Post Reply
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2011 - 10:50AM #1
Concordia
Posts: 26
What are the big differences in the two?

Also, what is the predominate version you use in your churches?
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2011 - 12:08PM #2
AFskypilot
Posts: 352

I don't think any one translation of the Bible is perfect.  Our congregation does use the NRSV in worship, but in Bible Studies I think we have a wide selection of different translations around the table.  Heck, I have been known to take down the Greek New Testament once in a while.  A little rusty with the Hebrew Bible, though.


A big difference between the two versions, though, is the use of Older Manuscripts in the translation processes.  The RSV was published before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.  The NRSV uses the Dead Sea Scrolls as part of the collection of manuscripts it used.  Likewise older New Testament Manuscripts were used in the NRSV.


The NRSV drops the Thee's and Thou's, using the more contemporary pronouns.


And the NRSV seeks to be more gender nuetral when it is referring to humankind.  "My brothers" becomes "My brothers and sisters." 


I also think the NRSV tends to flow much better when reading it.


But I do miss the poetic phrasing of the KJV.  KJV remains easier to memorize, IMHO.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2011 - 12:55PM #3
teilhard
Posts: 51,405

Considering all the Questions and Factors -- "NRSV" ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2011 - 4:20PM #4
tawonda
Posts: 4,367

The NRSV is the standard pew/pulpit Bible in the ELCA. It's what we use at our church.


Just a clarification that the gender inclusiveness of the NRSV is (contrary to what the fundamentalists whine about) based upon the gender used/implied in the original texts. So it's actually more true to the original languages than imposed male-default English usage.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2011 - 8:05PM #5
Concordia
Posts: 26

Is there a good NRSV study bible out there that anyone would recommend?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 10, 2011 - 10:39PM #6
AFSkypilot49
Posts: 35

Now you are asking a very tricky question.  The answer basically depends on your theological bent.


Augsburg/Fortress has put out a Study Bible based on the NRSV.  It is called The Lutheran Study Bible.  Go to www.augsburgfortress.org/store/item.jsp?...


However Concordia Publishing House has also come out with The Lutheran Study Bible based on the English Standard Version www.cph.org/t-tlsb.aspx  The English Standard Version is very close to the RSV.  It simply changed some of the words conservatives considered objectionable for example, changing the translation of the Hebrew "almah" from "young woman" (used in the RSV) to "virgin."  It also dropped the thee's and thou's and used more gender inclusive language too.


When Augsburg came out with their Lutheran Study Bible, some people in the Missouri Synod complained that Augsburg co-opted Concordia when Augsburg released its Study Bible some six months before Concordia released its Study Bible.


I would say the Augsburg Study Bible uses more Historical Critical material than the Concordia Bible.  Concordia uses what is called a Historical Grammarical intepretation.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 11, 2011 - 9:46AM #7
Concordia
Posts: 26

Thanks.


I have heard of the Historcal Critical method of interpretation but am not sure of the specifics.  What does that mean as far as how the manuscripts were interpreted?  Also, I've never heard of the Historical Grammarical.   Likewise what does that mean?


 


Thanks.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 11, 2011 - 10:25AM #8
AFskypilot
Posts: 352

Basically the Historical Grammarical tries to look at what the author intended by examing the choice of words and syntax the author uses. It also considers the historical context when the author wrote.  Thus, Revelations is not taken literally because the writing is considered symbolic and was written in time of extreme persecution of the church.


Historical Critical method has several tools.  There is Form Criticism which looks at what form a particular passage may be.  Then there is Source Criticism which looks at what sources the author may have used in writing the passage.  And there is Redaction Criticism which looks at why the final editor put two passages together.   Some also include Radical Criticism which goes so far as to question whether Jesus said something or not.


An example of the differences would be in Genesis 1-2.


Historical Gramarical people will say that Moses wrote the story as is.  When it says the universe was created in seven days most HG people would say it means what it says, through some HG people will discuss what does "day" means.


HC people see two separate stories in Genesis 1-2, one written by a Priestly Source, the other written by an Elohist source.  One is more poetic going from first day to the seventh day, culminating in the creation of man and woman.  The other is more parabolic starting with the planting of the garden, then man, then animals, then woman.  HC people also look at creation accounts of other cultures in the area, looking for similarities and differences.  Then, if they are, in fact, why did the final editor put them together the way he/she did.


Hope this helps.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 11, 2011 - 10:31AM #9
Concordia
Posts: 26

Awesome!  That definitely helps.  Thanks for that!

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  May 12, 2011 - 1:53PM #10
teilhard
Posts: 51,405

The Oxford Annotated (with Apocrypha) ...


May 10, 2011 -- 8:05PM, Concordia wrote:


Is there a good NRSV study bible out there that anyone would recommend?





Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook