I agree. This is why I love NASB KJV NKJV and ESV. We should NEVER allow God's word to be softened so people feel better about their lifestyle.

Thank you for pointing out that there were female deacons in the Bible! (sore point for this Catholic girl 😢 )

I have an NRSV Bible which I have not read much. Doubt I will need to get this updated edition. Thanks for the review and info.

I agree about those paper liners. I have the same problem with Thomas Nelson Bibles in leathersoft. They're both owned by Harper Collins, so no big surprise. Those great text blocks do make awesome rebinds, like your beautiful Horween NKJV Maclaren you showed us awhile back. "We never need to help the Scripture say what it says . . ." Amen, brother! Another intelligent, well-informed assessment, something I've come to expect from you, sir, whether I choose to agree with you or not. Always a real breath of fresh air. Jesus on, indeed.

Thank you, Tim. Another spot-on assessment.

Great points and I totally agree with you thanks for sharing

I like your take on things Tim. God bless!

I appreciate your video but disagree with your assessment. I have used the NRSV since 1989 and I am breaking in my Premier NRSVue. I agree with you about the construction of the leather soft. As a translation, It is still solid and I believe accurate. It may not cater to one’s theological biases in a way one would prefer, however. I feel that one’s agreement or disagreement with the text revision is based one’s theological viewpoint. I allow for the possibility for others to disagree with me as long as they are not disagreeable/rude about it. BTW, I also use the Common English Bible on a regular basis .

Thank you, Brother Tim 🌹⭐🌹

Interesting review. Thank you.

This was a well thought-out and respectful approach to something that could have been done much more negatively. I was waiting for this video to come out and was concerned that I would hear a rehash of some of the arguments I’ve read online. I shouldn’t have been. Your approach has made me think more deeply on the matter and less defensively. Great video!!!

Yeah I’m not totally sold on the NRSVUE. My church is using it but I prefer the old NRSV and the KJB.

I would say that it doesn't go too far, but I do find its handling of one particular Greek word to be needlessly obscure. (You know the one.) But even in that case, I think it's more accurate than the 1971 edition of the RSV was when dealing with that exact same Greek word. Every change that it makes otherwise is completely defensible with reputable scholarship. In some cases, it makes a reasonable decision that will take a bit of warming up to, but I always have its close relatives (ESV, NASB) to give me the traditional wording if I need it. One change that comes to mind is Isaiah 1.18: Come now, let us argue it out, says the Lord: If your sins are like scarlet, will they become like snow? If they are red like crimson, will they become like wool? There's a very good argument to be made that these sentences should be hypothetical and interrogative (as they are here) rather than antithetical and declarative. By framing these statements as a challenge, the NRSVue aligns them better with the call to repentance in verses 19-20. So it's nice to have the option available within the Tyndale-KJV lineage. At the same time, I miss the more comforting language found in the older versions.

Thanks for your thoughts, Pastor Tim. As a “United” Methodist, I just can’t help but see this in the context of the great push to the left in the UMC. I won’t belabor that here except to say that a lot of us are being dragged in a direction we don’t really want to go. Anything that the UMC is publishing right now is pretty aggressively pushing the NRSVue. It’s kind of disheartening for those of us who appreciate John Wesley’s theology but don’t like seeing it carried off in a totally different direction. Sorry for the rant, great video as always!

Thank you Tim! Well said!

I totally agree the synthetic covers are much better, but why the paper liner??

I agree with you, Tim.

Excellent!

My biggest problem with it is I don't really think that the NRSV needed to be updated, or if it did need to be updated, not by this. I also don't like the stylizing of NRSVue, but that's minor.

I’ve read the scholarly arguments for the changes and they’re in line with my reading of the Greek and Hebrew. I don’t feel like any of these are actually the problems they’re being made out to be. I think it’s a very academically strong and faithful translation and I’ve really enjoyed using it.

Regarding 1 Cor 6:9-10, I must say that it is sad to see that we have arrived to point where, what today is announced as 'academic' work, has to pass regularly through the filter of those who want to see total subordination to their ideologies, so that, even regarding 'academic' translations of the Bible, the expert translators, knowingly and militantly, alter the meaning of words, making the text say something (or obscure it) they know it does not say. You can agree or not with their ideologies, that is another subject, but from a purely academic perspective, what they are doing is betraying their intellectual honesty. Thank you, Tim, for sharing your observations.

At 2:29 when you were turning the pages did the ones in the front got folded? I just can't unsee it 😂

I'm a firm TR/Authorized Versions user and lover and I'm considered very conservative but I love the NRSVue more than it's previous update. The texts you brought up in here are problems for sure but I dare say there are just as many problems in the NIV and CSB. I can show you places where the NRSVue gives more honor to Christ's deity than the LSB and ESV. Also, the homosexuality texts in 1 Timothy 1:10 & 1 Corinthians 6:9 are no worse than the RSV of 1971.

Thanks. I’ll pass on this version.

I like the NRSVue enough, but I always use 2 or 3 translations to study the Bible. I put notes in the margin if the translation seems to be wrong in certain verses. My favorite is the NKJV at present.

It's very questionable. VERY QUESTIONABLE.

I believe they were trying to eliminate when preachers say they can get married and divorced as many times as they want as long as they are not married to more than one woman at a time

Let the translation be accurate and put theology in notes and commentaries.

Great segment Pastor Tim. Please keep speaking out on behalf of God’s Word. I believe the NRSV UE has tilted too far and I don’t know why we are always updating Bibles. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is done in some cases to try to appeal to current western culture. But the Bible stands above all cultures. I tell my friends to get a hard copy Bible, e.g. not digital as they are automatically updated, and get an NKJV, ESV, or NASB 95 (certainly not the 2020). Thank you again. 😊

NKJV

Thank you for your thoughts, Tim. I will definitely NOT be reading the NRSVue.

It for sure does. It’s not a translation that I feel I can fully trust. That’s enough reason for me to just steer clear. Nice Review.

I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during the interaction/discussion of the interpretations for God's words in the NRSV update. Is there any way to remove the political agendas from the different interpretations? Is there an English version of the bible that just interprets God's words and leaves the political agendas to be addressed in the notes and commentaries?

RSV > NRSV & NRSVue

Issues like these are the reason I mostly stick to those translations that are based on the TR.

I don't have the updated version, and I have to take the word of others as to what the original languages say. I find the NRSV to be very easy to read compared to many other translations. That is important enough for me. If there are sections or words that are cited as problems I am going to get multiple sources anyway. Biblegateway is just a click away. When I believed I was in a NASB church. As a non-believer, I don't have to get to worried about a word or two here or there. I have seen any manner of belief held up by interesting interpretation of what is written the Bible. Most people go to the Bible to confirm their beliefs, not to find out what to believe, so it really doesn't make a lot of difference to the biggest part of those that call themselves believers. I think most translations are just fine.

son of man to me almost implies he’s not the son of god, but since god came in human form it makes sense theologically that it says in human form or human being

Agree 100%, however, when they soften or change the Bible meanings, it no longer qualifies as a Bible. I stick with NAS, ESV, NKJV, and KJV.

You do know that the NRSVCE says the same thing for 1 Timothy 3:2 right?

Thank you very much for your video. I would just like to point out a few things: 1) You stated that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain "a virgin" reading for Isaiah 7 -- this is incorrect as far as I am aware. 2) In regards to 1Cor. 6:9, please check how the KJV and RSV translate that verse; I don't think those translations are guilty of caving into societal pressure. 3) The literal "Son of man" rendering is provided in the footnote for both Daniel and Ezekiel in the NRSVue. Anyway, thanks again for your video and I am not looking to debate just clarify. Oh and my favorite translation is the NRSVue, of course. :)

It definitely has

It's aggravating with them messing with Gods word...God sees and knows

I totally agree, the Bible should never be altered to suit mankinds agendas, there will be a price to pay to those that do it.,

Thank you for standing for the text which some would consider exclusive, because yes homosexuallity is a sin and wrong. Although I'm a complimentarian and disagree there.

I wish I’d seen this review before I wasted my money on a premium (but open box) version of this translation. I looked up a couple of key verses and was surprised and disappointed (the universal “man” changed to the awkward and secular “humankind”…and Genesis 6 “…’My Spirit will not always live within mortals’…”..!?

Thank you for standing against these disgusting changes. They're twisting the true Word which is not surprising. It's been done for a long time now. Adding to and changing the word is cursed in Deuteronomy and Revelation.Many "bibles" have removed the words Christ, Lord, blood, hell, etc. Some verses distinctly attributed to Jesus Christ just say "he". He who? Like "he appeared in a body." Who appeared? They're making bibles generic enough that they could make another fit who's being talked about. The Bible talks about "another Jesus." I think that other Jesus is the Jesus of these revisers.

I find it really disingenuous when the NRSV(UE) folks claim they're going for as literal and formal as possible but then subordinate the text to politics. And not only that, but to then claim the meaning of the Greek is unclear. Well, what kind of scholars do you have on your translation committee, when every other committee in the past has seemed to be able to figure it out?

Overall, it's a quality translation. Too strong with inclusive language that negatively affects OT prophecy, and NT references and allusions to the OT. Definitely mistranslates texts on homosexual behavior. Not only in 1 Cor and 1 Tim, but in OT passages about male shrine prostitutes. Although I like the way it reads, and its overall accuracy, I can't fully trust it. There is no doubt that translator bias regarding same-sex behavior interfered with the translation process. Intentional? I'll let you decide.

You are not being honest about the Dead Sea Scrolls. They say ha almah just like the MT.

You do realize that IN CONTEXT Isaiah 7 was fulfilled in 2 Kings 15 and 16? Matthew's use was a spiritual fulfillment. This is why churches are emptying out. People are studying their way out of the church.

NRSVue is heresy. I stopped using my NRSV because I disagreed with parts of the translation and I can honestly say I will NEVER purchase this book.

The NRSV is a very poor translation.