Why I Find the NRSV Annoying

[@brittanyfisher1341]

Thanks for sharing this perspective! My issue with the NRSV for Psalms 1 is the loss of the “Walk-Stand-Sit” progression by using dynamic phrasing of “follow-take the path-sit.” I believe there was poetic intent to visualize that as we walk in worldly sinful behavior, we eventually stand with those issues, then are planted in defending them.

[@timwildsmith]

Thanks Tim. I always appreciate the way you share you opinion with such grace. I've been a fan of the NRSV for several years, but I don't think it's the "perfect" translation by any means.

[@AFrischPerspective]

Thanks, Tim! And I appreciate that you as an NRSV fan are willing to listen, even if you have a different perspective. Although, I thought we agreed that the CSB is the perfect translation. 😂

[@Twiceborn_by_grace]

I was looking for your comment thinking, “Uh oh! I wonder what Tim Wildsmith thinks about this?” 😂. I love your year in the Bible videos. They encouraged me to read the Bible in a year.

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@@AFrischPerspective I know to any bible readers out there who have NEVER experienced a divorce or a loss of a spouse.. due to death.. this passage.. seems kind of moot.... but this has terrible repercussions... In 1979 my first wife left me and ran off with someone else.. thru nothing I did.. she was just a cheat.. then 8 years later I remarried.. and in 2015 THAT wife died due to an illness....now I am re married to a third wife.. both of us have had deceased spouses and been divorced as well.. our pastor would not marry us... since we were spouses of other partners before... AND what if I wished to serve as a Minister somewhere? you see... ?.. Understanding what is REALLY meant by this verse IS important to people like me... the NRSV makes it plain that no I can't.. but what about those like me that did NOT divorce the spouse.. but rather.. were divorced by their spouse?..

[@freakylocz14]

I prefer the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition.

[@SethEdwards-hq9pm]

Yes. That's my favorite version too.

[@RaYBaSHKatan]

Please this comment is totally in jest and is not meant to be taken seriously, nor disrespectfully. I grew up in a KJV only church and went to a conservative Bible college, that was open to newer translations. During my college days (1990’s) I grew a love for the NASB, and there was not the plethora of translations like we have today, or at least we weren’t aware of them. So, we students who came from KJV only churches would joke making new acronyms for the other translations: NASB = Not A Study Bible RSV = The Reviled Standard Version NIV = Not Inspired Version NKJV = Not the King James Version I pastor a small local church and preach from the CSB

[@AFrischPerspective]

The "Cool Southern Baptist" version? 😉😂

[@thomastyler5582]

Huge fan of NASB. I’m on seminary and it is the required citation version But for personal reading I’m a big ESV guy

[@marcasmacleoid8041]

Having moved in worse circles, and again not what I believe or intended seriously, we had the RSV as the Really Satanic Version and the ESV as the Equally Satanic Version. There was also talk of particular individuals contracting an STD (Spiritually Transmitted Disease) by becoming NIV Positive. On another note, I've heard the ESV as the Extra-Sound Version or the Evangelically Sound Version, too. As a Brit, I have been left wondering, who is this "New" King James?!!

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@RaYBaSHKatan the CSB...? I would title THIS bible... "cannot STAND biblically..." correct me if I am wrong... but isn't the CSB a gender neutral bible.. ?.. or is it just the newer renditions...?..

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@@AFrischPerspective I appreciate you sharing and comparing the 1 Timothy 3 passage... but my question is... what is your stance on this verse's meaning...?.. does it mean that a bishop must only have been married ONCE before.. ?... suppose their first wife died... and they .. re- married?.. can they no Longer be a bishop?.. OR does it mean that a bishop cannot have more than one wife at the same time.. which is what some believe.. You see.. in the NRSV it makes it clear that the bishop cannot remarry for whatever reason happened to a wife before.. death or divorce... YET it is unclear as to the gender of the bishop...BUT the CSB and KJV and many others are just as bad ... the other way... they may make it clear that the bishop Must be a man... but they do NOT make it clear what this "one wife"... means..

[@fumastertoo]

I totally agree with what you had to say, and I only wish there was one perfect translation. So far I haven't found it. I know there are the KJV only crowd and believe me, I went to a church filled with them for decades, but it has it's issues. No translation is perfect. I do love the KJV, but I also really like the ESV, NKJV, CSB, and I even have an NRSV. I always find some verses I don't agree with in every translation, so that is why I use so many different ones.

[@RUT812]

Same here

[@matthewwilliamson484]

Same grew up king James only still use it but I use the NASB more.

[@konstantinallinforchrist9867]

Hey allow me to share my thoughts. I think the 3 best english translations are ☆ NKJV ☆ ESV and RSV. The NKJV is basically the most literal while being able to to be read fluently. As far as accuracy-readability goes this is close to the best (possible) in english. If you could only have one bible a Cambridge NKJV Clarion might serve you best. The ESV and RSV are fairly similar. The ESV was made to be read aloud. It's noticably better suited for that cause. Scriptures are meant to be read aloud or listened to. It is easier to understand and read but, alas, significantly less literal than the NKJV. The ESV comes in the best formats hands down. For example the Personal Reference Bible, The Schuyler Treveris, Heirloom Heritage, Large Print compact for awesome portability and wide margin editions etc. The RSV is good in so many ways! It is majestic, Beautiful and to me sounds like a bible should sound. It uses thee/thou/thine when referring to God, otherwise modern language (from 1971). With the new schuyler RSV quentel it is finally available again in a premium format. A benefit over the ESV is that its text while being relatively modern, will not be changed again. It is also a bit more literal than the ESV. Translations like the NIV or CSB, while having their place, sound bland to me. Watered down in vocabulary. The NIV is poor in accuracy despite claims to the contrary. The case can be made that the NRSV in some ways is the best bible for preaching as it always adresses men and women equally, which makes the preaching more immediately inclusive. So there you have it! Let me know what you think. I recommend reading Mark Overton's article on bible translation - it is excellent!

[@jjstuartonwriting8150]

WOW, I know your comment is from 2 years ago, but you (pre) echoed my exact feelings too. I also love the KJV, but really like the ESV, NKJV, and the CSB. I read the NRSV because it has the apocrypha in my version, and I don't have it in any other translation.

[@Matthew-307]

The only way to read the perfect Bible is to learn Hebrew & Greek 😔

[@davidhuseth1413]

I don’t find the NRSV annoying but neither do I find Tim Frisch annoying. I enjoy hearing his perspective, though it differs from my own.

[@essencecole5196]

@8:26 I disagree with your statement about NRSV, If we understand the concept and purpose of marriage, there shouldn't be any doubt if it is between a man and a woman. Just like you said at the beginning of your video that we should be careful to use culture to define the word of God. From your own statement, it seems you allowed the culture of today to interpret the word of God for you. That is, where today the concept of marriage has been violated. Even taking the verse from CSB, and interpreting it today could mean a husband could be either a man or woman depending on the gender involved. I have been on this journey of what translation could be the "best" for the past 12 years, and I can confidently say, that there is no "best" translation out there. Any Bible you have out there today still remains a translation or revision even if it was translated from the original tongues or manuscripts. If you are not reading directly from the original manuscript no matter what type of translation methods - optimal, formal, functional, dynamic, literal, thought-for-thought, word-for-word, you name it, - then it still remains a translation. During my 12 years of researching what translation may be the "best", I have compared two different translations side by side as you did in this video and realized that Bible "A" in one verse may have been translated better than Bible "B" of the same verse, but then found out that Bibe "B" translates better than the same Bible "A" in other passage or verse when compared. This I found comparing various Bible translations and revisions. So, it's kind of "he who 'plays' the flute, dictates the tune" - my saying there.

[@timwilkins2008]

Iam a 30 year plus user of the NRSV and love the translation. I use other translations like the ESV, NLT, CSB, CEB and several Catholic translations as well. No translation is perfect nor able to satisfy all theological perspectives.

[@chrishamilton1189]

No, but why don't you just get closer with the Nkjv or KJV?

[@canman5060]

@Bunebushsquirrelammilsalaciabeansmelon The Original 1611 King James Bible consisted of 80 books of which 14 of them are apocrypha.

[@pubworx]

NRSV is disappointing compared to RSV.

[@timwilkins2008]

@@pubworx You are entitled to your opinion...

[@hestia598]

​@@pubworx i have nrsv catholic edition

[@Chomper750]

Regarding the NRSV's use of "married only once" can also be understood as not having been divorced. Where as "husband of one wife" could still be a man who has been divorced many times.

[@SaneNoMore]

Which we prefer is anecdotal. It needs to represent what the author actually said. Here they removed the masculine reference to capitulate with the worlds culture.

[@aek03030731]

The Roman Catholic church applies the rule to deacons such that, if they are widowed, they cannot remarry. I would be willing to believe the author of 1 Timothy was ruling out polygyny, which was an accepted practice in the Greco-Roman world.

[@SethEdwards-hq9pm]

I think "marries only once" means the same thing as "husband of one wife." The Greek literally says a man should be a "one woman man," whatever that means.

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@@SethEdwards-hq9pm that is a matter of varied opinion...I have struggled with this verse quite often... since my first wide divorced me in 1979 .. my second wife died from an illness in 2015... and I am now married to my 3rd wife... who is a widow.. due to her last husband passing away from an illness in 2013... I have pastors tell me both ways in regards to this.. I have been told.. it means Only married to One woman for life no matter what.. even if that woman dies.. we as widowers are NOT to remarry... I have also been told it means.. NO polygamy.. I have sought to be a deacon...but.. have found this was Not allowed... since my first wife divorced me... AND our late pastor would not even marry me to the woman I am with now.. due to us both being married before...

[@Charles-jj2su]

I got introduced to Christianity by reading Acts and the gospels in a CSB New Testament. While CSB isn’t my go to anymore (prefer NRSV and KJV) I’ll always remember it for that!

[@Ma1q444]

I’m truly lost in what translation to read all seem to have been mishaps. Time to learn KOINE Greek and Hebrew.

[@sixgunslingin]

I started off many many years ago with the King James version. When a former girlfriend bought me the new King James Version it was like a revelation and I could understand the Bible much more clearly. Since then I have gone down the rabbit hole and thanks to channels like yours I've started to become a Bible nerd although not as much as you LOL. I don't know if you look at this as a Ministry but encouraging people to develop a love and interest in the Bible is ultimately bringing us to Christ and you are helping with that

[@huynhducnha]

8:12 - "married only once": one can't remarry after his wife died. "husband of one wife": one can, which makes sense because "till death do us part". So I think the NRSV gives a bad translation here.

[@eleftedg]

Changing the words is a slippery slope. Although it may be impossible to do a “good” translation without some interpretation, I have seen what seem to me (not an expert) like questionable interpretations in the most faithful formal translations. Committees are employed to mitigate bias, but even committees can be intimidated to follow popular bias.

[@dawnmichelle4403]

Such a gentle rant! I truly respect you.

[@caroldonaldson5936]

I researched the CSB and before I ordered, decided to give you the casting vote - I am now the delighted owner of the CSB Ancient Faith Study Bible and the Baker Illustrated Study Bible (drool!) The latter is truly encyclopaedic and I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a good comprehensive SB - and the colour images are fabulous too!👍🙏🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

[@mikhailmarkovnikov]

14:10 - "try to change God's masculine pronoun": that's blatant blasphemy. "try to dodge homosexual condemnation": they try to corrupt the text of God. Those people are wicked. The Bible said: PSALM 50:16 But to the wicked God says: “What right have you to recite my statutes or take my covenant on your lips?

[@slawsonscot]

I think the most important point that is made in this video (amongst many valuable points) is the trajectory that translations are travelling. Culture has shifted so much in the last two decades, to the point where a new translation being written today without a commitment to integrity for the original intent of the Biblical author is fraught with dangers. For me, if we believe that the authors were inspired to write the words they wrote, then who are we to determine that their intent must be significantly changed in light of contemporary culture. By all means, update where it is linguistically and contextually appropriate, but for me beyond that they need to leave it there.

[@deeemm8350]

In brief, full disclosure, I'm a secular atheist; take that for what it's worth. I took serious interest in Biblical study because I wanted to understand Judaism and Christianity; its culture, archaeology and history, as well as theology, prophecy, etc, coupled with interest in Hebrew and Greek. I considered the NRSV as a primary translation early on, and the more I read from it (and about it) I was discouraged, and occasionally almost mortified, by what the gender-neutral mandate had done to the text in many places. Biblical study is daunting enough without having to question whether or not a committee altered or intentionally miss-translated a particular passage. The imposition of twenty-first century, western moral tastes onto ancient writings is unacceptable to me, as a naturalist.

[@joelfields9807]

Thanks brother this is an important issue that has been on my mind. I strongly agree that when the Greek text is using a gender specific pronoun whether male or female we need to translate it faithfully as the Lord intended. We are supposed to understand the Bible in it's cultural context and then understand what that means for our culture. The NASB 2020 seems to be going down the same road but I don't think it's gone as far as the NRSV. Seeings how our culture is gender confused I believe the Church needs to be the voice of reason and truth for this generation.

[@mrtdiver]

To a certain extent our American culture is a reflection of our churches. Everywhere throughout this country we have churches. The majority though are wayward, and not following the Lord. And it is in part due to listening to bad translations. Want proof? Eugene Peterson married homosexuals. He was the creator of The Message. A paraphrase that became so popular it was in the top 10 list of Bibles sold. So when we advise people on translations we should realize that the translation(s) we say are OK, like for example, the NLT, may become someone's main Bible. Their one and only Bible. It's a paraphrase that calls itself a translation to garner more sales. Bible sales is a huge market and publishers know this. They certainly don't hold to "as literal as possible, as free as necessary." If we were honest they mostly cater to the reader. That is a dangerous thing. When the translator does ask first, What does God intend by this passage. Or how can I best translate this faithfully. But instead, how do I elicit the most passion from my rendering. Like The Passion translation.

[@ericmcclain1281]

I'm a little late to the party but I really appreciated your balanced and thoughtful evaluation of the NRSV and CSB. As an ardent fan of the NRSV, I must say I shared many of your concerns with it, especially the loss of the individual vs. the many by its use of plurals. The RSV was sort of my "KJV" growing up and I've remained in its "family" with the NRSV and ESV. Thank you for your humility and kindness in this review. 👍

[@MrPlaneTalk]

THE CHURCH and the BIBLE should influence culture, not culture influence us. But unfortunately, that is what we have today. The culture totally influences the church!

[@MelodyM-blue]

I am not a fan of the NRSV. It gets clumsy at times trying to please the gender-neutral people. I just purchased the Schuyler RSV Quentel with Apocrypha and love it so far. I see myself using the KJV, RSV, and CSB all together.

[@philr3381]

I'm pretty late to this vote, but I've come to prefer the NRSV to the CSB. For me, I like the flow of the new testament books. Im interested in seeing how the updated version reads

[@ThriftStoreBibles]

Thank you for the kind words about my video and for linking it! I won't try to defend the NRSV (nor do I want to, really) but I appreciated your perspective and we're 100% agreed on 1 Timothy 3.2! I have increasingly been interested in trying the CSB as it does seem to strike a nice balance of "literal as possible".

[@AFrischPerspective]

I'm so glad I found your video. Really insightful!

[@1974AMDG]

I don't know how you stay so calm talking about these things! I was hopping mad when I was watching that video clip you showed! It gets me so riled when people (and especially Christians) say the Bible virtually needs to be 're-written' or 'updated' to suit our current culture!! It's the other way around!! Truth is truth! You do well to stay so calm and reasonable about it.....you refer to your video as a 'rant'...? lol...no....this is a rant!!

[@percival5207]

No translation is perfect. I like the CSB a lot; but I also love the NRSV as it is: 1) not theologically interpretive (ie coloured) esp when it comes to doctrine and dogma. 2) has wider vocabulary with some great word usage choices rather than a lower and dumbed down reading level 3) has consistent gender inclusiveness and it doesn’t bother me (I take that for me/community). This is great non-issue which is a distraction and point of unnecessary platforms of contention. 4) NRSV is in some rare instances archaic, which lends to the charm.

[@AFrischPerspective]

Thanks for sharing! For some of those benefits, I would lean towards the NKJV, but yes, I am more sensitive to and concerned with a blanket use of gender inclusive language.

[@Alarcahu]

Given the clip with interviews, I’d say your first point is the opposite of what they disclosed. The committee seems to have a very clear theological bias.

[@percival5207]

@@Alarcahu that clip was chosen with a perspective…. Frisch Perspective (😜 Cudnt resist). In all seriousness though, it is the translation of choice, from ecumenical and scholarly POV for the very reason that it tries to avoid the pitfalls of any denominational echo chamber. Also compared to the NKJV (in response to what pastor Tim pointed out) it leans more towards earlier greek manuscripts than plainly the Textus Receptus, and is more flexible in its literal form to convey the meaning with higher accuracy in English.

[@Alarcahu]

@@percival5207 It may have achieved it with the current edition, but based on this video the upcoming revision, while free of *denominational* bias, it may well have other serious issues. But we’ll see. All that said, for a heavily denominational translation, I’m surprised at how well the CSB (which I love) as been received! We’re sure spoiled for choice, in the English speaking world!

[@ThriftStoreBibles]

#2 is a good point I don't often see considered - I think that's also a big part of what I like about the NRSV. Even if I've had to lookup a word now and then in the dictionary!

[@pinkdiscomosh2766]

Great video! Another obvious reason why the CSB is one of the best of it’s philosophy. Back when I was looking into various translations to see which one I would call my home, the NRSV very quickly became a “No” for those exact reasons. Oh God, have mercy on those who tamper with your word like this.

[@billgillin3124]

Thanks Tim for this video and your gracious rant. From my perspective it appears translation itself involves some amount of interpretation. What I would desire is a translation that preserves the words as written by the authors and any excess interpretation in the notes (if necessary.) While I don't have time to investigate many translations, I've settled on the ESV and NKJV as my primaries and have a CSB and NASB and NIV for consultation. My $0.02 FWIW.

[@johngaryfeister7903]

Have you made any videos on the MEV (Modern English Version)? Thanks for what you do! It’s very helpful and informative.

[@ripbeni6198]

Great video! As a Catholic, I applaud its accuracy, simplicity (brevity), and the clip you chose to underscore your very true and well-reasoned thesis!

[@StreetsOfVancouverChannel]

Hermeneutics and bible translation is always about LITERAL EQUIVALENT versus DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT in reference to specific grammar/lexical choices/syntax/semantics... plus, keep in mind: Jesus spoke in Aramaic... his Hebrew-influenced conceptual verbal utterances were written down in 1st century Greek... and are being translated into English for us to read...

[@Me2Lancer]

Thank you, Tim. I think your comparison between the NRSV and CSB are Spot On. I definitely prefer the CSB for Bible Study.

[@fnjesusfreak]

Translations that best fit the maxim of the NRSV's translators - or I think that's actually Bruce Metzger - are the NKJV and NASB. Some people dispute it, but I say that I consider KJV to be optimal equivalence (actually I call it "mediating equivalence"), and reserve "formal equivalence" for stuff like the YLT and the Julia E. Smith translation.

[@philipwest4553]

The solution for those who feel annoyed by the NRSV is - do not buy one!

[@douglasj2254]

Sometimes it's worthwhile to discuss the merits of a thing, even if you don't plan on buying one. Ever talk about electric cars but still drive a Chevy pickup? Sometimes the discussion aids others in making a choice, other times it simply enlightens folks who don't know much about it's strengths and weaknesses. If someone watches a channel about Bible translation, we can assume translation comparison is expected. Peace.

[@smithcm14]

There are gender-inclusive language in even the most literal english translations. For example, Eph. 4:24 literally says to put on "the new man" rather than the old one, most translations will translate anthropos (mankind) as "self" or "person" instead.

[@larrym.johnson9219]

As in Man as it is used in Genesis as male and female. But that's not the agenda of the new revised standard translators and committees their agenda is to shape culture and to make gender issues fluid as well as traditional moral standards as they consider them to be problematic. I think anybody using the brain that God has given them can see their agenda, and they're even trying to morph the very idea of God's revelation to us as Father Son and Holy Spirit.

[@super60sand70s]

The new update of the NRSV, the NRSVue, changes the verse you mentioned re qualifications for bishops. I understand it will have 12,000 changes or additions. 1 Samuel 10 has a paragraph added that explains the conflict in chapter 11. The new NRSV will be published on 11/18/21 by Friendship Press.

[@alicenancy3]

Always enjoy and appreciate your “Frisch perspective”, Tim. God bless you and your family mightily as you speak out boldly but always so graciously on important things.

[@AFrischPerspective]

Thank you!

[@marinatyson4138]

Culture in my opinion should not be involved at all. We are a separate people, earth is not our home. It is what God and Jesus said that matters.

[@AFrischPerspective]

I get the point. But English developed out of a certain culture. So even translation work itself is an act of cultural adaption to some degree. But I don't like seeing agendas that drive unnecessary changes.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

I have never been a huge fan of the RSV nor the NRSV, despite being a huge fan of Bruce Metzger and his work.

[@garythomas3150]

Very well said, and very diplomatically said.

[@AFrischPerspective]

Thank you!

[@clouds-rb9xt]

What about NASB2020?

[@dougbaker2755]

I agree that the CSB does a better job than the NRSV in updating the old RSV. But I think the ESV does an even better job of updating the RSV. We might not agree on the male-female issue in the church. However, I certainly agree in wanting a translation to stick as closely as possible to the original language, including gender and number (singular or plural).

[@sarnbradshaw7382]

Thank you for a well put point of view which I share. The NRSV feels overly clunky to me in the delivery of its specified inclusivity goal even where the message in the original is clearly meant for all; Psalm 1 is an excellent case in point.

[@nickvasiliades4537]

You were extremely diplomatic Tim. This version could justifiably be excoriated. You handled it with class.

[@AFrischPerspective]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@HerveyShmervy]

excoriated?

[@civrn368]

@@HerveyShmervy Look it up, it's a great word.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Ha, I've had an itch lately to get an NRSV, perhaps I still will, but will keep this talk in mind!

[@fnjesusfreak]

I don't know about Hebrew, but Jerome's Latin translation from Hebrew starts "Beatus vir qui...", which cannot be translated any way but "Blessed [is] the man who...", since vir specifically and exclusively means a MALE person.

[@NormanF62]

We’ll have to see later this how the new SBL Study Bible handles the new NRSV update - and what recent advances in biblical scholarship bring to bear on our understanding of the Bible.

[@The_True_]

Strong opinion warning: Well, with that I wouldn't touch the NRSV with a ten foot pole. Clearly the people who "translated" that version have a low view of scripture, and thereby a low view of God. His word needs no cultural corrections, culture needs to be corrected by His word. The NRSV just earned it's place beside the "Gen Z" bible for me as something that shouldn't be seen as biblical. Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

[@KOYARTOS]

Like your video, Tim, my comments will not be neutral. So I might as well lay my cards on the table right now. I'm a big fan of the NIV. I'm not alone, of course. Millions of English-speaking Bible readers worldwide agree with me. I think the NIV is superior to many other English translations, including the CSB and the NRSV. But, since the NIV is my main read, I am well aware of its flaws and shortcomings. Nevertheless, I still think that other translations have more problems than the NIV. As it happens, the two passages you chose, Tim, to illustrate the superiority of the CSB over the NRSV actually show that the NIV is superior to both. 1 Timothy 3:1-2 NIV You're right, Tim, that the NRSV rendering obscures the idea that the overseer is to be a man. But the CSB rendering is problematic also because of its literalness. "The husband of one wife" in modern, spoken English is equivalent to "not the husband of multiple wives," in other words, not a polygamist. But Paul is not teaching that polygamy is forbidden to the man who wants to be an overseer. Polygamy is forbidden to all Christians whether leader or layman. So it cannot be a restriction placed only on men who want to be overseers. The NIV solves this conundrum brilliantly: "husband of one wife" = a man who is "faithful to his wife." The NIV wins. Psalm 1:1-4a NIV Bracketed words are mine. No less than 5 formally singular nouns/verbs are antecedent to the formally plural pronoun "they" preparing the reader to understand the "they" not as plural but as functionally singular. This is a brilliant solution. It's much better than changing everything to plurals like the NRSV does. And it's much better than introducing masculine singular pronouns four times over in vss 2 and 3 signalling to the reader that the "one" of vs 1 really is a "man" after all like the CSB does. Beyond this matter, the NIV translation begins with the traditional word "Blessed" which bears a good deal more gravitas than the vapid and vacuous "Happy" which was chosen by the NRSV and the CSB. Finally, the second stanza of the psalm begins with the striking phrase, "Not so the wicked!" in the NIV heightening the contrast between the righteous and the wicked. Compare this with the rather bland "The wicked are not so" of the NRSV and the even more bland "The wicked are not like this" of the CSB. The NIV wins again.

[@KOYARTOS]

@@marcasmacleoid8041 > My answer: Of course! AND Absolutely not! depending on what you mean by "unmarried." If a man gets married and his wife dies (either before or during the time of his ministry), then the man has met the "husband of one wife" qualification. Let him minister. But if a man, like me for example, has NEVER married, then he must not serve as a deacon or elder in the church. As for St. Paul, he was probably a married man whose wife had died by the time of his calling. (I hate the word widower.) So he was qualified to be deacon, elder, apostle or whatever God called him to be. (But who am I to pass on the qualifications of the Apostle?!)

[@skyh.5066]

I have the NRSV on my shelf and I did previously use it for several years. One day I noticed that NRSV was updated and it’s 2 years from the publication of NRSVue. Will previously published NRSV go out of print at some point? And could I still include previous NRSV too for my study?

[@greenweevil2021]

The NRSV pushed the excellent RSV translation out of the market for an embarrassingly bad downgrade. Hopefully the RSV makes a comeback with the new Schuyler as the only other current RSV publication is the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible 1977.

[@timwilkins2008]

Check out the Ignatius Press RSV Second Catholic Edition.

[@EJ160E]

ESV = the upgrade over the NRSV

[@timwilkins2008]

@@EJ160E I would disagree. I think they both have their strong points and weaknesses. That is why I use BOTH.

[@Nsthee11]

Doesn’t every translation have flaws and some bias?? The way you feel about the nrsv is the way I feel about the esv for some of the same reasons. To each his own

[@Travis.L]

Thanks for sharing this! God is the same yesterday, today, and forever!

[@booklover3959]

I personally only live by the original autographs in Greek and Hebrew and a little Aramaic. 😁

[@elijah8867]

I agree. The NRSV actually begins on the wrong foot by translating Gen.1:1 "In the beginning WHEN God created the heavens and the earth..." Naw, the Hebrew doesn't read that way now or ever. Also, one of their editors wrote that the NRSV corrects other translation's "linguistic sexism." Oh, really? When GOD speaks of mankind under the name "adam" God is being linguistically sexist? Oh, really? Add to that Walter Bruegermann as one of the editorial team (on one edition) and you lost me.

[@eclipsesonic]

The gender inclusive nature of the NRSV is what puts me off from owning this translation. This is why I own the RSV, which doesn't have this issue, or the singular/plural issues. Also, I use the KJV, so the fact that the RSV maintains some of the KJV language in many areas was a plus for me. Lastly, I wanted the RSV, mainly because of its extended Apocrypha which includes 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151 and 70 additional verses in 2 Esdras 7, which the original KJV doesn't have. I definitely do not consider the Apocryphal books as scripture, but I do think they have historical value and they were a part of the King James Bible for over 200 years of its publication, so I do own a couple of KJV Bibles that have the Apocrypha, which is why the RSV Bible I own filled in that desire to have the full Apocrypha.

[@jhails112]

Ah thanks, I was wondering how the RSV compared! Thanx

[@eclipsesonic]

@@jhails112 No problem!

[@marcasmacleoid8041]

The RSV has a bit of the opposite issue to the NRSV, in that they use a male Greek name invented in the 12th or 13th Century "Junias" to describe a clearly female character in Romans 16:7. The RSV reads, “Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” Junias never existed, but Junia (or Julia) did (the added "s" masculinises the name). Junia was neither among "kinsmen" nor "men," as she was a woman. The RSV butchers this altogether. Another issue with the RSV is that there are places where the Holy Spirit is referred to using impersonal pronouns like "which" instead of who(m), eg. Romans 5:5, which undermines the Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit is a Person.

[@KT37915A]

For me, I know what a church believes based on the Bible it uses. In my church I attend (the UMC), the pastor preaches from the NRSV-CE and I think it’s so lukewarm compared to the little country baptist church Iwhere I came to know Jesus. I want to ask my pastor, where is the sharpness to the message? I have heard Ted talks with more zeal. I don’t know if it’s the Bible or the pastor, but when I hear the UMC’s messages, I feel that it’s a secular religious studies class with a bible translation that reads more like a text book.

[@SaneNoMore]

No one who denies the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture should ever be allowed on a translation committee. Anyone who believes we need to update the meaning of Scripture not just the language should be likewise be barred from any translation committee. Despite their educational degrees and titles I am concerned that some of these liberal translators are not even truly Christians. Those who do not acquiesce to the Bible being our sole authority should not be allowed to put forth translations of that authority.

[@19king14]

Nearly 50 years of purchasing various bible translations, the only translation I bought (shortly after its release, 1990ish) and after inspecting it, returned it expecting a full refund, was the NRSV and for the same reasons you present here. I don't even want to support financially such a translation! To claim a degree of literalness and veer from it so much, and on those specifics, for me, borders on deviousness. At least admit it when straying so often. NIV is another one like that, although I still have it.

[@the-real-John-Oconnor]

My favorite was always the good old original RSV.

[@CarlViola]

These (NRSV and the CSB) are the two translations I currently use. Both have their pros and cons. The reason I go for the NRSV as my default is I can branch out to the ESV or CSB depending on what sort of clarity I am after. ESV for literal clarity - what does the text say. CSB for contextual clarity - measurements and times in current measurements.

[@joannezhu2604]

I’m standing with you Tim relating to gender issue! Thank you for this informative video!

[@knothead35]

Do you have a review of the RSV? I know it's no longer in print, but i found one at a thrift store for free and am wondering if it was at a thrift store for a reason, lol

[@susyhebner2543]

Schuyler makes them, if you can drop 200 bucks. 😄

[@knothead35]

@@susyhebner2543 lol, think I'll hold off on that one. Just wondering if it's a good translation. The copy I have does not have the apocryphal books, which is fine with me.

[@sorenpx]

If you want an RSV, you should look into the RSV-CE2. That's the Catholic Edition, revised, which eliminates the last vestiges of the archaic pronouns that the RSV was holding onto and it also translates certain key verses in the traditional way, like translating Isaiah 7:14 with "virgin" instead of "young woman." As a bonus, you also get the apocrypha/deuterocanon, which is interesting reading even if not inspired scripture.

[@knothead35]

@@sorenpx just wondering about the translation really

[@sorenpx]

@@knothead35 He may chime in, but I can tell you that there are plenty of resources out there that talk about the RSV. It was a controversial translation, just as the NRSV is today. It was never really accepted by the conservative churches, again for many of the same reasons the NRSV is not accepted by conservative believers today.

[@ryritchey12]

My major issue with the CSB is that it also is biased. Being published by the publishing arm of the southern baptist convention. It is best to be careful with any translation we choose.

[@NormanF62]

I would add as a religious person, the controversy over a translation like the forthcoming NRSV revision isn’t so much the principle as whether ancient culture and tradition is going to be “updated” to be brought into line with the mores of modern culture. I wouldn’t want it to appear in a Bible translation.

[@joseenriqueagutaya131]

Another great video.Before I got saved I was given a RSV new testament marked edition published by Bible League.After I got saved I started to read it but when I started attending is KJVonly Baptist church I put aside and started reading the KJV.After leaving the KJVonly church and transferred to KJV preferred church I started using the RSV new testament however the translation of 1 Peter 2:2 were it reads in the last phrase "that by it you may grow up to salvation". The last phrase seem to indicate that salvation by good works?,Its unfortunate that there is no explanation in the footnote.When the ESV came out I was hoping there would be an explanation regarding this verse.So I look up what the NKJV say and so NKJV is my number one modern translation next is ESV.After listening to your comment about the NRSV I change my mind into buying it.

[@joseenriqueagutaya131]

@@marcasmacleoid8041 I think you're right but I am too attached to the NKJ and it's my preferred modern translation and I guess the NRSV is yours,but thanks anyway for your info.

[@joseenriqueagutaya131]

@@marcasmacleoid8041 Right I agree.

[@OneStepToday]

Great point about Psalms singular subject. I am reminded of the video of scholar who said that Proverbs of bible comes from the mesopotamian culture of wisdom teachings of the father to son. The Psalms is very similar, hence, the singular instruction to the "son" must be seen in it, and should be maintained in modern translation. Feminism leads to erasure of females, as we see in the west. This video always helps me when I am pulled into wanting to buy NRSV, bec of its better OT translation than ESV, and bec of the Catholic Press NRSV which has good features in it.

[@HangrySaturn]

I just want a translation that lets the text speak for itself in the language it chooses, without any particular theological perspective forced onto the text.

[@makarov138]

I test translations with the placement of the comma in 2Cor 5:19. If it either is there, or is not there. Because it changes the meaning. The NRSV does not have it, so I do not prefer it over my GENEVA BIBLE.

[@ManiaCop100]

I heard there is a couple translations in the KJV where he skips talking about listening to higher goverments. If someone can remind what it is

[@DocHoleInTheDay]

"They" is not always plural. I.E. if I told you I went to the Doctor you might reply, "What did they say?"

[@kendiercouff3863]

The NRSV does have the problems addressed. I have used it for several years. The NRSV still has some advantages over the CEB. The NRSV names pagan deities in the OT, particularly Isaiah. Lilith, goat demons are an example. The CEB translates several NT passages to force a trinitarian interpretation; the NRSV is more, correctly, neutral. Some examples: Roman's 9:5, john 1:18, Titus 2:13 fn, 2 Peter 1:1. The fact is that most Bible sales- it is always about the $$$- are to evangelicals and they will only buy Bibles that push a trinitarian slant.

[@sorenpx]

The discussion here is regarding the CSB, not the CEB.

[@kimneiswanger5804]

What bothers me about your your discussion is that I haven't seen you bring up the original text in Greek or Hebrew once in your argument

[@tgleo1]

Your understanding of "as free as necessary" is compelling. I don't ever consult the NRSV. When I'm studying I look at the NASB, ESV, CSB, NIV and NET Bible. I don't even look at the NRSV pew Bible in front of me in worship. I read the NASB on my phone instead.

[@jeffcarlson3269]

@tgleo1 in regards the NRSV... I am kind of the same way... even though I have a few different ones I rarely use them upon comparison... BUT I at least use the RSV as comparison daily... I would suggest you get a cheapo copy of the RSV at least so you can actually see how awful the RSV is... then once you find out for yourself... count the NRSV as double that..!.

[@bk24708]

I’m generally really impressed with nasb95 or LSB. When I look at commentaries they usually tend to talk mostly about how they get the text right and it’s seems less often they get it wrong than most. I don’t know original languages and I know ease of read plays a factor too.

[@ericjustasinner5695]

I got a new nrsv last night. Going to use it for a bit.

[@sorenpx]

Those documentary clips are pretty damning. I'm not sure how someone could watch that and maintain the party line that "the NRSV is the most theologically neutral translation," as some say. Personally, I think that the NASB 1995 is still king, and it's a shame that the translation is not more popular (its lack of popularity evidenced by the severe drought of NASB study Bibles). It's also a shame, I think, that Lockman is muddying the waters and endangering the '95 update even further by introducing the more dynamic 2020 update. The CSB seems to be a good translation, from what I'm able to tell, but it's a little too dynamic and also kind of ugly. The language is certainly not beautiful, but rather is more workman-like. One translation I have to give a shout-out to because it's a pretty awesome formally equivalent translation that is almost entirely ignored is the WEB.

[@brooke96591]

I completely agree. And there are some drawbacks to them, but I so wish I could find a chronological Bible in the NASB 1995 translation. What a learning experience reading it would be. I ordered an apologetics CSB one time and enjoyed a few chapters until I came to Matthew 28:9. This is pretty diverse in translations, but Jesus most definitely did not say “Good morning!”. It’s not a big deal, but it irked me. I believe the CSB is pretty good, but I’ll stick with NASB95.

[@sorenpx]

@@brooke96591 The NASB '95 is still king of the Critical Text translations. I have been slowly shifting toward a preference for the Textus Receptus/Traditional Text though. The King James/New King James/Modern English Versions triumvirate has been serving me pretty well.

[@Warbudy]

I allready bought it can i read it.

[@nickspitzley8539]

The ESV literally is the improved RSV and the CSB is the literal NIV/NRSV in my opinion. I realy like the CSB with all that being said. Very telling of the translators too.

[@douglasj2254]

Good video. I've been "warning" people away from the NRSV for years, and I used to work in a Christian book store! Every time I tried to use it, I would read a few verses translated extremely well, followed by a verse translated with obvious bias that the reader with no knowledge of the Greek or Hebrew would likely miss. Add to that what some of the translators themselves have said. I have read books and articles they wrote and they were not ashamed to say, they had a mission to wipe gender out of scripture wherever possible and would have eliminated "father" and "son" if the publishers would have accepted it. In my opinion, while quite dynamic itself, the NIV is much better. And yes, Tim's favorite CSB is also a very good choice overall. I would suggest, if you want a "modern language" translation, try the CSB or NIV. If you need a more formal rendering for study, the NKJV or RSV (1971 or 1952) are good. For about 1800 years, it was understood by Christians that only a person of faith could, or should, be translating. This has changed, a little bit in the 1880s but tremendously since the 1960s. We now have atheist scholars involved with Bible translation and even commentaries on a regular basis. Some translation committees will require statements of faith and so on, and that's good. But even on those committees, if you read enough of the scholar's work or watch enough interviews, you will hear them say things totally contradictory to the faith. Translations used to be produced by a church. Now, they are produced by publishers and others who aim to please customers and make as much money as possible selling their product. Be aware. Peace.

[@joannezhu2604]

Thanks for the informative message. I believe God created men and women with different features for a reason. We are different and have different roles. Many problems in the world are actually caused by ladies who are trying to fulfill men’s role and vice versa.

[@sorenpx]

I loved the NIV '84. I use the 2011 revision, but much more cautiously. Not only has it fallen into the "gender neutral" trap, but it also just uses outright bad English when using "they" as a singular-inclusive pronoun. I get that people use "they" in that was in informal speech, as a kind of singular pronoun to include both genders, but I don't want to see it in my books. As far as I'm concerned, the NASB 1995 is probably still the best translation that we have and I'm not sure why it's not more popular. Lockman's 2020 update is unnecessary and possibly even harmful. The NKJV is pretty good, too.

[@sorenpx]

@@joannezhu2604 I only wish that more women understand things as you do! Yes, men and women have different roles. Each is a essential and the two are to join to together to make a whole, a complete picture.

[@mikewelch6192]

I’m a fan of NRSV I am coming from the Episcopal Church so I definitely have a bias towards this translation since it what most parish read in church (how ever the BCP 1979 has its own version of the psalms that is read liturgically). It’s not a perfect translation but it is highly academic I get the feel that the translators take the Bible seriously. I do not know to much about the CSB however I frequently compare the NRSV to the ESV since both are updates to the RSV. One thing I noticed that the ESV changes is Romans 16:7 a literal translation would say that Junia is well know among the apostles however the ESV changes this “well know to the apostles”. I bring this up to show that theological bias will always be apart of translating since I view translating as an interpretive act. Not trying to get to much in the weeds on this but atleast in the NT the words Paul uses that are sometimes translated as homosexuality are really complicated since Paul literally makes up words this is seen in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 literal translations of malakoi would be soft and arsenokotai male-bed. In my opinion and that of many scholars it’s unclear what Paul is trying to say. Why would he make up a phrase? Overall I love your content and Bible reviews. I just come from a different Christian tradition but love hearing your opinion about Bibles. I definitely look at all three Tims before buying a new Bible especially if it’s a premium.

[@icxcnikalastname3317]

I use the 1952 RSV Holy Bible with the Apocrypha reprinted in 2020 by Schuyler with a goatskin cover

[@BenDowney]

You mention that Jesus challenged his culture and thus we must be careful not to capitulate to our culture and I agree. We must not forget that Jesus most often confronted the conservative, religious leaders who added additional restrictions and limitations to the text. Culture has two extremes and Jesus confronted those who were in sin on both sides. We must also be fair with our gender exclusive language such as translating diakonos as deacon for men but as servant for women, Christ, or others. NRSV is more consistent than even the NET let alone CSV on this item.

[@1yessboss]

You say you're going to be biased and then give way I feel to be a very reasonable account of your opinion. 🙂

[@dlcox2]

The only thing I find useful about the NRSV was a more modern translation of the apocrypha. (For purely scholastic reasons). I have felt for years the NRSV was defective. Tried to use it for over a year back around 1994. Had to leave it.

[@Tax_Buster]

Better go with the ESV-CE.

[@trevorhare9393]

The NRSV is my foremost favourite English translation (others being the NIV2011 and KJV) probably BECAUSE I tend towards being a ‘liberal’. I am British and Anglican/Methodist in my belief. I believe women in ministry is a good thing (we have had women priests and Bishops here for decades) and I am open-minded/tolerant towards things/people/ethnicities etc. that some ultra-conservative, Americans would find anathema (at least from what I have read from many of them in online Bible groups). Thanks for the reviews and the honesty about your views.

[@cmiddleton9872]

"I am open-minded/tolerant towards things/people/ethnicities etc. that some ultra-conservative, Americans would find anathema" Pray tell, what ethnicities are conservative evangelicals not open-minded to? What a horrible thing to suggest about others just because they take the bible seriously in regards to women in ministry and sexuality.

[@Chomper750]

@@cmiddleton9872 Probably relates to the Southern Baptists who in the past claimed that black skin was the curse of Ham. Some offshoots still believe that.

[@BtZealot]

I find that the NET is better than the NRSV as well.

[@hestia598]

what nrsv is that? i have catholic edition and nrsv only

[@larrym.johnson9219]

When they revised the revised standard version talk about a double entender they pushed through inclusive language, God inspired the scriptures in the original languages as they are it's not for progressive feminists to change the word of God.

[@-R-H-]

Genesis 1:26-27 - CSB man vs NRSVUE humans - is human gender-neutral or gender accurate in creation context?

[@marcasmacleoid8041]

You could argue both ways. The word "adam" (meaning "earth") is used for "humankind." The context itself, "male and female He created them" demands that we both see Adam as the progenitor of all humanity, while also embracing the fact that the image of God is expressed in both male and female. As St Paul tells us also, "In Christ there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28).

[@conniewoodruff4706]

I feel that way about the NASB, I just don’t feel close to The Lord 😢when I read the verses. I haven’t read the NRSV

[@BlueOstinato]

To use their vernacular, God may not be male sex but he is the male gender. His son, Jesus, calls Him Father and refers to Him using male pronouns and nobody is closer to the Father than the Son. Clearly, they are His preferred pronouns. To deny this is mis-gendering God intentionally, and not only a sin, but a hate crime.

[@cinnamondan4984]

I'm a big NABRE (2011) fan. I think that Bible is pretty amazing. Very readable without being informal.

[@kpope7007]

Is there a video explaining why the csb is your favorite?

[@AFrischPerspective]

I have a few videos about the CSB that would give some insight into why I like it. But I typically say that I prefer to have one historic, more literal translation along with one modern, slightly more dynamic translation. So for example, using the NKJV and CSB as companion translations would be my preference.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

It was clear from the NRSV preface itself, that "as free as necessary" gave them license to gender-neutralize the translation; nothing more. The translators felt that use of the masculine pronouns, even where warranted, was a problem that had to be "solved". Psalm 1 is often said to be a reference to Christ. But not per the NRSV, since it is pervaded by gender-neutral plural pronouns. And for 1 Timothy 3, some denominations allow female bishops and clergy, so, naturally, this chapter needed fixing, too. Two other translations that parallel this warped philosophy are the Catholic NABRE and the New Jerusalem Bible, although not to the extent as either the NRSV or the NABRE. And for years now, even the highly bally-hooed NIV has been carried away in this direction. Is it any wonder the ESV was issued? Should it come as a surprise that the KJV and the NKJV have their ardent followers?

[@wolfman7284]

Wow. 100% concerning on their philosophy of translation. Thanks for posting this.

[@properpropaganda9831]

*Timothy Frisch: What are your credentials?*

[@bjf9304]

I will not touch this translation. I even avoid the RSV despite it’s beauty. That woman in the documentary has a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. The masculine is inclusive, it always has been. Trying to change this via top down decree will only cause confusion. Contextual scholar and translator Dan Wallace, who likes the NRSV, said the lead editor on the translation committee relayed a story about how a female wanted God to be referred to as “the mother” over The Father. He responded by saying the devil should be referred to as female too and that shut her up. So that’s the type of people on these committees. Luckily the ESV has been taking marketshare from the NRSV. The CSB is also carving out it’s own market as well. Right now I use NASB ‘95. I was hoping the MEV would be an alternative but they need a second edition to fix some glaring errors.

[@leefowler8594]

I've become a convert to the CSB because of you, Tim, and others. Because of it's ease of understanding, I've started preaching from it. LOVE my He Reads Truth CSB. Because of my KJV raising, I have a bias toward elegance of language, so I still use ESV for personal reading and study, though.

[@sandygrogg1203]

Tim… I know an ELCA Lutheran pastor who refuses to use a pronoun for “God”.he simply repeats “God”.. It sounds rediculoud, and I have told him so. Evidently, this is a common practice among the newer ELCA pasr]tors… The official translation used in ELCACchurches is…of course…the NRSV.. THere is also a Catholic version of the NRSV…NRSVCE..whuch I avoid at all costs, Yes, it;s annoying..and unnecessary.