I Love the NRSV

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrZetterlund
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MrZetterlund

Guest
I’m posting this because I wonder if there is anyone else out there who is as fond of the NRSV of the Bible (with the Apochrypha included,) as I am. I LOVE it because it is so scholarly accurate, and its much more dilligently done than other comittee translations such as the NIV. Not only that but its passages maintain their beauty. I know that most people here would probably prefer the RSV, because its OT passages use the same phrases Jesus used such as “Son of Man” in its Messianic passages. However, I appreciate the scholarly honesty in passages such as this that read “one like the son of a man” and also the one that reads “young woman” instead of “virgin” in Isaiah. I’ve trid reading translations like the RSV and NAB, but I don’t like some of the arbitrary phrases in the RSV such as “firmament” in Genesis, or the clear Christian biases in some of the passages in the NAB. For example, sin is “a demon” lurking at the door of Cain, and Isaiah reads “virgin” instead of “young woman,” along with the OT passages that read “Son of Man.”

What are your thoughts? Thank you, and God bless… 👍
 
MrZetterlund said:
I’m posting this because I wonder if there is anyone else out there who is as fond of the NRSV of the Bible (with the Apochrypha included,) as I am. I LOVE it because it is so scholarly accurate, and its much more dilligently done than other comittee translations such as the NIV. Not only that but its passages maintain their beauty. I know that most people here would probably prefer the RSV, because its OT passages use the same phrases Jesus used such as “Son of Man” in its Messianic passages. However, I appreciate the scholarly honesty in passages such as this that read “one like the son of a man” and also the one that reads “young woman” instead of “virgin” in Isaiah. I’ve trid reading translations like the RSV and NAB, but I don’t like some of the arbitrary phrases in the RSV such as “firmament” in Genesis, or the clear Christian biases in some of the passages in the NAB. For example, sin is “a demon” lurking at the door of Cain, and Isaiah reads “virgin” instead of “young woman,” along with the OT passages that read “Son of Man.”

What are your thoughts? Thank you, and God bless… 👍
Click to expand...
👍 I love it! But be prepared to hear negative replies from some because it uses inclusive language and they do not care for that. However, we must not forget that “inclusive” means to include (in this case, women) and the manner of inclusive language used in the NRSV-CE doesn’t change the gender of God the Father or the Holy Spirit; it simply includes women when verses are addressed to both males and females (it’s horizontal, not vertical). I also like the way the verses seems to flow more naturally than the NAB.
 
I love the NRSV-CE also but I do have the NAB and I keep in mind that it is the official bible for the Mass in the United States. NRSV is the official bible for Mass in Canada.
 
I’m also a fan of the NRSV. I use it for lectio and other personal uses. In part I appreciate the style of language – it sounds more poetic to me. In part I appreciate the inclusive language. Hey, women are people too!
 
I thought that all the “New” versions used inclusive language. Am I mistaken? :o

EDIT: Just saw the second reply. :o

If it uses inclusive language, I will follow the Church and avoid it.👍
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
I’m also a fan of the NRSV. I use it for lectio and other personal uses. In part I appreciate the style of language – it sounds more poetic to me. In part I appreciate the inclusive language. Hey, women are people too!
Click to expand...
They are absolutely. Still doesn’t justify tinkering with the original text’s meaning, IMHO.

Hiya sister, BTW (OblOSB) :cool:
 
MrZetterlund said:
I’m posting this because I wonder if there is anyone else out there who is as fond of the NRSV of the Bible (with the Apochrypha included,) as I am. I LOVE it because it is so scholarly accurate, and its much more dilligently done than other comittee translations such as the NIV. Not only that but its passages maintain their beauty. I know that most people here would probably prefer the RSV, because its OT passages use the same phrases Jesus used such as “Son of Man” in its Messianic passages. However, I appreciate the scholarly honesty in passages such as this that read “one like the son of a man” and also the one that reads “young woman” instead of “virgin” in Isaiah. I’ve trid reading translations like the RSV and NAB, but I don’t like some of the arbitrary phrases in the RSV such as “firmament” in Genesis, or the clear Christian biases in some of the passages in the NAB. For example, sin is “a demon” lurking at the door of Cain, and Isaiah reads “virgin” instead of “young woman,” along with the OT passages that read “Son of Man.”

What are your thoughts? Thank you, and God bless… 👍
Click to expand...
Is your NRSV leaning based partly on your experiences thus far in RCIT? I noticed you use the term Apocrypha instead of deuterocanonical, is that a term of habit from past non-Catholic teachings?
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
I’m also a fan of the NRSV. I use it for lectio and other personal uses. In part I appreciate the style of language – it sounds more poetic to me. In part I appreciate the inclusive language. Hey, women are people too!
Click to expand...
Agreed, I do indeed like the more poetic style of the NRSV. I also apreciate the incusive language (so long as it has footnotes explaining that it is indeed inclusive language,) since it makes it appliable to a larger audience. 😃
Luigi_Daniele said:
I thought that all the “New” versions used inclusive language. Am I mistaken? :o

EDIT: Just saw the second reply. :o

If it uses inclusive language, I will follow the Church and avoid it.👍
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Church is against inclusive language or any translation that isn’t as watered down as the NWT for that matter. I feel that so long as it has foot notes explaining the inclusive language that its not anything underhanded or “new age.” Its no more bias than changing the verse in Isaiah to say “virgin” instead of “young woman.” Or some Messianic OT passages that read “the Son of Man” due to heavy Christian influence. The NAB recognizes this in the footnotes, however, so it doesn’t bother me so much. 🤷
SteveGC said:
Is your NRSV leaning based partly on your experiences thus far in RCIT? I noticed you use the term Apocrypha instead of deuterocanonical, is that a term of habit from past non-Catholic teachings?
Click to expand...
Lol, yeah. I usually use terms like “Apocrypha” instead of “Deutercanonical.” As well as"Revelation" instead of “Apocolypse of St. John.” 😛 However, the version I use is inclusive to ALL Apocrypha, including those texts sacred to the Greek Orthodox Church. I think its useful to be able to find any passage ANYONE may be refering to.

That being said, I read some of the Deurey-Reihms Bible a while ago. There were remarkable passages in Tobit’s (or “Tobias’”) prayer that aren’t there anymore. I wish the Church were inclusive to these passages even though they were probably apart of younger manuscripts. The same is true for the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned to death for adultery, (presumably Mary Magdeline.) This story wasn’t found in earlier editions of the gospel of St. John, however, Christians included it in there Sacred Scripture because it beatifully and correctly portrayed the relationship between sinners and God, Christ and His followers. So long as there are footnotes explaining its origin and inclusion, of course. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top