Talk:Revised Standard Version

Untitled
Would someone please take out the statements that the RSV is junk? Thank you.

Eek! The page says  its monopoly on Christendom, when (if my understanding is correct) the KJB isn't used by the Roman Catholic church, any of the eastern orthodox churches (greek, serbian, russian etc.), the ethiopian or coptic or armenian or syrian churches, and probably gazillions more besides. I guess a more "correct" (ahem) version would be something like

...challenge to the King James Version and its primacy in the Anglo-Saxon protestant tradition...

but then someone will say anglicanism isn't quite protestant, so:

...challenge to the King James Version and its primacy in the Anglo-Saxon protestant and anglican traditions...

or maybe

...challenge the King James Version's place as the predominant english translation of the bible in the protestant and anglican traditions...

Sorry. All of this makes a nice paragraph into an ugly one. Who says truth is beauty? -- Finlay McWalter 02:23, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Oops, I forgot about the Catholic version. But that still leaves the orthodox and eastern branches, and the "english" part. -- Finlay McWalter 02:26, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ouch!
Looks like I goofed here!

I should have used the phrase english speaking world instead of Christendom. English Speaking World interfers all of the world not just Christians.

Thanks for pointing this out!

Finlay, It's people like you who make things like this fun to do.

hoshie 08:41, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * How about "English-speaking Protestants and Anglicans"? "Christendom" would seem to include a lot of people who never spoke English and never read the King James Translation of the Bible, and many Catholics speak English :). -- Someone else 08:49, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I have another idea. I have changed it from English speaking world to "the main English Bible prefered by Protestants." A bit wordy, but I guess it will hold. hoshie 07:58, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * OK, it looks likes "for Protestants" wasn't the best line. Since everyone used it (e.g. Prots, Caths, Orths, nonbelivers, general readers). I have left it at most popular Bible. iHoshie 05:49, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Re-organization
I've re-organized this article.

I have put the ESV, NRSV, and the 1971 NT revsion in a section, since these are different than the RSV itself. The Common Bible, Reader's Digest, and the 2002 anniversary edition are in essence, the same RSV text adapted for various formats (as these products show).

Hope this helps.

- Hoshie | 04:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

re "almah"
We need to be especially careful to maintain a NPOV on this section. Flat statements about what "almah" does or does not mean are disputed and must be treated as such, so please resist writing that it means "virgin" or that it means "young woman". Mangoe 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm inclined to revert assertions about the meaning of the word or the intent of the translators without a citation. I've seen no proof that they referred to the next section, and the meaning of "almah" is after all teh centerpiece of the dispute. Mangoe 02:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

More about "almah": Regarding References item 7, why does it assert that the "young woman" (almah) of Proverbs 30:19 is the same as the "adulterous woman" in 30:20? Here is my understanding: Verse 18 employs a parallelism: "too wonderful for me" and "I know not" are equivalents. Verse 19 lists the wonderful things. Together, verses 30:18 and 19 say that the way of a man with a young woman is a wonderful thing. Verse 20 addresses a new topic. The three verses are not saying that the way of an adulteress is wonderful, nor using almah to refer to an adulterous woman. Also, verse 20 in Hebrew uses ishah for "woman". So, I suggest that References item 7 is not an "Example of Almah explicitly not referring to a virgin", and should be removed. GoneForAWalk (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

FA removal
As the guy who wrote this article, I agree with the decsion to de-FA this article. I hope sometime to come back here and fix this article in order to make it better. Because of this, it's a blessing in disguse the FA status was retired. - Thanks, Hoshie 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Click on "why it was removed" above for some ideas. Marskell 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It gave me a few ideas on how to proceed. Don't think I'll get to it until the new year at least, since my interests here have divulged since I created the article. Thanks again. - Thanks, Hoshie 03:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've taken a deep breath and done an initial rewrite of the article with some restructuring. I hope this version is more concise and formal in wording, and a bit clearer all round. We've obviously got some work ahead to get the article up to current FA standards. Metamagician3000 07:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Still working on this. Note that I changed the opening sentence - I think this was quite misleading the way it was worded. It is not so much that it's no longer popular as that it has now morphed into the NRSV, which is still popular. We can't capture that difficult thought, so I believe the simplest thing to do in the opening sentence is just refer to when it was published rather than when it was popular. At this stage, what the article now mainly needs is a lot of citations, but I don't have that kind of scholarship so I'll have to pass it back to Hoshie when he has the time. Metamagician3000 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

NCC supresses RSV online
RSV is no longer available on websites hosted in the US - the NCC, which owns the US copyright, has ordered its removal. Someone want to add this to the article? PiCo 00:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi PiCo: The University Of Michigan still hosts an online version of the RSV at the following address:
 * http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
 * ...well, at least for now anyway, but don’t tell anybody. :)
 * Best Regards, (Nickel2859 19:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC))
 * P.S.: I just noticed that there is already a link to this website given in the "External links" section of the main RSV article; it is the very first link that is listed. Nickel2859 19:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * its no longer at UofM either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced statement removed
I am removing the following statement as it has been tagged "citation needed" for several months:
 * Others alleged that members of the translation panel were communists. At Senator Joseph McCarthy's request, these charges were printed in the US Air Force training manual.

If anyone can find a source for this, feel free to re-add it. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ReadersDigestBible-cover.jpg
Image:ReadersDigestBible-cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious affliliation
Hello, in the infobox it describes this translation's religious affiliation as "Protestant (usually mainline)". Where does this assertion come from? I read somewhere that the translators involved were Protestant, but the RSV is also the preferred English translation of reference for many works coming from the Vatican. I don't think the RSV can be described as entirely Protestant or Catholic. Thank you. Loves Macs  (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, while translation project was sponsored by the NCC and translation committee was originally composed of Protestant scholars, subsequent ecumenical editions have broadened its acceptance. Hence, I have added "Ecumenical, with Catholic acceptance since mid-1960s." BlueMesa171 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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/20150724114610/https://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf to http://www.churchpublishing.org/general_convention/pdf_const_2003/Title_II_Worship.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150121081933/http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=199297 to http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=199297

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) 16:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC) https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.39.42 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the statement regarding former president’s bible.
At the end of the article someone has added a note regarding the origin of President Trump’s bible. This article is not the place for that. Please move the note to an appropriate place elsewhere. Mjs92117 (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)