An Outstanding Version of the Holy Bible
Written: Dec 10 '03
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Contemporary language and reliance on biblical texts predating the ones used for King James Version.
Cons: Faithful adherents to the King James Version might not care for the revisions.
The Bottom Line: A reliable, solid version tailored for Americans wanting to study the Bible.
|
|
|
| HawgWyld's Full Review: New Revised Standard Version Bible Books |
Reviewing a Bible can be a dicey proposition, indeed! I should mention, then, that I'm not going to comment on the validity of the Bible as an honest-to-goodness Holy document. I'd seriously wonder why someone wanting to seriously debate that point would choose Epinions -- a consumer review site -- as a forum for such a weighty matter. I believe it's sufficient to point out I'm a Methodist and, as such, my position on the validity of the Bible ought to be fairly clear.
Having said that, I do believe it's essential for people wanting to study the Bible to get a solid version. I'm not talking about some screwball, politically-motivated version in which some group thought it would be appropriate to turn Christ into a tree-hugging vegetarian, sword-toting warrior out to smack the heathens or anything along those lines. Rather, I'm talking about a version put together by a group out translate early Biblical texts as accurately as possible while avoiding archaic language which has lost its full meaning over the years.
Fortunately, the New Revised Standard Version is firmly-rooted in ancient texts and is presented in such a way the "contemporary reader" can understand the messages being conveyed fairly easily. In fact, the New Revised Standeard Version has been widely accepted by United Methodist congregations throughout the U.S.
Understanding the history of this version if fairly important for anyone seeking an accurate translation of the Holy Bible. The roots of the New Revised Standard Version started with the King James Version, which was originally published in 1611. Of course, the King James Version is still widely used to this day, and it is properly regarded as a noteworthy achievement. However, by the 19th century, a good number of biblical manuscripts were found which proved to be older than many of the ones on which the King James Version are based. Therefore, flaws were revealed in the King James Version.
So, the Church of England, in 1870, authorized a revision of the King James Version in order to address the flaws. Revised Version of the Bible was published around 1885 and was followed in the U.S. by the American Standard Version during the first years of the 20th century. By 1952, the American Standard Version was revised and the published as the Revised Standard Version. Of course, that version led to another revision -- the New Revised Standard Version which is still being reviewed by the National Council of the Churches of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, in fact. My particular Revised Standard Version was copyrighted in 1989.
I do believe it's apparent from the history of this revision that it's particularly American in nature in terms of language. However, it's well-rooted in early biblical texts. The result, of course, is an accurate translation which caters to the peculiarities of the English language in the U.S.
To demonstrate how this works (or, at least, try), I'll choose a passage from Ecclesiastes (one of my favorite books in the Bible, by the way). If we turn to the King James Version of Ecclesiastes 5:1, we read:
Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.
Now, that's not too difficult to figure out, but let's look at how the same verse is treated in the New Revised Standard Version:
Guard your steps when you go to the house of God; to draw near to listen is better than the sacrifice offered by fools; for they do not know how to keep from doing evil.
Ah! That's much clearer and leaves less room for debate. And, that's just one small example. I'd argue the language used in the New Revised Standard Version is much clearer and precise, thus leaving less room for misinterpretation and debate. Precise language is vital, I think, when it comes to a version of the Bible as we've seen churches split, wars start and all manner of chaos through history as people have argued over what this passage or that passage actually means.
All in all, this is a solid version maintained by an ecumenical council including Roman Catholics, protestants, an Eastern Orthodox member and a Jewish member (in the Old Testament section). An ecumenical council, I think, also helps raise this version above one that is put together by a group which allows politics to get in the way of the message. And, of course, the aforementioned committee oversees versions approved for protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches (I won't dwell on the differences in the versions -- I figure most people know Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox congregations receive additional texts).
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
HawgWyld
|
 - Top 200 |
|
Member: Ethan C. Nobles
Location: Benton, Ark.
Reviews written: 1429
Trusted by: 495 members
About Me:
The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.