away. When I believed I was in a NASB church. As a non-believer, I don't have to get to worried about a word or two here or there. I have seen any manner of belief held up by interesting interpretation of what is written the Bible. Most people go to the Bible to confirm their beliefs, not to find out what to believe, so it really doesn't make a lot of difference to the biggest part of those that call themselves believers. I think most translations are just fine.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

What caused you to stop believing?

[@joestfrancois]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Tim, if you hold your thumb at arm's length to the night sky it covers more than 10 million galaxies. Galaxies, not stars. The average galaxy contains around 100 billion stars. I am a very very finite being and may not even be able to perceive a "god" if one existed. But to think a creation story not much older than 4000 years contains absolute truths about the universe is not probable. It also makes no sense to me that in the Old Testament the Jewish people were chosen by God, out of his own creation. If God made Adam, and all men came from Adam, how were some chosen and others not? It makes no sense. That is mostly what it was, an objective look at religion, any religion, shows the improbability of the claims.

[@joestfrancois]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I answered this and youtube deleted it for some reason.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I see your answer.

[@joestfrancois]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Looks as if it is gone now.

[@3ggshe11s]

I find it really disingenuous when the NRSV(UE) folks claim they're going for as literal and formal as possible but then subordinate the text to politics. And not only that, but to then claim the meaning of the Greek is unclear. Well, what kind of scholars do you have on your translation committee, when every other committee in the past has seemed to be able to figure it out?

[@admcmahon2]

Agree 100%, however, when they soften or change the Bible meanings, it no longer qualifies as a Bible. I stick with NAS, ESV, NKJV, and KJV.

[@nathanjohnwade2289]

Let the translation be accurate and put theology in notes and commentaries.

[@shawnbrewer7]

There were deaconesses, not “female deacons.” Romans 16:1 is an interesting verse to review in the RSV, which provides a more accurate translation. The ESV translates the term as “servant,” effectively meaning “deaconess,” while the NRSVue assumes a modern interpretation, simply calling Phoebe a “deacon” due to concerns that “deaconess” is viewed as patriarchal language. Deaconesses held a tonsured office, often filled by older nuns, with the purpose of supporting women in ways that respected cultural boundaries at the time. For instance, a deaconess might baptize women, who were baptized without clothing as was customary, or bring communion to a sick widow, sparing a priest from visiting a single woman alone. However, deaconesses did NOT assist in serving the Divine Liturgy or take on the other responsibilities assigned to deacons.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

There seems to be a lot of tradition within this comment. I do understand tradition is a lens by which to interpret scripture, but that also opens the door for a lot of things to creep into our doctrine.

[@cecilly59]

Excellent!

[@brucemcqueen5395]

Issues like these are the reason I mostly stick to those translations that are based on the TR.

[@jarontaliman1]

Thank you for standing for the text which some would consider exclusive, because yes homosexuallity is a sin and wrong. Although I'm a complimentarian and disagree there.

[@Adrian_Mason]

Genesis 1:1 "Began creating" is allowing evolution in. This update bugs me.

[@Kakaragi]

You do know that the NRSVCE says the same thing for 1 Timothy 3:2 right?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I was critical of that one too.

[@2Snakes]

Thank you very much for your video. I would just like to point out a few things: 1) You stated that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain "a virgin" reading for Isaiah 7 -- this is incorrect as far as I am aware. 2) In regards to 1Cor. 6:9, please check how the KJV and RSV translate that verse; I don't think those translations are guilty of caving into societal pressure. 3) The literal "Son of man" rendering is provided in the footnote for both Daniel and Ezekiel in the NRSVue. Anyway, thanks again for your video and I am not looking to debate just clarify. Oh and my favorite translation is the NRSVue, of course. :)

[@eclipsesonic]

RSV > NRSV & NRSVue

[@dalecaldwell]

A translations by pharisees for phariisees.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

It is definitely going in an uncomfortable direction.

[@anthonyortiviz3229]

It's aggravating with them messing with Gods word...God sees and knows

[@logiciskey7]

I totally agree, the Bible should never be altered to suit mankinds agendas, there will be a price to pay to those that do it.,

[@Gahostpaper]

It definitely has

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

We shall see.

[@solascripturamjc9681]

Thank you for standing against these disgusting changes. They're twisting the true Word which is not surprising. It's been done for a long time now. Adding to and changing the word is cursed in Deuteronomy and Revelation.Many "bibles" have removed the words Christ, Lord, blood, hell, etc. Some verses distinctly attributed to Jesus Christ just say "he". He who? Like "he appeared in a body." Who appeared? They're making bibles generic enough that they could make another fit who's being talked about. The Bible talks about "another Jesus." I think that other Jesus is the Jesus of these revisers.

[@263sparky3]

I would say a man having sex without being open to the possibility of creating a new life is in sexual sin. Not just about who you’re doing with but also why you’re doing it at all

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

That’s a difficult position to defend.

[@kathybradbury]

I wish I’d seen this review before I wasted my money on a premium (but open box) version of this translation. I looked up a couple of key verses and was surprised and disappointed (the universal “man” changed to the awkward and secular “humankind”…and Genesis 6 “…’My Spirit will not always live within mortals’…”..!?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

It’s not one I would use.

[@kathybradbury]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews no, I’m very concerned about faithfulness to the original language. I hope I can return it….pray the seller will be willing to allow a return?

[@trentstewart6703]

I call this the "Mainline Protestant" bible.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Perhaps but it is used very little by Protestant churches.

[@trentstewart6703]

Perhaps I am off base but I hardly view the mainlines as churches anymore and see them headed towards becoming civic and social organizations.

[@examineAUDITS]

You do realize that IN CONTEXT Isaiah 7 was fulfilled in 2 Kings 15 and 16? Matthew's use was a spiritual fulfillment. This is why churches are emptying out. People are studying their way out of the church.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Do you realize that in context many prophecies that are ultimately messianic in nature have an immediate symbolic fulfillment and an ultimate fulfillment in Christ? Many are also studying their way right back into the church.

[@examineAUDITS]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews no. They have a physical fulfillment first and a spiritual fulfillment with Christ. You need to study Isaiah 7 and 8 along with 2 Kings 15 and 16. Also you need additional study on the Septuagint.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

NRSVue is heresy. I stopped using my NRSV because I disagreed with parts of the translation and I can honestly say I will NEVER purchase this book.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I certainly wouldn’t go that far.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I know it's a very strong opinion. But personally I feel the line was crossed that should never be crossed with this one. I still do appreciate your reviews so keep up the good work.

[@examineAUDITS]

You are not being honest about the Dead Sea Scrolls. They say ha almah just like the MT.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

You are correct. I misspoke. It’s irrelevant and the point remains. The Septuagint is as old, and likely older than the DSS and they say virgin.

[@examineAUDITS]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews the earliest manuscript of Isaiah in Greek is Vaticanus from the 4th century ce. The early manuscripts of the Septuagint are only Genesis - Deuteronomy. Do you even know the context of Isaiah 7? I am willing to bet you do not. The kings in that chapter were killed in 732 ad. That child in context was not Jesus. This is why people don't trust Christians anymore. You need to study before you speak. I hope you take what I said to heart

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

@@examineAUDITS you make a lot of assumptions.

[@Imsaved777]

The NRSV is a very poor translation.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Not among my favorites.