I have a preference for the NRSV because of its extensive footnotes, which gives you a good sense of how the translation was done. Anyway thanks again for the video, which I know took a lot of hard work and time.
Thanks for another outstanding, informative video! I simply love your "side by side" comparisons. I often do a coffee table version of this when I get a new translation. I have done it with the NRSV and put it on my "no" list a few years ago. But I keep going back to it for the reasons you mentioned: occasional good English choices and good footnotes. But overall, I think I personally prefer to use the NKJV as my primary bible, with it's excellent footnotes that point out everywhere it disagrees with current critical text renderings. It's a shame really- in my opinion, the NRSV has so much good in it but the good is so often overshadowed by clunky, inaccurate language in the name of stamping out every last "he" or "him." Oh well. Peace and (please) keep up the good work sir!
I have read, taught and preached from the NRSV for over 30 years. The NRSV is a mainline update of the RSV that stood the test of time as a modern update of the KJV. IT tends to be more egalitarian and offers renderings that most mainline churches would find acceptable. The ESV is a conservative rendition of the RSV that has a strong reformed theological bent and complimentarian leanings. It is clearly the Bible of the neo-Calvinist. In my opinion, NRSV is the better translation. I have found the Updated Edition to continue this tradition. I also still use the RSV-2CE as one of my translations for comparison.
I'm a secular historian. I wouldn't trust any translation other than the NRSV. Biblical scholarship and biblical archeology is a VAST field of scholarship at'this point. Even specialist academics have a hard time knowing the entirety of the research findings. The NRSV annotations go a very long way to bring in the most pertinent research findings. I will never understand why any devout Christian would not want to know everything we have learned about the world Jesus lived in - and in which the biblical texts were written. Ignoring, for example, the obvious links break Gilgamesh and Genesis strikes me as the weirdest stance fundamentalist have ever taken.
Excellent comparison and contrast of both NRSV & ESV Bibles. I especially liked your use of references and documentation to support your findings! 👍🏻😇🙏🏻
Additional Old Testament comparisons: _Deuteronomy 32.8_ NRSV: When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of *the gods;* ESV: When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of *the sons of God.* (Both the NRSV and the ESV depart from the Masoretic Text. The ESV is more literal here. The NRSV employs a paraphrase, perhaps to obscure the fact that the Dead Sea Scroll reading "the sons of God" includes a masculine-oriented term.) _Deuteronomy 32.43_ NRSV: Praise, *O heavens,* his people, / *worship him, all you gods!* / For he will avenge the blood of *his children,* / and take vengeance on his adversaries; / *he will repay those who hate him,* / and cleanse *the land for his people.* ESV: “Rejoice with him, *O heavens;* / *bow down to him, all gods,* / for he avenges the blood of *his children* / and takes vengeance on his adversaries. / *He repays those who hate him* / and cleanses *his people's land.” ASV: Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: / For he will avenge the blood of his servants, / And will render vengeance to his adversaries, / And will make expiation for his land, for his people. (The NRSV follows Dead Sea Scroll readings as shown in bold. The ESV similarly departs from the Masoretic Text. Compare to the American Standard Version (ASV).) _1 Samuel 10.1_ NRSV: Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it on his head, and kissed him; he said, “The Lord has anointed you ruler *over his people Israel. You shall reign over the people of the Lord and you will save them from the hand of their enemies all around. Now this shall be the sign to you that the Lord has anointed you ruler* over his heritage: ESV: Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, “Has not the Lord anointed you to be prince *over his people Israel? And you shall reign over the people of the Lord and you will save them from the hand of their surrounding enemies. And this shall be the sign to you that the Lord has anointed you to be prince* over his heritage. (Both the NRSV and the ESV add the material in bold from the Septuagint, thus departing from the Masoretic Text.) _1 Samuel 10.27-11.1_ NRSV: But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” They despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace. *Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.* *About a month later,* Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.” ESV: But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” And they despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace. Then Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead, and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.” (The NRSV adds the material in bold from a Dead Sea Scroll.) _1 Samuel 14.41_ NRSV: Then Saul said, “O Lord God of Israel, *why have you not answered your servant today? If this guilt is in me or in my son Jonathan, O Lord God of Israel, give Urim; but if this guilt is in your people Israel,* give Thummim.” And Jonathan and Saul were indicated by the lot, but the people were cleared. ESV: Therefore Saul said, “O Lord God of Israel, *why have you not answered your servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord, God of Israel, give Urim. But if this guilt is in your people Israel,* give Thummim.” And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped. ASV: Therefore Saul said unto Jehovah, the God of Israel, Show the right. And Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot; but the people escaped. (The NRSV and the ESV include material from the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Compare to the ASV.) _2 Samuel 15.8_ NRSV: For your servant made a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram: If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will worship the Lord *in Hebron.”* ESV: For your servant vowed a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram, saying, ‘If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will offer worship to the Lord.’” (The NRSV adds “in Hebron” based on old Greek manuscripts. The ESV follows the Masoretic Text.) _Psalm 22.16_ NRSV: For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet *have shriveled;* ESV: For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; *they have pierced* my hands and feet - (The NRSV footnote states, "Meaning of Heb uncertain." The ESV footnote indicates that "they have pierced follows" is in "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac", but "most Hebrew manuscripts" read "like a lion [they are at] my hands and feet".) _Isaiah 53.11_ NRSV: Out of his anguish he shall see *light;* / he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. / The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, / and he shall bear their iniquities. ESV: Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; / by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, / make many to be accounted righteous, / and he shall bear their iniquities. (The NRSV adds “light” based on a Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript. The ESV translates the Masoretic Text.)
Wow ! What a cool comparison ! Loved your smooth paced and in-depth comparison of some of the verses in these two translations. Keep them coming Sir. Hope you would do ESV and NASB 2020 and NET some day.
Regarding almah in Isa 7:14, l have both Hebrew & Greek & have been ordained since 1988. This term has been a bit of a moving target for me over the years. Presently, l believe the LXX translators knew what they were doing when they translated the term into the Gk translation of “virgin.” More specifically l believe it to be a reference to a young girl PRIOR to her child being years, hence normally understood as a “ virgin.” Contextually, in the Isa 7 passage this girl is not expected to give birth for another 2 years. Very much appreciate your videos, Rev John Wilderspin, BA, ThM
When i have to prepare a sermon or prepare to lead out in the sabbath school i use the nasb or esv. For personal devotions i like the niv. The nrsv seems interesting. Reading the Word always results in a blessing.
ESV is the RSV2001. It is not a fresh translations but is a revision. It took the RSV52/71 and "tweeked" it to remove archaic words substituting modern equivalents. In the second place small changes were made for theological reasons (Evangelical). There were a very few which were made on textual updates or improved understanding among scholars of meaning in the original languages. The NRSV is a fresh translation. It is certainly in the RSV family. The NRSV is currently in revision by the SBL. It's relationship to the NRSV will be the same as the ESV to the RSV.
Thanks for your comment! I gave a brief overview of the history of the ESV in this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hoPkw6pocH4.html . The preface to the NRSV states that the NRSV is a revision of the RSV. "To summarize in a single sentence: *the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version,* published in 1952, which was a revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which, in turn, embodied earlier revisions of the King James Version, published in 1611" (emphasis added). I've been looking forward to the upcoming NRSV revision for some time.
R. Grant Jones, this video accomplishes two things for me ... 1) Allows me to survey the NRSV New Testament, which so far I have avoided purchasing, and ... 2) Pushes me to examine more closely the Critical Text. I prefer the Majority Text, and I'm emotionally attached to the KJV and Geneva translations. Yet, I admit that the Critical Text doesn't really change anything doctrinal, so I'm not one of those who condemns the Critical State. Thus far, I've avoided buying an NRSV translation, but your video piqued my interest in doing just that. Because astronomy was a hobby of mine in my teens and early twenties, I was able to memorize the Greek Alphabet. However, other than a spending a few sessions with a friend who received an M. Div who walked me through the first few verses of John's Gospel and a couple of other passages, and going through the beginning workbook produced by Dr. Mounce, I never took any formal classes in Greek. So, while I know enough to avoid the common "KJV and Strong's Concordance" pitfalls, I am not really able to do what you do with Greek. Did you take a Koine Greek course? Or are you self taught. I have met some self-taught Greek scholars who are pretty good. Thanks again.
I'm still undecided on the Majority/Critical Text issue, though I lean toward the Critical Text these days. The only thing I'm sure of in that regard is that the _Textus Receptus_ and KJV Only positions don't hold up to scrutiny. I taught myself Greek with the help of a software program called Greek Tutor. I've been brushing up recently, and the Daily Dose of Greek web site has been helpful -- that and just opening the Greek NT and reading. I like the NRSV. An edition of it with old-style gender inclusive pronouns (he, him, his), a little less reliance on dynamic equivalence, and the use of italic or oblique type could be useful as a primary translation. But, as it is, I would only recommend it as a secondary translation.
@@RGrantJones Regarding the NRSV, may I ask as to roughly what edition would you expect to see the traditional gender usage in? Your superb review has piqued my interest in purchasing one but only a version without the modern day anti-gender antics. Thank you.
@@chrismuller6563 - As far as I know, you can't escape those antics with any edition of the NRSV. The older RSV used traditional language (what we once called standard English).
Hi Thanks for doing this video. I think it is a very important comparison, since both the ESV and the NRSV come from the same root, the KJV; and it is useful to determine whether their stereotypes as one being the Bible of choice for evangelical Christians and the other for mainline Protestant denominations and secular biblical scholars, are accurate or not.
Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth. Daniel 4:10-11 NRSV... I looked through so many bible translations to find one that worded this passage to my own liking and settled on this one, love it!
Thank you for a very interesting comparison ... I ...a Catholic with experiences (good ones) in a couple of evangelical churches... just bought my first ESV Bible. Reading has been slow, because of my glaucoma.... but I VB looking forward to getting to know it... I got the large print, but truthfully, the print is not what I call large. I have, over the past few years, been reading the RSV:CE...Ignatius Press.... I have always believed the RSV to be an actuate and readable translation... Not surprising, when you consider that I was raised (Methodist, along with a dash of Baptist)...and great up with the KJV...and the RSV. ). My new favorite is the NKJV... I just ordered a Giant Print /Comfort Print....with a beautiful purple leather soft cover, it should arrive today. I am really looking forward to this new Bible. The NAB is read at mass, in the United States... It really isn’t the best translation, but is easy to read.... but I never read the NAB, unless I am reading the Daily/Sunday Readingsv in my DaikybRomsn Missal...or if I am at mass. Truth be told...when I am asked what the best translation of scripture is, I usually say Thst it is the translation that Yiu will read. That’s the long snd the short answer for the average Christian. Most are nit too concerned with the often minute..but interesting ...differences in the various translation. I believe that one can encounter the living Christ Jesus in any version of the Bible...and I guess that would include the paraphrases....which I avoid, because a paraphrase is generally just one person’s interpretation.. I have been enjoying your translation comparison series.,, Thank you...
Thanks very much for that interesting comment! I agree with you that the best translation is the one that gets read. I hope you like your NKJV. I think it's a very good translation, though it's somewhat less interpretive than the RSV.
Thank you so much for taking your time to make this video. I am currently using the NRSV as one of my main bibles and this was very helpful. I just wish they didn’t go so far with the gender inclusiveness in it. I was tickled at you summary at the end because it reflex’s so closely what I feel regarding gender inclusiveness. I suppose that the gender inclusive issue is a mixed bag. Some advocates have a sincere motive of wanting to be inclusive of women while others have a resentful even hateful motive behind it. I use to lead a bible study group with a mix of mostly women and it was easier to use a bible that was, at least, somewhat inclusive than something like the NKJV or the ESV. On another note have you ever checked out the Lavender’s New Testament?
Thanks for commenting, Felix! On the question of gender inclusion, I grew up thinking that he, him, and his were gender inclusive because women taught me to do so. But it seems that the language no longer works that way, and I can understand why readers who think 'he' excludes women would prefer a Bible like the NRSV. The NRSV, at least, doesn't employ the singular 'they' -- at least not as often as the 2011 NIV does. I would prefer it if we English speakers would agree to a new set of gender inclusive pronouns. Zhe, Zher, and Zhim sound odd to my ears, but I think I could get used to them in time. Another viewer recommended Lavender's New Testament, but I haven't picked up a copy yet. The image I saw of a page from it online led me to suspect that the translator(s) have a theological axe to grind.
R. Grant Jones Although I have been a Christian since my youth I didn’t start to study the bible until about 8 years ago. As I began, I quickly discovered dozens of translations to choose from. So with my study I also began to study and compare bible translations. Since then I have collected over 50 different English translations (LOL) and as a result have learned much. Naturally I enjoy your youtube channel and appreciate your insightful comparisons. Now, regarding the Lavender’s New Testament, as I understand his translation point of view, he is an advocate of formal equivalence translation to the point of including the correct translation of tenses, verbs, etc. Let me list a couple examples from his translation. John 3.20-21 For everyone practicing evil things hates the light and does not come to the light, that his works may not be exposed. But the one doing the truth comes to the light, that his works may be made known, that they have been motivated by God. John 3.35-36 The Father loves the Son, and has put all conceivable things in His hand. The one believing in the Sin has eternal life; but the one disobeying the Son will not see life but the wrath of God continues to remain upon him. Rev. 1.3 Blessed is the one reading and the ones listening to the words of the prophecy, and keeping the things having been written in it; because the time is near. Heb. 5.9 And after having been made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation to all the ones obeying Him. I have been using the Lavender’s NT translation with several others translations and the way he translates certain words that he says are in the continue tense, add a dynamic lacking in other translation. This may be a crucial area in translation long overlooked. There are a few other translations I found that have addressed this such as Young’s Literal translation, the Concordant Literal Translation, the KJ3, and more recently the DLNT. But they are all single-person translations. I have not seen any major committee based translations closely follow Greek tenses? I would love to hear your thoughts. God bless.
Casey - I wish I could give you a straight answer, but I don't have one. I prefer the older translations in the Tyndale line (Geneva Bible, KJV, RV, ASV, RSV), because they're near the literal end of the spectrum, haven't been watered down or gender neutralized, and share the KJV's elegance of expression, to one degree or another. But not one of them is perfect. The NKJV is ok, and I'm happy Nelson recently improved its game. I also enjoy some of the more free translations, like the Jerusalem Bible, the RNJB, and the NEB. (I don't recommend using any of them as a primary translation, but I use them as companions, to give me a different perspective on the text.) I'm not a great fan of the NASB, but when I use it I prefer the '77 to the '95. I dislike the NIV. I don't own a CSB, but I read 200 verses from it when I scored it for my continuum: I don't much care for it either.
@@CaseyFleetMedia - I'd give the edge to the NKJV because it's more literal and uses italics. The textual notes are valuable too, though they're far from complete. But I don't like the NKJV's capitalized pronouns, and I wish the translation were based one of the Majority Text editions rather than the _Textus Receptus._
I agree with Casey.. The CSB i really love for its simple english .. I pair it with the NKJV ... That said, i have come to enjoy the ASV too and one particular bible i truly enjoy is the Dickson Analytical partly due to it being KJV with the more archaic renderings being defined in brackets by the ASV .. I like the words Lord and God better then the Jehovah ASV uses so this bible is kind of the best of both worlds there.. And i feel the NKJV and the CSB are the best of both worlds in the more modern english
Call me crazy, but I think neutralizing gender-exclusive language in the Pauline Epistles does violence to the author's original intent. (It is clear to me that he is writing to an *exclusively* male audience; if he speaks to women, it is exclusively via the men.)
You (and the others who've made that argument over the years) could be right. I wonder how the translators of the NRSV and the 2011 NIV would respond? Would they say, "You're just guessing. We don't know enough about culture in the Roman Empire in those days to assert that Paul must have been addressing the men - and the women through the men"? Or do they have actual evidence that makes them suppose instead that Paul would have addressed females also? Or do they not care about the cultural and historical situation, and simply want to make Paul say what they think he should have said?
Great video. Could you explain why in Genesis 1.2 the NRSV states “while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters”, as opposed to the ESV translation as And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I understand that the same Hebrew word (rûach) can mean either wind or spirit. I suspect the difference between 'swept over' and 'hovering' is also due to the two committees making different choices within the range of meanings of a Hebrew word (râchaph).
@@RGrantJones Thanks for the reply. Though I would like to know how they came to that conclusion in favour of “a wind from God swept over” instead of “the spirit of God was hovering over”. It changes a lot for me so I’d like to know why they favoured that particular translation, which I haven’t seen explained anywhere.
@@Kevin-si2xv - I can only guess that their translation approach involved putting themselves into the mindset of the supposed human author. It could be that they believed the author would not have had any notion of a spirit coming from God -- much less the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity -- but would have been comfortable with the idea that God sends the wind.
This is simply fantastic. Thank you so much, brother, for taking all the time to highlight these differences in this video. Favorite quote "one biological male husband of one biological female wife". But I doubt in the age of "choose your gender at will" if even that would suffice.
Thanks for the question, Ionut Paun! I tend to prefer translations in the Tyndale family, but I don’t have a single favorite. When I’m listening to a sermon, I try to follow along in the speaker’s translation. If I’m studying on my own, I often use a literal translation (e.g., KJV, NKJV, RV, ASV) alongside a more interpretive one. For devotional reading, I find myself using the KJV or the RSV most often.
@@RGrantJones Thank you for your reply. I think I enjoy RSV the most, followed by KJV or ASV. Can you recommend a good RSV bible that can be bought from the UK ?
Very good comparison of these two excellent versions of the Bible. One thing that does annoy me though, as far as the ESV translation goes, is the footnotes. As you pointed out, the ESV has far less footnotes than the NRSV, however the fact is that most of the footnotes that the ESV tanslators deleted from the RSV or NRSV, are those footnotes in passages regarding Christologically significant readings. For instance the footnotes in Psalm 45:6, Proverbs 8:30, Hebrews 1:8, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1, the NRSV has footnotes that show other ways to translate or other mss, that would possibly affect Christology, and the ESV being Evangelical and holding to their views of these verses, delete the footnotes in these verses and translate it according to the most orthodox interpretation. To me this is dishonest, and exactly how the JW version, the NWT does things, they translate according to their beliefs, but show no footnotes giving an alternative rendition. If the translators of any particular versions have what they feel is truth they shouldn't worry, just be honest and give all the evidence and readings to let the individual come to their own honest conclusion based on faith and the spirit of God. For that reason, while i love the ESV, it is my least favorite in this particular lineage (KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NRSVUE) because of the obvious bias toward orthodoxy. I even prefer the footnotes in the GNT and NEB, REB and others better. Anyway, enjoyed the comparison and love both versions! God bless 🙏
Thanks, Big Keith. My primary translation seems to change frequently. If you ask me this question again in another month, I'll likely give a different answer. These days, I use the Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition (RSV2CE). I've always appreciated the RSV, but I'm conservative theologically and dislike some of the translation choices the RSV made ( _e.g.,_ Romans 9.5, Isaiah 7.14). The RSV2CE repairs most of those, but, unlike the ESV, it retains the rich vocabulary of the RSV. The RSV2CE isn't perfect. I wish the editors had made a few additional changes to make it more literal, along the lines of the ESV. And the use of italic font for translator-supplied words would be helpful. But I haven't found a perfect translation yet. I also use the Revised Version and the American Standard Version regularly. And I almost always have the Tyndale House Greek New Testament (THGNT) open alongside my translation whenever I'm reading the New Testament. The THGNT functions as my literal "translation" and the RSV2CE serves as my more loose (free/dynamic) companion translation -- rather like the way people might use the NASB in conjunction with the NIV, or the NKJV with the NLT.
I'm surprised. I don't think you've ever done a review of the RSV2CE that I recall. I like the Ignatius Press RSV2CE NT in the blue leather cover because I spend most of my time in the New Testament. The print is eminently readable and the size is convenient.One of my favorite tools for quick reference of alternative renderings is the OOP Oxford Precise Parallel NT. ISBN 0195284127. It would probably be even more useful for you since you know greek. It's convenient to grab just one book. Unfortunately, it pre-dates the ESV.Again, thanks.
@@bigdog3x20 - the only RSV2CE I've reviewed to date is the Didache Bible. The one I use regularly at present is an Ignatius Press Bible bound in bonded leather, ISBN 9780898709360. The paper and print are good. My only real issue with it is that it doesn't lie flat, at least not yet. Maybe with use the text block will relax enough for that. It is sewn. That Precise Parallel NT looks to be a useful tool. Thanks for the suggestion.
NLT Is my main go-to Bible. But I was looking at reading in the ESV, NRSV, And NASB. Can some tell me if the NRSV Is a Word for Word or Thought For Thought translation?
I think that the Catholic NAB is a better dynamic equivalent translation to use beside a more literal translation than the NRSV.. I read from the NASB 95, NAB and the EOB New Testament. For the most part, Anyway. Thank you for the informative and well put together videos!
I personally think the NRSV is the better translation over the ESV minus the gender inclusiveness which was fashionable at the time (still is but now there are many more translations to choose from). Humans being humans, yes translators are also subject to what is fashionable at the time.
The ESV generally follows the Masoretic Hebrew text. It rarely strays from it to follow the LXX. I don't know how frequently it follows the DSS when they depart from the Masoretic text. It clearly does so some of the time, but to calculate a frequency, I would have to check all the points where the two vary.
Thank you so much for your great deal of research. I’ve been having such a hard time lately. I’m trying to switch translations from the NIV to something more formal. I tried the NASB, and now have started reading the CSB. I’m thinking about (and am slowly) trying to read the ESV but similar to reasons you’ve stated are why I’ve been hesitant, especially for lack of italics. I’m also very hesitant to use the NKJV because of its reliability in the TR. I would greatly appreciate some feedback on the CSB if you had a moment. Thank you.
I'm not very familiar with the CSB. I examined 200 verses from that translation to score it for "literalness," but I don't have much experience reading it. I did notice that it uses contractions, and that annoys me -- but it might not bother you. Also, I don't recall seeing any italics in the CSB.
R. Grant Jones thanks for the reply. What kind of contradictions do you mean? Also, no italics but the footnotes often are good for clarity. The ESV from what I can tell has no way of acknowledging Old Testament quotes either. Is there a Bible you’d recommend for someone like me who has read the NIV for years and is looking for a more “literal” translation, who thinks the NASB reads a little “wooden”? Thanks again!
@@nothingfancyfishing2174 - not contradictions. Contractions, like isn't, wasn't, hasn't. That's too informal for me. Some people say we have too many English translations, but if you're looking for a literal modern translation that uses italics, your choices are limited to the NASB and the NKJV. (There may be another choice, but I can't think of one!) Each of those has issues. You mentioned the fact that the NKJV relies on the TR, and that is a negative for me also. Although the NASB has the advantage of having a large number of translation notes and an excellent reference set, I agree with you that it is awkward in places. I'd like to see the ESV modified to include italics for words the translators supply which aren't represented in the original languages and to retrieve some of the richness of vocabulary and beauty of expression from the older translations (like the KJV, Geneva Bible, and the RSV). But that's not likely to happen.
By the way, the ESV uses quotation marks for Old Testament quotations and includes the source location in footnotes. For instance, I'm looking now at Hebrews 1.6. My copy has a superscript a before the quotation marks that surround "Let all God's angels worship him." Then the footnote that corresponds to "a" reads "Deut. 32.43 (Gk.)".
I can live with 'mortals' instead of 'men' but I can't live with 'barn' instead of 'granary.' The bible should educate and inspire its readers with plentiful vocabulary. Have you looked at the NRSVUE? Is it hitting the sweet spot between the two? I saw a few videos on your channel of specific bible reviews but you stated in them that it would take some time comparing passages to form an opinion on whether it's worth replacing the NRSV.
The ESV took out all KJV references to Fornication. Whereas NRSV kept some of the admonitions to Fornication. In some cases, the scholars determined it was clear they meant "prostitution". [ISAIAH 23.17] for instance. On the other hand, ESV added the new post World War 2 admonition, "homosexuality" in 1 CORINTHIANS 6.9-10, and replaced 1 CORINTHIANS 6's for instances of admonitions against Fornication, with the ambiguous "sexual immorality" while at the same time took Paul's ambiguous Greek Word ἀρσενοκοίτης (earliest instance ever mentioned, is in Corinthians) as Homosexual. The earliest translation of ἀρσενοκοίτης was into Latin in the Old Latin translations of New Testament Codex, as "masculorum" and into the 382AD Latin Vulgate as "masculorum" which clearly means Male Prostitute. Also, the Old Latin translations of Greek New Testament Codex, clearly used the word Fornication over a dozen times, in these Latin forms: "fornicarii", "fornicationi", "fornicationem", and "fornicatur". ESV essentially rids the Bible of admonition against Fornication, making a clear word ambiguous "Sexual Immorality" while on the other hand it translates the unclear ἀρσενοκοίτης' into a clear admonition against "homosexuality". This became commonplace for evangelical translation post world war two. The government during World War 2 wanted to focus on Rebirth after the war was over, and while the war was in progress were busy translating the Bible with participation from all denominations. The Result was the 1946 New Testament edition of the Revised Standard Version, and it's admonition against Homosexuality. In 1972 the Revised Standard Version was edited to remove homosexual, but only after they "handed-off" the tradition of using admonitions against Homosexuality to other translation teams and their evangelical version. The result was the Baby Boomer generation. NRSV did not fall into that trap, and includes some of admonitions against Fornication, while not trying to "legislate from court" so to speak, by reintroducing admonitions against homosexuality. ESV, however, did fall into that trap. For these reasons, I use the King James Version, American Standard Version (1901), and the New Revised Standard Version. ESV in not an accurate translation, because it attempts cultural change for the purpose of government, (higher birthrates) by calling fornication "sexual immorality" then adding "homosexuality" while readers are likely to interpret "sexual immorality" to imply "homosexuality". The rest of what's being discussed here in this video is minor. Like counting beans in a jar and disagreeing on the exact number. However the cultural change ESV envisions in effect calls all those beans "homosexuals" . . . while pretending the great debate is simply on the number of "beans". I advise folks stick to three proven versions: 1) King James Version [KJV] 2) American Standard Version 1901 [ASV] 3) New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]
TBH, “Gender” language should never be a translation concern of any text, yet Holy Books..This is, I believe a risk of losing main sources’ emphasis in future translations. I got a newer print ESV “kindle version”, which I find very easy to use for my understanding. I can advise anyone who needs cross-references while reading.
Do you think it’s a modern disdain for masculine pronouns in the case of the nrsv or that it’s more of drastic attempt at consistency on the translators part. Thank you Mr. Jones.
It's heartbreaking to see these translations. In the Greek it's clear that John is saying something like "no one has ever seen God; the only-begotten, Who is at the Father's side, He has made Him known." This is full of theological depth and richness - that the invisible God is made known through the visible manifestation of the only-begotten Son of God. "God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart". What does that even mean? It's certainly not what the apostle John was saying.
On a daily basis, I find myself using the NRSV more often than the ESV. But the reason for that is my Bible study method: I use a fairly literal translation (RV, ASV, KJV, NKJV, NAS77) along with one that's more interpretive (NRSV, NEB, Jerusalem Bible). The ESV falls in between the two groups. If you were to allow me only one translation, I would chose the ESV over the NRSV.
Thanks for the question, Hey Zeus! I'm just an internet Bible reviewer. I have two postgraduate degrees, but not in a field that's relevant to translation comparisons. Please accept what you find to be of value in these videos and reject the rest.
I find myself less and less patient with those who are determined to edit God, and conform His Word to the predilections of the present time. Not only is "gender-inclusiveness" a mistranslation of the plain text, but such post-modernism in Bible translation philosophy will seriously date said translations. Frankly, I'm not interested in yet another Eclectic Text/modernist translation. There are too many of them, and they appear primarily to exist to make money for publishers, or to serve a specific political or cultural agenda. I see no point.
Editing gender pronouns to be more inclusive seems to be less of a compromise to editing words (and leaving out footnotes) that change the meaning of much more than simple pronouns. Since the translation of the ESV is by evangelicals rather than scholars, you often get translations that skew the meaning toward a particular doctrine rather than present it objectively. An example here is at 37:34, where the doctrines of the "once saved always saved" and the Trinity. Neither is without their problems.
@@mosesramirez6330I’m not sure what you mean by “evangelicals and not scholars.” Out of curiosity, I looked up the translation team of the ESV and every single person on the translation team appeared to have doctoral-level degrees in a scholarly biblical field. Dr. Wayne Grudem, for instance, received degrees from Harvard University and University of Cambridge. Do you not view those schools as conferring legitimate degrees?
The cage stage Calvinist me from 20 years ago would say the ESV is the NRSV for people who love Jesus. Today, I wouldn't say that. Maybe I'd think it. But I wouldn't say it. 😉
Man I hope you're being sarcastic with that pronoun left kind of talk I just really hope that's sarcasm you do know that there are only men and only women boys have outties girls have innes.