Talk:New Revised Standard Version

message: See the question under this heading on Talk:Modern English Bible translations. I'd like to see some discussion of the relative merits of various translations. Personally I consider the NRSV to be the best translation of all that I've tried, but that's my POV. --Singkong2005 12:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I like its elegant language, not changing the meaning of the original text, but making it much more accessable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.65 (talk • contribs) 11:50, June 13, 2006  (UTC)
It's very much the skeptic's Bible, since it makes no effort to smooth out contradictions in the text. :-) Evercat (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relative merits of translations - sources?

message: I changed a claim that liturgical use in the RC Church requires higher standards. This is a POV statement since it implies that Catholic translations are better. Some people would say they are worse, ie the virgin/young woman thing.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.73.206 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher (ie Catholic) standards

message: This is just something I picked up and thought it could be useful and was wondering if I should add it.  Under the controversy section, it talks about the virgin debate.  I have read that the reason it reads "young woman" is because the Hebrew language lacked a word for virgin and that almah referred to a young woman who was not married, but old enough to be married, therefore virgin would be an accurate (though not literal) translation as unmarried women were usually virgins back then.  Emperor001 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hebrew does have a word for virgin: "bethulah."  It's the word used most of the time when the Law refers to a virgin (e.g., Deuteronomy 22:23).  "Almah" just means young woman; it's the feminine form of "'Elem", young man.  Of course every father hoped that his "'almah" daughter was a virgin, but that's not what the word referred to. Pleonic (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does almah mean a specifically unmarried young woman?? Or just any young woman, married or not? If the former, then the most fitting English equivalent would be "maiden"; which, even though it is sometimes used to imply virgin, (and in the past sometimes explicitly to mean such, occasionally even for men)  the proper modern definition is "an unmarried young woman." Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Virgin/Young Woman

message: This appears to be the only biblical translation with a majority (4 of 7) links in the "External Links" section referring to critical reviews.  In fact, looking at most of the other articles about popular translations, I don't see ANY links to critical reviews in other articles on a specific translation (admittedly, I didn't look through all the Bible translation articles).
Just something that seems noteworthy, given that a large segment of Protestant denominations accept the NRSV as a primary or alternate translation.  Many of the criticisms are valid from various perspectives, but there are similar criticisms aimed at other recent translations.  Why is this the only article where most of the links lead to criticism? 71.192.161.233 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the links do look to be outside the WP:EL guide and in the opinion nature. I'll see about removing some of them. Thanks for pointing this out. Basileias (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in External Links section? 

message: I'm not sure how to word this better at this time so I'm placing it here for later reference and to highlight it to other editors. The problem with the claim about "Traditional Christian interpretation" is it's really a difference in the Masoretic text and the LLX. The NRSV was based on the Masoretic text. Nothing was hidden about that. Also what the reference to the ESV Study Bible and what it says isn't clear so that source really needs verification. Basileias (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psalm 22:16 

message: The text says "A significant quotation of Isaiah in the Gospel of Matthew also translated the word into Greek as "parthenos" (virgin), and English translations of Isaiah prior to the RSV had followed the Greek."  This implies that Matthew read Isaiah in Hebrew, and translated 'amah' as 'parthenos'.  Isn't it more likely, especially given the totality of scriptural citations in the Gospel, that Matthew read Isaiah in Greek? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, there is no evidence, nor even implied indication in the text, that the gospel was written by the publican Matthew. The gospel, like all of the gospels, is officially anonymous, but unlike the authors of Luke and John, who drop hints regarding who they want the reader to presume they are, Matthew does not purport, implicitly or otherwise,  to be written by any one particular person, nor does it make any claim, or implication, of being written by an eye witness. The attribution to the publican Matthew was entirely done by third parties. (the rest of your comment is accurate, though; but I would note that the thing about "he shall be a Nazarene" "as it is written" the author seems to have completely made up for apologetic purposes). Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  what was Matthew reading? 

message: According to the "To The Reader" article in all NRSVs, the NT was translated from the United Bible Society Greek New Testament version 3 with corrections to be included in version 4. (Not the Nestle-Aland apparatus).
- Neshort (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textual Basis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New Revised Standard Version. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206062332/http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/reader.html to http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/reader.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: :Wiki-editors,
:I have moved, mistake of mine only, the article "New Revised Standard Version" to "Bíblia (Nova versão padrão revisada)", while I was proceeding translation for portuguese.
:Please, can anyone undo this mistake move?
:Forgive me. This was not vandalism.
:Thanks.
:Aainitio (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need your help... 

message: Shouldn't Mark Ward be referred to as an "evangelical writer" instead of a "theologically conservative writer"? I don't think too many conservative Catholics share his views on the Bible, and I doubt most readers are familiar with what kind of a school BJU is. Regardless, I would be grateful if a more experienced editor could judge if Ward's opinion qualifies as relevant at all since he appears to be a relatively minor figure writing mostly (exclusively?) for the general audience (i.e., he's not a biblical scholar). Miyamoto Hachimaro (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to chime in on agreement about the inclusion of this segment. A single writer criticizing the NRSVue for not condemning homosexuality does not to me seem to warrant an entire subsection of "controversy", especially when as mentioned he's not coming from a scholarly background here. 2600:8800:280:33A3:19B7:CAD:8818:819 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Ward