The NRSVue: A New Translation for Worship & Study

[@farlowalexify]

I’m glad to see a female pastor she sounds like a good one to hear her speak about the Bible and I like this video and it is very interesting information about the new Bible I have ordered this NRSVUE

[@MM-jf1me]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this translation. Best wishes to each of you and to your congregation.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

As a Jewish friend, I appreciate your comments about honoring Jewish practice. But I also believe a good case can be made for capitalizing "Sabbath," "Passover," etc. just on the grounds of right English. The Sabbath (Shabbat in Hebrew) is a day of the week. A translator would never write "wednesday." And Passover too is a proper noun. No one would write "the American holiday called thanksgiving."...I hope the integration of the new Bible edition has been going smoothly.

[@TheRealRamora]

I love this video, very clear. Thanks :-)

[@sepehrnafezi6572]

I am curious. Because I see the video in 2024. Are you still using NRSVue or you change it?

[@jamesbarksdale978]

Just happened across your video. I purchased a copy of the NRSVue a few months ago. I certainly haven't read it all, but have read significant sections, both OT and NT. My overall assessment is positive. The translation is good, even if it has some quirks like "work ON your own salvation" or the decision to translate certain phrases (not incorrectly) as "the faith of Jesus Christ" or the choice in Phil 3:12-13 to use the phrase "lay hold of", or being a little over the top with gender neutral language. I'm not sure any of these are necessarily incorrect, just different. That may or may not be a problem for some readers. Then, there is the glaring problem in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. I won't go into detail. After all, you've been to seminary and hopefully learned some Greek. Let's just say that the translation team for the NRSVue let their pro-gay bias get the best of them. Malakoi and arsenokoitai are clear words in the Greek. The issue is not their meaning, but how best to translate them into English. So, the textual notes at these two verses are just wrong, and misleading to the reader. Although some translations have rendered malakoi as "male prostitutes" (much too specific for the Greek), the better rendering would be along the lines of "the passive partner in homosexual intercourse". Arsenokoitai is crystal-clear. It means "Male/Man-bedder" and refers to the dominant male in same-sex intercourse. The only way to get around this is to mistranslate them, which the NRSVue team has done. The average reader wouldn't know this, but you do. Dare I suggest that the team was being disingenuous? I don't know their motives, but it sure seems they were. But they weren't finished. They then (deliberately?) mistranslated Deut 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; and 2 Kings 23:7. Read them for yourself. Read other translations and see if any of them compare to the NRSVue. I'll tell you now - they don't. In summary: outside of the obvious mitigation of homosexuality in the NRSVue, I find it a good translation. So, why did they have to ruin a good thing? What a disappointment. It truly is beneath this esteemed team of scholars who claim in the preface that the NRSVue is "the most accurate of English-language translations" which "brings greater precision in interpreting Scripture today". No it isn't. No it doesn't. At least not with these passages. My advise: Don't make the NRSVue your default translation. Always compare it to others.

[@mj6493]

I was worried about “inclusive” overreach once Bruce Metzger passed away and was no longer the chair of the translation committee. Sounds like my concerns were justified.

[@tchristianphoto]

To anyone who's studied Paul and his language, the sin of Romans 1 was idolatry, not homosexuality (the rendering "homosexual" in some translations is an anachronism), and his own hapax legomenon "arsenikoitai" is far from easy to ascertain the meaning of. Yes, it comprises words for "man" and "bed," but it's not clear whether "man" is the subject or the object ("man who beds [someone]" vs. "[someone] who beds men"). See 'Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective' by Martti Nissinen, pp. 103-113.

[@mj6493]

@@tchristianphoto Sorry. I don't buy it. All translation is to some degree anachronistic in the sense that you are using modern words or phrases to capture the meaning of an ancient text. The use of the word "homosexuals" is an attempt to capture the pairing of active and passive same-sex partners. A perfectly reasonable translation choice.

[@2Snakes]

@@mj6493 Have you looked at how the KJV and RSV translate 1Cor. 6:9? Are those translations guilty of "inclusive overreach" as well?

[@mj6493]

@@tchristianphoto I've got to be honest with you. Your take on Romans 1 is very odd. Even in the NRSVue, "26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse 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." Idolatry? Really? That's what you see here? Maybe in the most general sort of way, but Paul is specifically identifying same-sex sexual behavior. How can you miss that?