Why do Many Dislike The New Revised Standard Version?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaypeeto4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jaypeeto4

Guest
While my favorite study bibles are the Haydock Douay-Rheims and Ignatius’s study Bibles using the RSV-CE,
for devotional reading I really do enjoy reading
The New Revised Standard Version.

Other than the sometimes-annoying Inclusive Language,
why do so many people dislike the NRSV ??

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
While my favorite study bibles are the Haydock Douay-Rheims and Ignatius’s study Bibles using the RSV-CE,
for devotional reading I really do enjoy reading
The New Revised Standard Version.

Other than the sometimes-annoying Inclusive Language,
why do so many people dislike the NRSV ??

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Click to expand...
As far as I know, that is the primary reason. For many, that is enough. Why subject yourself to unnecessary annoyance during Bible study and devotions when there are other good translations out there?

Also, it can go beyond annoyance. In some cases, the meaning of the text can be changed just so it can sound politically correct. Why is it so necessary to be PC when any half-educated person can figure out that “brethren” means everyone in the congregation and “mankind” means everyone in the human race?🤷
 
Fidelis said:
As far as I know, that is the primary reason. For many, that is enough. Why subject yourself to unnecessary annoyance during Bible study and devotions when there are other good translations out there?

Also, it can go beyond annoyance. In some cases, the meaning of the text can be changed just so it can sound politically correct. Why is it so necessary to be PC when any half-educated person can figure out that “brethren” means everyone in the congregation and “mankind” means everyone in the human race?🤷
Click to expand...
I really like mine. I’m not sure how it would interfer in a bible study or devotion. I was unaware that it changed the meaning of some text. Might you point some out to me?

I recently got a New Jerusalem Bible and absolutely love it.
 
I can think of one example ( and in general I enjoy the NRSV ) where inclusive language in the NRSV endangers the truth.
It is the verse where Jesus pronounces a person’s sins Forgiven,
and the NRSV reads that the people glorified God,
who gave such power ((to forgive sins)) to “human beings” instead of “to men.” This could obscure the fact that only men can be ordained to the priesthood, and only ordained priests can pronounce a person’s sins forgiven.

Like I said, in general I really enjoy the NRSV for devotional reading, but I too can see where inclusive language can cause
doctrinal inexactitude.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I really like mine. I’m not sure how it would interfer in a bible study or devotion. I was unaware that it changed the meaning of some text. Might you point some out to me?

I recently got a New Jerusalem Bible and absolutely love it.
Click to expand...
In going to a gender neutral translation of the Psalms they lose the Messianic aspect of the prayer.
 
The inclusive language, which is more prolific than in any other translation, is the reason I dislike the NRSV. If the inclusive language was removed, it would not be a bad Bible.
 
The use of Brethren instead of Brothers and Sister is very important. Brethren makes the point that we are all masculine in our spirituality, that we are all soldiers fighting along side of Christ. It is the use of masculine terms that gets the soldiering idea across.

Inclusive wording detracts from the original meaning, everytime.

If Jesus meant to say Brothers and Sisters I think he would have. I’m just guessing here but I don’t think Christ would appreciate his language being corrected because what he said was too “sexist.” I’m sure he is up there chuckling at the silliness of all of it. He said what he meant, he didnt care if he stepped on a few toes and neither should we be forced to conform by the PC-police.
 
zagjames said:
The use of Brethren instead of Brothers and Sister is very important. Brethren makes the point that we are all masculine in our spirituality, that we are all soldiers fighting along side of Christ. It is the use of masculine terms that gets the soldiering idea across.

Inclusive wording detracts from the original meaning, everytime.

If Jesus meant to say Brothers and Sisters I think he would have. I’m just guessing here but I don’t think Christ would appreciate his language being corrected because what he said was too “sexist.” I’m sure he is up there chuckling at the silliness of all of it. He said what he meant, he didnt care if he stepped on a few toes and neither should we be forced to conform by the PC-police.
Click to expand...
I see what you all are saying. My only point would be with this last paragraph. I don’t know that anyone is changing “Jesus’s words”. In all cases of the Gospels, we are referring to the words used by the writer.

But thanks for the interesting opinions. I’ll check them out in my various bibles and see how it falls out. Wish someone had given some actual cites…lol…i’ll have to do a bit more research.
 
**If Jesus meant to say Brothers and Sisters I think he would have. I’m just guessing here but I don’t think Christ would appreciate his language being corrected because what he said was too “sexist.” **

I hadn’t thought about THAT before.
That’s something to ponder for sure.
Thanks for bringing it up.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I see what you all are saying. My only point would be with this last paragraph. I don’t know that anyone is changing “Jesus’s words”. In all cases of the Gospels, we are referring to the words used by the writer.

But thanks for the interesting opinions. I’ll check them out in my various bibles and see how it falls out. Wish someone had given some actual cites…lol…i’ll have to do a bit more research.
Click to expand...
While this book doesn’t address this topic directly it does talk quite a bit about masculine spirituality in Christianity and how Christ created a masculine religion for us. We are all called to be soldier of Christ (both men and women). Anyways this book is a good resourse on the subject of spirituality in Christianity and its masculine nature. amazon.com/Church-Impotent-Feminization-Christianity/dp/1890626198

Sorry for going off topic.

I would definetly use either the Duoy-Rheims Edition or the RSV-CE or the Catholic Apologetics Study Bible(although it is still a translation in process, and is expensive, I dont own any copies of it but I have looked at it a few times).
 
Gee a new book on male sprituality in the Church? Gee. Exactly why am I called to a “masculine” church?
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Gee a new book on male sprituality in the Church? Gee. Exactly why am I called to a “masculine” church?
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with Gender. It is not a book on a male, testosterone filled Church. But rather a church of love masculine style. Atleast masculine style as ancient people saw it.

Ultimate masculine love is to die for another. To shed your blood in love(litterally or metaphorically).

Ultimate feminine love is nuturing, child rearing and birthing.

Since both men and women can be called to have a masculine love the Church Christ built was based around this. Moreover his death was the perfect example of masculine love.

So please dont get all offended.
 
I’m sorry for getting this off topic, lets get back to the issue of the NRSV Bible.
 
I read mostly the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem but, I do read the NRSV and enjoy it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top