Is the RSV Bible a correct version?

Question

Many claim yes, and many claim no. Those who says no provide another version of the Bible as the correct one, mostly KJV.

Can you bring a proof that its KJV thats right?

And why isn't the RSV the correct version?

Answer 1

The fact is if there are different versions of the bible, none of them can be right. If they are the 'word of god' or whatever nonsense then surely they should all be the same and all be correct?

Answer 2

Catholic bible has 73 books; Protestant bible has 66 books.

Did the Catholics add to the 'word of God' or did the Protestants delete from the 'word of God'

But which translation of the bible is accurate is also an important question  

Answer 3

KJV is based upon Erasmus's edition of the Greek New Testament. Most modern translations are based upon a scholarly edition of the Greek New Testtament produced by Westcott and Hort in the Nineteenth century.

When you are translating something centuries old, there is no "correct" version; only the different interpretations of different groups of scholars.

Answer 4

Generally, the RSV is an excellent translation, and definitely superior to the KJV, which is inferior to most modern translations. It does have its good points, but Bible scholarship has greatly improved since the time it was written.

Answer 5

There are no "correct" English versions. All versions are translated from copies of copies of copies of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (autographs) which are no longer in existence.

Answer 6

Well, that depends on what you mean by "correct"...

As one answer rightly suggested, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was translated using much more modern scholarship and much more authentic (and numerous) source manuscripts than the King James Version.  If it is merely a choice between these two, the RSV is clearly the superior translation.

However, the RSV *is* dated (1950s).  Considerable advances have been made since that time, perhaps most spectacularly the discovery and publishing of much of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

A common complaint of the RSV is its translation of the Old Testament without regard for the New.  In other words, the translators did not use the quotes (of the Old Testament) found in the New Testament as the authority for translating the Old Testament.  This is sound practice - the quotes found in the New Testament are frequently from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, and so should not be used to "force" an unlikely translation of the Hebrew original.

To say this more simply:  the translators of the Old Testament in the RSV did not try to make their translation agree with the New Testament.  They merely translated the scriptures placed in front of them - which is as it should be.

This may be of some help

http://www.bible-reviews.com/selector.ht...

And this as well

http://www.bible-reviews.com/accuracy.ht...

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/bibles/

Answer 7

If you want to read the Bible in its correct version, learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and read the original texts.  That's what the Jews and Muslims do with their scripture, why should Christians be any different?

Answer 8

The KJV is a much better version. I am not an expert on such things but I have done lots of readings on the different Bibles and this is what I know:

The KJV stands alone from the other versions. That is on account of its being translated from different texts. All other versions which try to be literal translations are similar. Text comparison will show this. Why?

In the late 1800s a couple of texts were found that supposedly were older manuscripts than had been used for the KJV. For whatever reason it was quickly assumed that because they were older, they were better. The reasoning had to be something like this:

As the Bible manuscripts are being hand copied from one generation to the next it is only fair to assume that errors in copying will be made, so the oldest texts will have fewer errors. I don't know about you, but for me the Bible is being preserved by God, and not by man. Would an Almighty God who went to such lengths to provide salvation through the death of Jesus not be able to see to it that His own Word could be preserved?

Anyway, these older texts which were found were given much importance, not by all, but by a few, notably two men, Westcott and Hort. These two men became to Bible criticism what Darwin was to Creation criticism. It does not appear that either Westcott or Hort were Christians and therefore had no spiritual guidance in what they were doing in promoting these older manuscripts.

They then produced, I believe the RSV, though I admit I am not up on all these other versions by name. The version they produced was based on the newly found manuscripts as they differed greatly from the ones that were used for the KJV translation.

What do I believe? Simply that God had no problem preserving His Word. That these older manuscripts which were found in tact were manuscripts which had been copied and were so bad that they were set aside, because of the omissions that they gave to many passages of Scripture. I think of what they did as corrupting the Word of God.

Today, we find many passages in the Bible that say that these verses were not found in the oldest and best manuscripts. Says who? What has happened? Satan has been able through these two manuscripts to throw doubt on God's Word. Doubt to Christians that God was unable to preserve His Word. And doubt on specific portions of Scripture that may or may not be of God at all.

I could go on and on! But I must conclude. The KJV is based on the majority text, meaning the majority of Greek manuscripts of Scripture that were in circulation as of 1611. Some 90% or more of all manuscripts in existence today are in full agreement with these texts. Does that make the KJV reliable? I think so. By contrast "ALL" other Bible translations today reflect these other two older manuscripts and by comparison of one version with another you can easily see this. The KJV stands apart from all the rest and I believe fully that it is the best Bible for the English speaking world.

One more note. I recently purchased a 1967 Scofield study Bible which is KJV, but with minor alterations only to the words that are now obsolete or whose meaning in the English language has changed in the last couple of hundred years. The changes are noted clearly, with the KJV words that were replaced all shown on the same page. I think this will be my Bible of the future!

I hope this helps.

Answer 9

   All translations have minor inaccuracies. I would suggest you get the Evidence Bible. Its great for Youth Leaders who believe in Young Earth Creation!

   Nevertheless, you could also learn Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic to get to the bottom of it... I generally get the Hebrew dictionary to tell me what certain names means. Especially when it comes to exotic animals (Ostrich, Pea c**k, Dragons)

   It really doesn't matter that much if you're Seeking after God with all your heart... You wont need to find answers, the answers will find you....

Answer 10

RSV Bible is the same as the BIBLE.

COMPLETE c**p.

Answer 11

The RSV has left out half a chapter---the end of Mark.  It was misinterpreted by many people including whoever decided to leave it out of that version of the Bible.  I don't recommend it.

Try the NKJV or the NASB, NLT or the message or God's Word.