Nrsv Bible translation.....

Onesimus

I'm studying Theology and I'm wondering why it is universities prefer you use the Nrsv translation as opposed to any other? they say its because its what the scholars are using but I'm still confused as to why? anyone here who can help me answer my question?

philologos

NRSV is widely held in academia because of its accuracy to the original languages. It's a literal translation, and regarded as one of the most accurate. It on the other hand, IMO isn't the most readable due to this literal translation philosophy.

Fanny Cradock

I would have thought that your lecturers would be the people to ask.

Onesimus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would have thought that your lecturers would be the people to ask.

*hands up* ok ok I was bored and looking for a topic to come up with, am I the only one on this forum who does so? :rolleyes:;):D

You pointed out the obvious though

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

I was bored and looking for a topic to come up with, am I the only one on this forum who does so?

How about explaining how Protestants personal interpretation of the Bible is problematic when Roman Catholics do the same thing (in interpreting the Bible to support Rome as the ones ordained to interpret).

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

How about explaining how Protestants personal interpretation of the Bible is problematic when Roman Catholics do the same thing (in interpreting the Bible to support Rome as the ones ordained to interpret).

Antiskeptic, why would you want to begin such a conversation with a foolish person such as myself?

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

Antiskeptic, why would you want to begin such a conversation with a foolish person such as myself?

I've not called you nor have I implied that you are a fool. Nor do I think that you are a fool. As for the topic? The only two answers I've ever heard boil down to:

1) "Christ established his (Roman Catholic) church and the gates etc. They are the authority charged with interpreting the bible. I know this because "on this rock.." (circular reasoning)

2) "Christ established his (Roman Catholic) church and the gates etc. They are the authority charged with interpreting the bible". (ducking the question)


...and I was bored figured to give you a bite of the .. er.. apple

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've not called you nor have I implied that you are a fool. Nor do I think that you are a fool. As for the topic? The only two answers I've ever heard boil down to:

1) "Christ established his (Roman Catholic) church and the gates etc. They are the authority charged with interpreting the bible. I know this because "on this rock.." (circular reasoning)

2) "Christ established his (Roman Catholic) church and the gates etc. They are the authority charged with interpreting the bible". (ducking the question)


...and I was bored figured to give you a bite of the .. er.. apple

Antiskeptic, I know you are not calling me a fool, I am stating that I am a fool, so why would you want to have such a debate with a foolish person as myself?

PDN

My university didn't push any one translation. We were told we could use pretty well any translation except the King James Version.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

Antiskeptic, I know you are not calling me a fool, I am stating that I am a fool, so why would you want to have such a debate with a foolish person as myself?

Realising oneself a fool takes a certain amount of smarts. That smarts is who I'd figure to be discussing with.

kelly1

Afaik, the NRSV is very similar to the RSV but uses inclusive language.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Afaik, the NRSV is very similar to the RSV but uses inclusive language.

It also removes the archaic 'thee' and 'thou' when addressed to God.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

My university didn't push any one translation. We were told we could use pretty well any translation except the King James Version.

Why not the KJV?

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why not the KJV?

Just not up to scratch on the accuracy stakes. Those who would use the KJV in academic settings tend to do so for ideological reasons, rather than based on its rendering of the Greek and Hebrew.

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Realising oneself a fool takes a certain amount of smarts. That smarts is who I'd figure to be discussing with.

Really? then if I am so smart, why dont you become like me? for if I were to label you to be so smart and wise, would I not become as you are?

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

Really? then if I am so smart, why dont you become like me? for if I were to label you to be so smart and wise, would I not become as you are?

Become like you? I too engage in foolishness and am smart enough to see that I do. It would seem we are as each other in fact.

So why not discuss the topic suggestion utilising the smarts we both have?

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Become like you? I too engage in foolishness and am smart enough to see that I do. It would seem we are as each other in fact.

So why not discuss the topic suggestion utilising the smarts we both have?

If we are infact the same as each other, and as smart as the the other, then we would both be one in belief. Thus if we were to utilise the smarts we both have it would be useless, and would suggest that one is more a fool than the other. That would be me of course, for being the unintelligent being I am, it would take the smarts of God to help me comprehend this.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

If we are infact the same as each other, and as smart as the the other, then we would both be one in belief. Thus if we were to utilise the smarts we both have it would be useless, and would suggest that one is more a fool than the other. That would be me of course, for being the unintelligent being I am, it would take the smarts of God to help me comprehend this.

I didn't say we were the same as each other, I merely said that I too am smart enough to see that I engage in foolishness. I might be smarter or less smart than you. I might engage in different types of foolishness than you do.

The same in a broad sense (just as we are the same in both being human) but different in an individual sense. And so able to engage on an internet discussion forum.


But just not on the topic suggested it would appear.

JimiTime

Ah, a game of smarty fooly ey?!

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't say we were the same as each other, I merely said that I too am smart enough to see that I engage in foolishness. I might be smarter or less smart than you. I might engage in different types of foolishness than you do.

The same in a broad sense (just as we are the same in both being human) but different in an individual sense. And so able to engage on an internet discussion forum.


But just not on the topic suggested it would appear.

It would seem we are as each other in fact.

???

But you see, I dont engage in foolishness, I AM a fool thus engaging with me in any type of conversation is useless. Yes we are both human, but who is the bigger fool? surely I would retain this title

philologos

antiskeptic - for the love of God, please do not re-open this thread.

PDN

For God's sake guys! While calling yourselves fools is better than calling other people fools (the usual default position on boards.ie) let's leave it at that? You're both equally foolish, therefore equally smart, and we can discuss Bible translations now. Please?

lionmqj

PDN wrote: »

My university didn't push any one translation. We were told we could use pretty well any translation except the King James Version.

Hi, PDN. I just bought an NRSV. I have an NIV also.
Here is a very interesting lecture you might like. (btw he states a few times here that he is not a KJV only man).
This is long, 9 videos, so if you have the time, enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq-h6YyyfWI

Puck

lionmqj wrote: »

Hi, PDN. I just bought an NRSV. I have an NIV also.
Here is a very interesting lecture you might like. (btw he states a few times here that he is not a KJV only man).
This is long, 9 videos, so if you have the time, enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq-h6YyyfWI

The intro of the video made me long for death, so I stopped watching. What's the gist of it?

PDN

Puck wrote: »

The intro of the video made me long for death, so I stopped watching. What's the gist of it?

Before I spend 10 minutes watching a youtube video I want to know if it's worth the bother (most videos say in 10 minutes what you can read in 30 seconds).

So I googled Walter Veith. The first sentence of his wikipedia entry (Walter Julius Veith is an author and speaker known for his work in nutrition, creationism and other Christian topics) made me decide not to bother.

lionmqj

PDN wrote: »

Before I spend 10 minutes watching a youtube video I want to know if it's worth the bother (most videos say in 10 minutes what you can read in 30 seconds).

So I googled Walter Veith. The first sentence of his wikipedia entry (Walter Julius Veith is an author and speaker known for his work in nutrition, creationism and other Christian topics) made me decide not to bother.

Ah come on ............... really.

Isnt that judging a book by its cover mate?

Did you even give the video ten min's?

JimiTime

lionmqj wrote: »

Ah come on ............... really.

Isnt that judging a book by its cover mate?

Did you even give the video ten min's?

TBH, its just saying, thats alot of time to be wasting if it turns out to be a crock. Best for you to summarise the point, and refer to the video if needed. I looked at the first one and a bit of the second one. Not impressed enough to go on with it myself. Though, if you were, maybe you could summarise what you took from it?

lionmqj

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, its just saying, thats alot of time to be wasting if it turns out to be a crock. Best for you to summarise the point, and refer to the video if needed. I looked at the first one and a bit of the second one. Not impressed enough to go on with it myself. Though, if you were, maybe you could summarise what you took from it?

Ok I get you. I'm not an educated man so Ill try. It touches on where our bible comes from, what the the Jehovah's witnesses done to it to make it their own, how the jesuits came into play, what happened around the reformation, how the vatican was trying to destroy it by deploying the jesuits (ordering them to cast the teachings of the bible aside........), what the spanish armada had to do with it.

(One point I must be clear on, I belive that the Bible is the Word of God, from Gen to Rev. It is inerrent, suffiant......etc.)

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

Afaik, the NRSV is very similar to the RSV but uses inclusive language.

Aah! The latter might be THE reason behind their choice of the NRSV.

Queen's in Belfast, for example, will apply sanctions against anyone who does not use gender inclusive language in their written material. This applies across the disciplines, as far as I'm aware, not just Theology.

One wrong use of 'man' and you fall down the manperson-hole.
_________________________________________________________________
Thy truth unchanged hath ever stood;
Thou savest those that on Thee call;
To them that seek Thee Thou art good,
To them that find Thee all in all.
Bernard of Clairvaux

georgieporgy

Walter Veith is Seventh Day Adventist isn't he? That explains the interest in nutrution. I think church founder Ellen White was big on vegitarianism.

lionmqj

Yes thats right georgieporgy as far as I'm aware he is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church

In this video though, he does'nt talk doctrine.
Just the bible, it's fascinating.