I have a preference for the NRSV because of its extensive footnotes, which gives you a good sense of how the translation was done. Anyway thanks again for the video, which I know took a lot of hard work and time.

I have read, taught and preached from the NRSV for over 30 years. The NRSV is a mainline update of the RSV that stood the test of time as a modern update of the KJV. IT tends to be more egalitarian and offers renderings that most mainline churches would find acceptable. The ESV is a conservative rendition of the RSV that has a strong reformed theological bent and complimentarian leanings. It is clearly the Bible of the neo-Calvinist. In my opinion, NRSV is the better translation. I have found the Updated Edition to continue this tradition. I also still use the RSV-2CE as one of my translations for comparison.

Great video. Very thorough! I really enjoyed this. Thanks for taking the time to do this video. Your videos are always top notch!

At last someone compares the two versions in plain English.

Excellent comparison and contrast of both NRSV & ESV Bibles. I especially liked your use of references and documentation to support your findings! 👍🏻😇🙏🏻

Additional Old Testament comparisons: _Deuteronomy 32.8_ NRSV: When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of *the gods;* ESV: When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of *the sons of God.* (Both the NRSV and the ESV depart from the Masoretic Text. The ESV is more literal here. The NRSV employs a paraphrase, perhaps to obscure the fact that the Dead Sea Scroll reading "the sons of God" includes a masculine-oriented term.) _Deuteronomy 32.43_ NRSV: Praise, *O heavens,* his people, / *worship him, all you gods!* / For he will avenge the blood of *his children,* / and take vengeance on his adversaries; / *he will repay those who hate him,* / and cleanse *the land for his people.* ESV: “Rejoice with him, *O heavens;* / *bow down to him, all gods,* / for he avenges the blood of *his children* / and takes vengeance on his adversaries. / *He repays those who hate him* / and cleanses *his people's land.” ASV: Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: / For he will avenge the blood of his servants, / And will render vengeance to his adversaries, / And will make expiation for his land, for his people. (The NRSV follows Dead Sea Scroll readings as shown in bold. The ESV similarly departs from the Masoretic Text. Compare to the American Standard Version (ASV).) _1 Samuel 10.1_ NRSV: Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it on his head, and kissed him; he said, “The Lord has anointed you ruler *over his people Israel. You shall reign over the people of the Lord and you will save them from the hand of their enemies all around. Now this shall be the sign to you that the Lord has anointed you ruler* over his heritage: ESV: Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, “Has not the Lord anointed you to be prince *over his people Israel? And you shall reign over the people of the Lord and you will save them from the hand of their surrounding enemies. And this shall be the sign to you that the Lord has anointed you to be prince* over his heritage. (Both the NRSV and the ESV add the material in bold from the Septuagint, thus departing from the Masoretic Text.) _1 Samuel 10.27-11.1_ NRSV: But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” They despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace. *Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.* *About a month later,* Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.” ESV: But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” And they despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace. Then Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead, and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you.” (The NRSV adds the material in bold from a Dead Sea Scroll.) _1 Samuel 14.41_ NRSV: Then Saul said, “O Lord God of Israel, *why have you not answered your servant today? If this guilt is in me or in my son Jonathan, O Lord God of Israel, give Urim; but if this guilt is in your people Israel,* give Thummim.” And Jonathan and Saul were indicated by the lot, but the people were cleared. ESV: Therefore Saul said, “O Lord God of Israel, *why have you not answered your servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord, God of Israel, give Urim. But if this guilt is in your people Israel,* give Thummim.” And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped. ASV: Therefore Saul said unto Jehovah, the God of Israel, Show the right. And Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot; but the people escaped. (The NRSV and the ESV include material from the Septuagint and the Vulgate. Compare to the ASV.) _2 Samuel 15.8_ NRSV: For your servant made a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram: If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will worship the Lord *in Hebron.”* ESV: For your servant vowed a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram, saying, ‘If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will offer worship to the Lord.’” (The NRSV adds “in Hebron” based on old Greek manuscripts. The ESV follows the Masoretic Text.) _Psalm 22.16_ NRSV: For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet *have shriveled;* ESV: For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; *they have pierced* my hands and feet - (The NRSV footnote states, "Meaning of Heb uncertain." The ESV footnote indicates that "they have pierced follows" is in "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac", but "most Hebrew manuscripts" read "like a lion [they are at] my hands and feet".) _Isaiah 53.11_ NRSV: Out of his anguish he shall see *light;* / he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. / The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, / and he shall bear their iniquities. ESV: Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; / by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, / make many to be accounted righteous, / and he shall bear their iniquities. (The NRSV adds “light” based on a Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript. The ESV translates the Masoretic Text.)

Thanks for another outstanding, informative video! I simply love your "side by side" comparisons. I often do a coffee table version of this when I get a new translation. I have done it with the NRSV and put it on my "no" list a few years ago. But I keep going back to it for the reasons you mentioned: occasional good English choices and good footnotes. But overall, I think I personally prefer to use the NKJV as my primary bible, with it's excellent footnotes that point out everywhere it disagrees with current critical text renderings. It's a shame really- in my opinion, the NRSV has so much good in it but the good is so often overshadowed by clunky, inaccurate language in the name of stamping out every last "he" or "him." Oh well. Peace and (please) keep up the good work sir!

Regarding almah in Isa 7:14, l have both Hebrew & Greek & have been ordained since 1988. This term has been a bit of a moving target for me over the years. Presently, l believe the LXX translators knew what they were doing when they translated the term into the Gk translation of “virgin.” More specifically l believe it to be a reference to a young girl PRIOR to her child being years, hence normally understood as a “ virgin.” Contextually, in the Isa 7 passage this girl is not expected to give birth for another 2 years. Very much appreciate your videos, Rev John Wilderspin, BA, ThM

Very good analysis!

Wow ! What a cool comparison ! Loved your smooth paced and in-depth comparison of some of the verses in these two translations. Keep them coming Sir. Hope you would do ESV and NASB 2020 and NET some day.

Excellent, I really enjoyed this, thanks.

Thanks, I enjoyed it and learned.

When i have to prepare a sermon or prepare to lead out in the sabbath school i use the nasb or esv. For personal devotions i like the niv. The nrsv seems interesting. Reading the Word always results in a blessing.

Hi Thanks for doing this video. I think it is a very important comparison, since both the ESV and the NRSV come from the same root, the KJV; and it is useful to determine whether their stereotypes as one being the Bible of choice for evangelical Christians and the other for mainline Protestant denominations and secular biblical scholars, are accurate or not.

Upon my bed this is what I saw; there was a tree at the center of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew great and strong, its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth. Daniel 4:10‭-‬11 NRSV... I looked through so many bible translations to find one that worded this passage to my own liking and settled on this one, love it!

Thank you for a very interesting comparison ... I ...a Catholic with experiences (good ones) in a couple of evangelical churches... just bought my first ESV Bible. Reading has been slow, because of my glaucoma.... but I VB looking forward to getting to know it... I got the large print, but truthfully, the print is not what I call large. I have, over the past few years, been reading the RSV:CE...Ignatius Press.... I have always believed the RSV to be an actuate and readable translation... Not surprising, when you consider that I was raised (Methodist, along with a dash of Baptist)...and great up with the KJV...and the RSV. ). My new favorite is the NKJV... I just ordered a Giant Print /Comfort Print....with a beautiful purple leather soft cover, it should arrive today. I am really looking forward to this new Bible. The NAB is read at mass, in the United States... It really isn’t the best translation, but is easy to read.... but I never read the NAB, unless I am reading the Daily/Sunday Readingsv in my DaikybRomsn Missal...or if I am at mass. Truth be told...when I am asked what the best translation of scripture is, I usually say Thst it is the translation that Yiu will read. That’s the long snd the short answer for the average Christian. Most are nit too concerned with the often minute..but interesting ...differences in the various translation. I believe that one can encounter the living Christ Jesus in any version of the Bible...and I guess that would include the paraphrases....which I avoid, because a paraphrase is generally just one person’s interpretation.. I have been enjoying your translation comparison series.,, Thank you...

ESV is the RSV2001. It is not a fresh translations but is a revision. It took the RSV52/71 and "tweeked" it to remove archaic words substituting modern equivalents. In the second place small changes were made for theological reasons (Evangelical). There were a very few which were made on textual updates or improved understanding among scholars of meaning in the original languages. The NRSV is a fresh translation. It is certainly in the RSV family. The NRSV is currently in revision by the SBL. It's relationship to the NRSV will be the same as the ESV to the RSV.

In depth... Wow! What is you favorite translation of all?

R. Grant Jones, this video accomplishes two things for me ... 1) Allows me to survey the NRSV New Testament, which so far I have avoided purchasing, and ... 2) Pushes me to examine more closely the Critical Text. I prefer the Majority Text, and I'm emotionally attached to the KJV and Geneva translations. Yet, I admit that the Critical Text doesn't really change anything doctrinal, so I'm not one of those who condemns the Critical State. Thus far, I've avoided buying an NRSV translation, but your video piqued my interest in doing just that. Because astronomy was a hobby of mine in my teens and early twenties, I was able to memorize the Greek Alphabet. However, other than a spending a few sessions with a friend who received an M. Div who walked me through the first few verses of John's Gospel and a couple of other passages, and going through the beginning workbook produced by Dr. Mounce, I never took any formal classes in Greek. So, while I know enough to avoid the common "KJV and Strong's Concordance" pitfalls, I am not really able to do what you do with Greek. Did you take a Koine Greek course? Or are you self taught. I have met some self-taught Greek scholars who are pretty good. Thanks again.

This is simply fantastic. Thank you so much, brother, for taking all the time to highlight these differences in this video. Favorite quote "one biological male husband of one biological female wife". But I doubt in the age of "choose your gender at will" if even that would suffice.

Thank you. I so enjoy and appreciate your videos.Q: What do you regard as your primary translation?

Thank you so much for taking your time to make this video. I am currently using the NRSV as one of my main bibles and this was very helpful. I just wish they didn’t go so far with the gender inclusiveness in it. I was tickled at you summary at the end because it reflex’s so closely what I feel regarding gender inclusiveness. I suppose that the gender inclusive issue is a mixed bag. Some advocates have a sincere motive of wanting to be inclusive of women while others have a resentful even hateful motive behind it. I use to lead a bible study group with a mix of mostly women and it was easier to use a bible that was, at least, somewhat inclusive than something like the NKJV or the ESV. On another note have you ever checked out the Lavender’s New Testament?

Great video. Could you explain why in Genesis 1.2 the NRSV states “while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters”, as opposed to the ESV translation as And the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

NLT Is my main go-to Bible. But I was looking at reading in the ESV, NRSV, And NASB. Can some tell me if the NRSV Is a Word for Word or Thought For Thought translation?

Thank you so much for your great deal of research. I’ve been having such a hard time lately. I’m trying to switch translations from the NIV to something more formal. I tried the NASB, and now have started reading the CSB. I’m thinking about (and am slowly) trying to read the ESV but similar to reasons you’ve stated are why I’ve been hesitant, especially for lack of italics. I’m also very hesitant to use the NKJV because of its reliability in the TR. I would greatly appreciate some feedback on the CSB if you had a moment. Thank you.

Is there any chance you will ever do a comparison video with the NRSVue?

So after listening to so many of your bible reviews, I wonder what is your favorite translation ?

Is LXX in OT ESV is more common/large ratio than Masoretic? How large? How about DSS in OT ESV?

I've never really understood the need for the ESV? Why use the RSV as a base? What is the value?

The ESV and in particular their PSQ seems to HAVE best selling in Quentel.

In the summary, what do you mean by "offers footnotes that do not support christ's deity"??? Could you explain this statement ? Thank you.

Do you think it’s a modern disdain for masculine pronouns in the case of the nrsv or that it’s more of drastic attempt at consistency on the translators part. Thank you Mr. Jones.

What’s your favorite Bible for the Old Testament?

I love the RSV, grew up with it in the sixties. You can keep the silly NRSV; the ESV is the rightful successor to the RSV.

Great Graphics More importantly content is Sharp...

I can live with 'mortals' instead of 'men' but I can't live with 'barn' instead of 'granary.' The bible should educate and inspire its readers with plentiful vocabulary. Have you looked at the NRSVUE? Is it hitting the sweet spot between the two? I saw a few videos on your channel of specific bible reviews but you stated in them that it would take some time comparing passages to form an opinion on whether it's worth replacing the NRSV.

I think that the Catholic NAB is a better dynamic equivalent translation to use beside a more literal translation than the NRSV.. I read from the NASB 95, NAB and the EOB New Testament. For the most part, Anyway. Thank you for the informative and well put together videos!

So, what is your preference?

Can we get an update-to-date ecumenical version without the radical egalitarian view of the sexes, one that just translates the words as people thought of them then? I propose an URSV (Updated) in response to the NRSV.

I personally think the NRSV is the better translation over the ESV minus the gender inclusiveness which was fashionable at the time (still is but now there are many more translations to choose from). Humans being humans, yes translators are also subject to what is fashionable at the time.

Imagine if the NRSV had stayed away from trying to be gender-inclusive... oh how glorious it would have been!

Call me crazy, but I think neutralizing gender-exclusive language in the Pauline Epistles does violence to the author's original intent. (It is clear to me that he is writing to an *exclusively* male audience; if he speaks to women, it is exclusively via the men.)

I’ll stick with the ESV.

*R. Grant Jones: can you please disclose your relevant credentials (if you have any)?*

Matt 19 :26 is an early attempt to degender passages.

TBH, “Gender” language should never be a translation concern of any text, yet Holy Books..This is, I believe a risk of losing main sources’ emphasis in future translations. I got a newer print ESV “kindle version”, which I find very easy to use for my understanding. I can advise anyone who needs cross-references while reading.

Husband of one wife sounds right

The ESV took out all KJV references to Fornication. Whereas NRSV kept some of the admonitions to Fornication. In some cases, the scholars determined it was clear they meant "prostitution". [ISAIAH 23.17] for instance. On the other hand, ESV added the new post World War 2 admonition, "homosexuality" in 1 CORINTHIANS 6.9-10, and replaced 1 CORINTHIANS 6's for instances of admonitions against Fornication, with the ambiguous "sexual immorality" while at the same time took Paul's ambiguous Greek Word ἀρσενοκοίτης (earliest instance ever mentioned, is in Corinthians) as Homosexual. The earliest translation of ἀρσενοκοίτης was into Latin in the Old Latin translations of New Testament Codex, as "masculorum" and into the 382AD Latin Vulgate as "masculorum" which clearly means Male Prostitute. Also, the Old Latin translations of Greek New Testament Codex, clearly used the word Fornication over a dozen times, in these Latin forms: "fornicarii", "fornicationi", "fornicationem", and "fornicatur". ESV essentially rids the Bible of admonition against Fornication, making a clear word ambiguous "Sexual Immorality" while on the other hand it translates the unclear ἀρσενοκοίτης' into a clear admonition against "homosexuality". This became commonplace for evangelical translation post world war two. The government during World War 2 wanted to focus on Rebirth after the war was over, and while the war was in progress were busy translating the Bible with participation from all denominations. The Result was the 1946 New Testament edition of the Revised Standard Version, and it's admonition against Homosexuality. In 1972 the Revised Standard Version was edited to remove homosexual, but only after they "handed-off" the tradition of using admonitions against Homosexuality to other translation teams and their evangelical version. The result was the Baby Boomer generation. NRSV did not fall into that trap, and includes some of admonitions against Fornication, while not trying to "legislate from court" so to speak, by reintroducing admonitions against homosexuality. ESV, however, did fall into that trap. For these reasons, I use the King James Version, American Standard Version (1901), and the New Revised Standard Version. ESV in not an accurate translation, because it attempts cultural change for the purpose of government, (higher birthrates) by calling fornication "sexual immorality" then adding "homosexuality" while readers are likely to interpret "sexual immorality" to imply "homosexuality". The rest of what's being discussed here in this video is minor. Like counting beans in a jar and disagreeing on the exact number. However the cultural change ESV envisions in effect calls all those beans "homosexuals" . . . while pretending the great debate is simply on the number of "beans". I advise folks stick to three proven versions: 1) King James Version [KJV] 2) American Standard Version 1901 [ASV] 3) New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]

Great video thank you. I will not be buying an NRSV now.

It's heartbreaking to see these translations. In the Greek it's clear that John is saying something like "no one has ever seen God; the only-begotten, Who is at the Father's side, He has made Him known." This is full of theological depth and richness - that the invisible God is made known through the visible manifestation of the only-begotten Son of God. "God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart". What does that even mean? It's certainly not what the apostle John was saying.

The NRSV uses gender neutral language, so for me this is a big turn off. I think the ESV is a much better translation.

I find myself less and less patient with those who are determined to edit God, and conform His Word to the predilections of the present time. Not only is "gender-inclusiveness" a mistranslation of the plain text, but such post-modernism in Bible translation philosophy will seriously date said translations. Frankly, I'm not interested in yet another Eclectic Text/modernist translation. There are too many of them, and they appear primarily to exist to make money for publishers, or to serve a specific political or cultural agenda. I see no point.

The cage stage Calvinist me from 20 years ago would say the ESV is the NRSV for people who love Jesus. Today, I wouldn't say that. Maybe I'd think it. But I wouldn't say it. 😉

In my opinion, the NRSV is trash with many of the verses.

Man I hope you're being sarcastic with that pronoun left kind of talk I just really hope that's sarcasm you do know that there are only men and only women boys have outties girls have innes.