How Good is the NRSV?

[Rom]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.