# How Good is the NRSV?



## Justified

What do you guys think about the NRSV? Apparently, it is the standard in secular academia.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Don't waste your money on it. It is liberal and is influenced by the Gender neutral problem. In terms of modern versions I think one is well served by the ESV, HCSB, NASB and the NKJV.


----------



## kodos

Isn't the ESV based on the NRSV, but with problematic issues in the NRSV "fixed"? I'd just use the ESV in that case.


----------



## JimmyH

The RSV translators made choices which were controversial to say the least. For example ;


Isaiah 7:14Revised Standard Version (RSV)

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. *Behold, a young woman*[a] shall conceive and bear* a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el.[c]
Footnotes:

Isaiah 7:14 Or virgin
Isaiah 7:14 Or is with child and shall bear
Isaiah 7:14 That is God is with us

As opposed to ; 

Isaiah 7:14English Standard Version (ESV)

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.[a]
Footnotes:

Isaiah 7:14 Immanuel means God is with us

Edit; here is the NRSV version ;

Isaiah 7:14New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman[a] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Footnotes:

Isaiah 7:14 Gk the virgin
Isaiah 7:14 That is God is with us*


----------



## Jake

kodos said:


> Isn't the ESV based on the NRSV, but with problematic issues in the NRSV "fixed"? I'd just use the ESV in that case.



The ESV and the NRSV are both based on the RSV from the seventies. The NRSV follows the RSV in being in a more liberal tradition (for example, Is 7:14 as Jimmy points out below has the same problem in both the NRSV and RSV), whereas the ESV is more conservative. I believe that the NRSV tends to be less conservative with how it treats the underlying manuscripts (i.e., deleting more things from the preserved texts), though both the ESV and NRSV are based on NA texts (critical).


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Justified said:


> it is the standard in secular academia.



Well, there's your answer.


----------



## Justified

I didn't plan on ever buying it. I was just curious about the translation.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Justified said:


> What do you guys think about the NRSV? Apparently, it is the standard in secular academia.


"secular academia" provides a clue to the answer to this question. Just sayin'.

See also:
New Revised Standard Version


----------



## FederalBaptist

A bit of an overstatement to say that it is used by "secular academia". Which schools? What programs? If biblical studies, that is untrue since biblical scholars (in the majority) are not relying upon a translation. If religious studies, I've not seen an over-reliance upon the NRSV. However, certain denominations do tend to flock to it.


----------



## JimmyH

Michael Marlow's Bible Research has a lengthy review of the NRSV covering what someone considering it might want to know beforehand ;

New Revised Standard Version


----------



## Stephen L Smith

kodos said:


> Isn't the ESV based on the NRSV


No, the ESV is based on the RSV.


----------



## Justified

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you guys think about the NRSV? Apparently, it is the standard in secular academia.
> 
> 
> 
> "secular academia" provides a clue to the answer to this question. Just sayin'.
> 
> See also:
> New Revised Standard Version
Click to expand...

 That was my hunch.


----------



## bookslover

Stephen L Smith said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the ESV based on the NRSV
> 
> 
> 
> No, the ESV is based on the RSV.
Click to expand...


To be precise, the ESV is based on the 1971 version of the RSV.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

The NRSV is the standard pew bible of the PC(USA) and is the standard translation used in its seminaries.

Also the NRSV was the Bible we had to purchase for my "Bible as Literature" class at Pitt.


----------



## Dearly Bought

FederalBaptist said:


> A bit of an overstatement to say that it is used by "secular academia". Which schools? What programs? If biblical studies, that is untrue since biblical scholars (in the majority) are not relying upon a translation. If religious studies, I've not seen an over-reliance upon the NRSV. However, certain denominations do tend to flock to it.



I'm not sure which schools you're familiar with, but I don't see this as an overstatement at all. I guarantee you that religious studies classes at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, etc. all use the NRSV as the translation of choice.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dearly Bought said:


> FederalBaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bit of an overstatement to say that it is used by "secular academia". Which schools? What programs? If biblical studies, that is untrue since biblical scholars (in the majority) are not relying upon a translation. If religious studies, I've not seen an over-reliance upon the NRSV. However, certain denominations do tend to flock to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure which schools you're familiar with, but I don't see this as an overstatement at all. I guarantee you that religious studies classes at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, etc. all use the NRSV as the translation of choice.
Click to expand...


Add to this a legion of smaller and less well known "Christian" liberal arts schools from ultra liberal to "moderate." They all used the RSV and now it is the NRSV. I'd be interested to know what schools, if any, (other than conservative evangelical and fundamentalist ones) do NOT use the NRSV.


----------



## Justified

Dearly Bought said:


> FederalBaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bit of an overstatement to say that it is used by "secular academia". Which schools? What programs? If biblical studies, that is untrue since biblical scholars (in the majority) are not relying upon a translation. If religious studies, I've not seen an over-reliance upon the NRSV. However, certain denominations do tend to flock to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure which schools you're familiar with, but I don't see this as an overstatement at all. I guarantee you that religious studies classes at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, etc. all use the NRSV as the translation of choice.
Click to expand...

I concur: it was a professor here at the UofI that said it is the standard in academia (secular/liberal).


----------



## One Little Nail

Dearly Bought said:


> FederalBaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bit of an overstatement to say that it is used by "secular academia". Which schools? What programs? If biblical studies, that is untrue since biblical scholars (in the majority) are not relying upon a translation. If religious studies, I've not seen an over-reliance upon the NRSV. However, certain denominations do tend to flock to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure which schools you're familiar with, but I don't see this as an overstatement at all. I guarantee you that religious studies classes at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, etc. all use the NRSV as the translation of choice.
Click to expand...


We'll surely if these educated Ivy League persons use it,it must be a good accurate translation right


----------



## gkterry

Also the standard Bible for the ECUSA (Episcopal Church of the USA). I used it for several years as my translation of choice but now I am KJV preferred but the SS class I teach uses the ESV (I bought pew Bible for the classroom). They weren't quite ready for stepping back to the KJV. I consider the ESV my second translation. The more "liberal" denominations/ churches would be the ones most likely to use the NRSV. I don't think it is any worse than any other critical text–based translation _except it does go a little too far at times with the gender issue._


----------



## kodos

Thanks all for the clarification on the ESV being based on the RSV. I am not sure where I heard it was based on the NRSV but somehow that stuck with me!


----------



## DMcFadden

The RSV translators were pretty free with the practice of "conjextural emandation," essentially re-writing a verse in terms of what you think it should have said (based on literary, lexicographical, and theological analysis) even when there is no manuscript support for it. The NRSV simply adds the PC "gender neutrality" to that unholy product. The ESV used the RSV as a "base," but undid a number of the liberalizing moves the RSV translators made.

So, insofar as the RSV is a translation in the tradition of formal correspondence, it is a solid work and a valid base for something like the ESV. In those places where it went speculative and did not rightly respect the integrity of the biblical manuscripts, it is just plain wrong. The translation team for the ESV was committed to a high view of the Word of God. They did not countenance unbridled conjextural emandations and they did NOT support the inclusive language program that was behind the NRSV.

You can fault the ESV because you do not like the CT. You can fault it because you have a different translation philosophy (e.g., you favor the dynamic equivalent approach). You can fault it because you disagree with paying the copyright holder of the RSV (National Council of Churches) for the rights to use the RSV in doing the ESV. But, it is NOT fair to take criticism of the NRSV, particularly the inclusive language stuff, and read it back onto the ESV. 

The NRSV is a translation well respected by mainline denoms and the academy because . . . well . . . it fits their theology. The ESV is so popular with some CONSERVATIVE Reformed, Lutheran, and evangelical groups because it fits their theology (not to mention a boffo marketing campaign by Crossway).


----------



## bookslover

Dennis: "Boffo" hardly covers it - Crossway's marketing campaign for the ESV has been unrelenting since it first appeared in September, 2001. That's not a criticism, just an observation (it's my preferred translation). So, it's interesting that, despite such a campaign, the ESV can't seem to ever climb out of the middle of the pack (usually #4 - #6) on the Christian Booksellers Association's monthly lists of the 10 best-selling translations.


----------



## One Little Nail

kodos said:


> Thanks all for the clarification on the ESV being based on the RSV. I am not sure where I heard it was based on the NRSV but somehow that stuck with me!



Yes the RSV is the wicked step-mother of both.


----------



## RamistThomist

It's worth being familiar with in case you ever need to dialogue with infidels. Some sections are actually okay (like Matthew 1:1-3). But the gender neutral thing utterly ruins the rhythm and beauty of the bible.


----------



## Philip

bookslover said:


> Dennis: "Boffo" hardly covers it - Crossway's marketing campaign for the ESV has been unrelenting since it first appeared in September, 2001. That's not a criticism, just an observation (it's my preferred translation). So, it's interesting that, despite such a campaign, the ESV can't seem to ever climb out of the middle of the pack (usually #4 - #6) on the Christian Booksellers Association's monthly lists of the 10 best-selling translations.



That may change, as more people become disillusioned with the NIV. Also keep in mind that it's become the preferred translation of conservative Presbyterians, Lutherans, and more recently Anglicans (it may have official status with ACNA now).


----------



## Jake

The only threat to the NRSV's dominance in liberal christian circles is the CEB. I too am curious what other translations are being used in secular academics. Even the Bible as literature class at my public high school used the NRSV.


----------



## DMcFadden

bookslover said:


> Dennis: "Boffo" hardly covers it - Crossway's marketing campaign for the ESV has been unrelenting since it first appeared in September, 2001. That's not a criticism, just an observation (it's my preferred translation). So, it's interesting that, despite such a campaign, the ESV can't seem to ever climb out of the middle of the pack (usually #4 - #6) on the Christian Booksellers Association's monthly lists of the 10 best-selling translations.



Indeed! The denominations that have adopted the ESV are generally pretty small. And, until evangelicals finally lose their love affair with the NIV, ESV will probably be the translation of choice.

I have also wondered why the CEB is not more popular with mainliners since it seems designed for them.

There does appear to be substantial inertia favoring the KJV for fundamentalists (and some Reformed micro-denominations), the NIV for the broad evangelical masses, and the NRSV for the more progressive mainliners. In addition to some of the small Reformed denominations, the ESV is preferred by the "Young, Restless, Reformed" crowd of evangelicals, conservative Anglicans, LCMS Lutherans, Ligonier people, and Piperites.

To the extent that study Bibles drive translation sales (???), the ESV Study Bible is by far the BEST study Bible on the market today of any translation. It will be interesting to see how the Beeke Bible does when it comes out in a few weeks. Not that the KJV needs a study Bible to boost sales. But, I would think that many will find the notes in the Beeke Bible irresistibly gracious and that it will give the KJV some additional perseverance (not that it needs the help with its constituency).


----------



## JimmyH

DMcFadden said:


> The denominations that have adopted the ESV are generally pretty small. And, until evangelicals finally lose their love affair with the NIV, ESV will probably be the translation of choice.



I was listening to Pastor Erwin Lutzer's Sunday sermon at Moody Church in Chicago, on the way home from church a month or so ago. As he began his sermon he announced to the congregation that the NIV pew Bibles have been replaced with the ESV. He said the NIV is still a good translation for devotional reading and if that is your preference to continue with it, but the ESV is more literally accurate and henceforth the sermons will be conducted using the ESV.


----------



## DMcFadden

Not surprising, Jimmy. In addition to Lutzer, MacArthur has made some pretty strong comments in favor of the ESV too. And, when his study Bible came out in the ESV, that certainly shows his attitude toward its acceptability. In the YouTube video promo, he says that the ESV has "taken the evangelical world by storm" and is "by far the best translation."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1VxhQqsGXU


----------



## JimmyH

DMcFadden said:


> Not surprising, Jimmy. In addition to Lutzer, MacArthur has made some pretty strong comments in favor of the ESV too. And, when his study Bible came out in the ESV, that certainly shows his attitude toward its acceptability. In the YouTube video promo, he says that the ESV has "taken the evangelical world by storm" and is "by far the best translation."
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1VxhQqsGXU



There is also an article on the topic on MacArthur's website here ........ Which Bible translation is best?


----------



## kodos

The ESV is heads and shoulders better than the NIV. My first church used the NIV, and I was converted under the preaching from the NIV - so I am grateful for it. I used it for a couple of years even after leaving. I eventually found myself to the ESV and appreciated it tremendously. The ESV is a good translation, especially if you like the CT.

I have transitioned to the NKJV in the last 18 months since that's what our church uses (and I have some manuscript sympathies towards the NKJV, and the way it shows the differences between CT readings and TR/M). I still refer to the ESV quite often. I've found that using the two together has been quite profitable.


----------



## DMcFadden

Ditto, Rom. I WISH that the ESV would list the textual differences in the margin the way the NKJV does.


----------



## KSon

DMcFadden said:


> Not surprising, Jimmy. In addition to Lutzer, MacArthur has made some pretty strong comments in favor of the ESV too. And, when his study Bible came out in the ESV, that certainly shows his attitude toward its acceptability. In the YouTube video promo, he says that the ESV has "taken the evangelical world by storm" and is "by far the best translation."
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1VxhQqsGXU




Does anyone else note the sound-edit at the 38/39 second mark? I noticed that the first time I viewed this commercial, and it has irked me as being dishonest and disingenuous.


----------



## Jake

DMcFadden said:


> Not surprising, Jimmy. In addition to Lutzer, MacArthur has made some pretty strong comments in favor of the ESV too. And, when his study Bible came out in the ESV, that certainly shows his attitude toward its acceptability. In the YouTube video promo, he says that the ESV has "taken the evangelical world by storm" and is "by far the best translation."
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1VxhQqsGXU



Considering that MacArthur, from what I can tell, comes from using the NKJV and NASB, I wonder why he now considers the ESV "by far the best translation"? After all, I would prefer both of the former in terms of literalness/translation philosophy and small things like italicizing added portions.


----------



## DMcFadden

KSon said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising, Jimmy. In addition to Lutzer, MacArthur has made some pretty strong comments in favor of the ESV too. And, when his study Bible came out in the ESV, that certainly shows his attitude toward its acceptability. In the YouTube video promo, he says that the ESV has "taken the evangelical world by storm" and is "by far the best translation."
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1VxhQqsGXU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else note the sound-edit at the 38/39 second mark? I noticed that the first time I viewed this commercial, and it has irked me as being dishonest and disingenuous.
Click to expand...


What is dishonest about it? MacArthur is trying to sell HIS study Bible with the ESV translation. The people who filmed him offering accolades of it are doing it for his publisher so that he will sell more of his Bibles. Then they pieced it together into a commercial for the Bible. I'll bet that whatever was left on the cutting room floor was left out due to a verbal gaffe or shortened for length. Having been filmed a few times myself, it is not easy to get an extended piece "right." Editors have to drop your coughs, distracted glances, mispronunciations, sneezes, forgetting your words, getting tongue-tied, etc. Hollywood has LOTS of money and works with actor professionals and they still need multiple "takes." When a Christian organization does this sort of thing, they typically do it on the cheap and do not want to have 4 gazillion "takes" in order to get it right. They would rather just piece together the snippets as seamlessly as they know how to do. Obviously, it was not smooth enough to elude your eagle eye at the 38 second mark. 

If this were a case of a hostile party editing MacArthur's words (e.g., the old rap against 60 Minutes editing techniques) it might be hinky. But, given that he and publisher are cooperating in trying to sell this thing, they have employed a film crew/editing crew to capture John at his best and most persuasive.


----------



## KSon

DMcFadden said:


> KSon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising, Jimmy. In addition to Lutzer, MacArthur has made some pretty strong comments in favor of the ESV too. And, when his study Bible came out in the ESV, that certainly shows his attitude toward its acceptability. In the YouTube video promo, he says that the ESV has "taken the evangelical world by storm" and is "by far the best translation."
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1VxhQqsGXU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else note the sound-edit at the 38/39 second mark? I noticed that the first time I viewed this commercial, and it has irked me as being dishonest and disingenuous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is dishonest about it? MacArthur is trying to sell HIS study Bible with the ESV translation. The people who filmed him offering accolades of it are doing it for his publisher so that he will sell more of his Bibles. Then they pieced it together into a commercial for the Bible. I'll bet that whatever was left on the cutting room floor was left out due to a verbal gaffe or shortened for length. Having been filmed a few times myself, it is not easy to get an extended piece "right." Editors have to drop your coughs, distracted glances, mispronunciations, sneezes, forgetting your words, getting tongue-tied, etc. Hollywood has LOTS of money and works with actor professionals and they still need multiple "takes." When a Christian organization does this sort of thing, they typically do it on the cheap and do not want to have 4 gazillion "takes" in order to get it right. They would rather just piece together the snippets as seamlessly as they know how to do. Obviously, it was not smooth enough to elude your eagle eye at the 38 second mark.
> 
> If this were a case of a hostile party editing MacArthur's words (e.g., the old rap against 60 Minutes editing techniques) it might be hinky. But, given that he and publisher are cooperating in trying to sell this thing, they have employed a film crew/editing crew to capture John at his best and most persuasive.
Click to expand...


My issue, Dennis, is that they did not allow what may have been a qualifier to his statement to be seen. His words are "It is the newest, and the freshest, and by far the best translation (cut)". As it stands and is presented John MacArthur is claiming that, in his opinion (which is greatly weighted in a segment of evangelicalism), the ESV is the best translation of Scripture on the market. Is there a qualifier after that cut? Perhaps a "to come out in the last 15 years". MacArthur himself uses the NASB, so the clipped statement seems a bit odd in light of that. 

Perhaps it is my leeriness toward the translation marketing machine. The edit just seems to be at the worst possible place to inspire confidence that there is no agenda.

It is not my desire derail this thread about the NRSV, so I'll answer the OP's question:

How good is the NRSV? Not.


----------



## DMcFadden

Again, the edit was by guys hired to be on HIS side trying to make HIM look good to sell HIS Bible and make profits for HIM. I don't see the nefarious motive for editing out a qualification. MacArthur is a pretty media savvy guy and a pretty opinionated one too. If he did not want to have his study Bible in the ESV, wild horses wouldn't have gotten him to allow it, let alone praise the translation so unstintingly. Nor would he allow the publisher to use his endorsement video if it did not fairly represent his own views. Look at the rest of the commercial. Even skipping the edit, it is an unqualified endorsement.

But, if you look at the URL Jimmy cited, MacArthur's own Grace to You site (where his opinions would presumably not be edited out) even has good words to say about the NIV. Here is the Grace to You conclusion about the ESV and NIV:



> The ESV is the most recent translation, which stands firmly in the formal equivalency tradition. It is a very solid translation in updated language that aims to reproduce the beauty of the KJV. The result is one of the most poetic and beautifully structured versions that maintains a high degree of accuracy and faithfulness to the original languages.
> 
> Translation Choice
> Which version is the best to use? Ultimately, that choice is up to you. Each of the formal-equivalency versions has strengths and weaknesses, but they are all reliable translations of the Bible. If you want to read a dynamic-equivalency translation, the NIV is the most reliable.



Personally, I'm with MacArthur on this one. IFF one insists on a dynamic equivalent, the NIV is your best choice. However, the formal correspondence options for the KJV, NASB, NKJV, and ESV are so good why would you want the dynamic equivalent one?


----------



## KSon

We will leave it right there, friend. Two brothers who see this differently.


----------



## reaganmarsh

DMcFadden said:


> Ditto, Rom. I WISH that the ESV would list the textual differences in the margin the way the NKJV does.



That makes 2 of us. 

To the OP: NRSV is not a faithful translation.


----------



## DMcFadden

Interesting to watch MacArthur dance around the use of the NIV. He speaks of those who read it, who love it, who have had their soul's nourished by it. But, in more than two minutes he does everything to praise the MacArthur Study Bible and the fact that those who use the NIV will have the notes to help them understand the Bible . . . finally! Very curious.

The MacArthur Study Bible in NIV - YouTube

It would probably be fair to say that as a formal correspondence guy, MacArthur can praise the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV. But, as a person who wants EVERYONE to understand the Bible, he is probably willing to have his notes attached to just about any translation or paraphrase out there.

In the following nearly 11 minute video, MacArthur uses the illustration of cursing the darkness vs. turning on the light to explain why he was willing to have his Bible in the NIV. You can tell he has little respect for it, but gives the example of 1 Tim 2 where he claims that his notes contradict the translators intentions. So, he sees himself as correcting what is wrong with the NIV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQyMyRIIBdA


----------



## JimmyH

DMcFadden said:


> Interesting to watch MacArthur dance around the use of the NIV. He speaks of those who read it, who love it, who have had their soul's nourished by it.



As I've noted in the past, I was raised by atheists and came to salvation through Christ, by reading the Bible, at the age of 36. The New Scofield KJV and the Scofield NIV (1984) were what I read. The KJV more than the NIV, but the NIV to help me when I wasn't quite sure of some of the text. Romans 7 for example.

I left the NIV after hearing so much criticism of the dynamic equivalence and the inaccuracies, it left out words, verses, passages. So I was quite surprised to read D.A. Carson, in his "The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism," on page 97,"I am far from arguing that any translation is perfect. Nevertheless, all things being equal, it is my considered judgment that the NIV New Testament is the best English translation of the Greek Testament now available." (1979)

This piqued my interest and I spent hours listening to D.A. Carson's sermons to try and gauge whether he was reliable or not. I found him to be a brilliant expositor. Next I read Pastor Dr. Robert Martin's "Accuracy Of Translation." which is highly critical of the NIV, and caused me to scratch my head at Dr. Carson's assertion. So going to a close source of the translation philosophy, I read Dr. Kenneth L. Barker's "The Balance Of The NIV," and "The Accuracy Of The NIV."

In the latter he confronts his accusers and answers questions on many of the decisions the translation committee made. He, being the executive director of the NIV translating committee, was uniquely qualified for that role.

Finally I dusted off my '84 NIV and began reading it again. I found that the language is very familiar to my American 65 year old consciousness. I like it. My respect for D.A. Carson helps overcome the influence of the naysayers and Dr Barker was convincing in his defense as well.

I also read Leland Ryken's "The ESV and the English Bible Legacy" and David Dewey's "A User's Guide To Bible Translations." I've read the ESV a fair amount, and I like it as well, but I'm beginning to find the '84 NIV the Bible I reach for more and more, though I haven't stopped reading the KJV. It is still the text I'm most familiar with and I love it very much.

Finally, I found this 4 part review of the 2011 NIV by Dr. Daniel Wallace, professor of Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary, very interesting. Here is part one, and anyone interested can follow the links through the four parts ;

A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 1 of 4 - Parchment and Pen BlogParchment and Pen Blog


----------



## DMcFadden

In the Youtube I posted, MacArthur claims that 40% of all English Bibles in the world are in the NIV. And, if you go overseas, in some English speaking lands, it holds a near monopoly. Yet, his clear disdain is expressed near the beginning when he says: "No it is not my favorite translation." And, "does anybody out there who reads the NIV care what it means?"

His argument for taking the MacArthur Study Bible into the NIV is (with a bit of caricature on my part): First, they asked him to do it; he did not ask them. And, people who read the NIV need all of the help they can get. Since they let him write anything in the notes he wanted to write, including pointing out that the NIV translation is just plain WRONG at points, what was there to lose?

Jimmy, I'm glad that you like it and it meets your expectations. I personally prefer a formal correspondence style of translation with some literary sensitivity and gravitate to the ESV, HCSB, KJV, and NKJV.


----------



## JimmyH

DMcFadden said:


> Jimmy, I'm glad that you like it and it meets your expectations. I personally prefer a formal correspondence style of translation with some literary sensitivity and gravitate to the ESV, HCSB, KJV, and NKJV.



I've got the MacArthur study Bible in the NKJV, and refer to it often, along with the ESV study Bible. I have the forthcoming Reformation Heritage KJV study Bible edited by Joel Beeke, and I'm looking forward to it. I generally read something in the NIV, then read it in the KJV. I follow that with the ESV. We use the NKJV in the church I am a member of most of the time, though the pastor will also interject some verses with the AV if he feels it is beneficial. 

I'm not glued to the NIV by any stretch but I don't think it should be written off regardless of some of people, even John MacArthur say. Thanks for the reply though, I haven't watched the video yet but I do have a great deal of respect for John MacArthur. I'm not being 'defensive' BTW, just thought to clarify in case people might think I'm not regenerate because I'm a CT text guy who likes the NIV ..........


----------



## Edward

JimmyH said:


> Finally I dusted off my '84 NIV and began reading it again.



The original NIV can be useful. The TNIV and the 2011 should burned lest they fall into the hands of those who might be led astray.


----------



## DMcFadden

Edward said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally I dusted off my '84 NIV and began reading it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original NIV can be useful. The TNIV and the 2011 should burned lest they fall into the hands of those who might be led astray.
Click to expand...


MacArthur explained that their notes for the MacArthur Study Bible NIV take on the 2011 NIV and point out where it is "wrong" according to them. The copyright page of the MacArthur Study Bible NIV lists the copyright for the NIV text as '73, '78, '84, AND '11.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

In my humble opinion the NRSV may be the best "reading" English Bible out there. It sounds Biblical, timeless, and modern all at once. But the exceptionally extreme liberalism - the aforementioned gender neturality, PLUS the intentional *translation of the Old Testament to contradict NT interpretations of those passages* - makes it unacceptable. I still wish the ESV had cleaned up the NRSV rather than the RSV, but oh well, it's still what we use at home.


----------



## CraigTruglia

I was saved reading it, which shows that God indeed can speak through the mouth of a donkey to achieve His ends 

A decent enough translation, the choices of words and in preferring one manuscript over another are questionable. In the Old Testament, they want to make the Hebrew religion appear Henotheist and it shows in their choice of words. However, they don't cover up the doctrines of grace in the NT, which is to its credit.

For what it is worth, I read the Harper Collins NRSV study bible in its entirety, including the deuterocanonical works, and all of the notes. Finding the internal inconsistencies in the scholarship (and way too many pathetic mistakes in referencing the wrong parts of Scripture, showing that they really are paying no attention at all) woke me out of my liberalism and I left the ELCA.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

JimmyH said:


> Finally, I found this 4 part review of the 2011 NIV by Dr. Daniel Wallace, professor of Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary, very interesting. Here is part one, and anyone interested can follow the links through the four parts ;
> 
> A Review of the NIV 2011: Part 1 of 4 - Parchment and Pen BlogParchment and Pen Blog


I was very disappointed in this review. It certainly is below the theological caution I would expect from a Reformed theologian.


----------



## Edward

Stephen L Smith said:


> It certainly is below the theological caution I would expect from a Reformed theologian.



DTS is mighty far from reformed. And so is Biola, where he got his undergrad. He seems, however, to have fairly solid Dispensational credentials.


----------



## Pilgrim

DMcFadden said:


> His argument for taking the MacArthur Study Bible into the NIV is (with a bit of caricature on my part): First, they asked him to do it; he did not ask them. And, people who read the NIV need all of the help they can get. Since they let him write anything in the notes he wanted to write, including pointing out that the NIV translation is just plain WRONG at points, what was there to lose?



I wonder when the MacArthur version of the NLT or even the Message is coming out, based on that rationale. 

Is it a coincidence that the timing of Harper Collins acquiring Nelson (they already owned Zondervan) and the announcement of the MacArthur in the NIV 2011 came at about the same time?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Edward said:


> DTS is mighty far from reformed. And so is Biola, where he got his undergrad. He seems, however, to have fairly solid Dispensational credentials.


 Yes I did understand this but did not clarify. I should have said It certainly is below the theological caution I would expect from a conservative theologian.


----------

