The following is from a group of CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS...
=======================================

What is the RSV?

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible or RSV is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611.

This 1971 explanation of the RSV comes from the Preface to the Revised Standard Version, and was issued on the occasion of the second edition of the New Testament:

The first English version of the Scriptures made by direct translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, and the first to be printed, was the work of William Tyndale. He met bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the Scriptures, and his New Testaments were ordered to be burned as "untrue translations." He was finally betrayed into the hands of his enemies, and in October 1536, was publicly executed and burned at the stake.
Yet Tyndale's work became the foundation of subsequent English versions, notably those of Coverdale, 1535; Thomas Matthew (probably a pseudonym for John Rogers), 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560; and the Bishops' Bible, 1568. In 1582, a translation of the New Testament, made from the Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic scholars, was published at Rheims.

The translators who made the King James Version took into account all of these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each of them. It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale.

The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular use; but in the end it prevailed, and for more than two and a half centuries no other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. The King James Version became the "Authorized Version" of the English-speaking peoples.
The King James Version has with good reason been termed "the noblest monument of English prose." Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for "its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression … the music of it cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm." It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.

Because of unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decades between 1881 and 1901, which tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes. In 1928, this copyright was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education, and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United States and Canada which were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication.

The Council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version and to undertake inquiry as to whether further revision was necessary. For more than two years the Committee worked upon the problem of whether or not revision should be undertaken; and if so, what should be its nature and extent. In the end the decision was reached that there is need for a thorough revision of the version of 1901, which will stay as close to the Tyndale-King James tradition as it can in the light of our present knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their meaning on the one hand, and our present understanding of English on the other.

In 1937, the revision was authorized by vote of the Council, which directed that the resulting version should "embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and express this meaning in English diction which is designed for use in public and private worship, and preserves those qualities which have given to the King James Version a supreme place in English literature."
Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the cooperating denominations. The Committee has worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament and one with the New Testament. Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the members of the other section; and the charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee. The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published in 1946. The publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, was authorized by vote of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. in 1951.

New Revised Standard Version

The most obvious defect is that it has been desecrated by the foul name of a British monarch. If it was True and Pure Word of GOD, it would not be called King James Version. That is exactly what is: a white man's version of the truth.

I doubt if the dictionary can withstand the scrutiny of a critic.

but let me ask this question. what did the white man change in the bible that would give him an advantage over anyone who reads the bible for himself? the bible does not hindge on race as having anything to do with the purpose of God giving it.

the only thing that could come close would be God choosing Israel as the venue for Jesus to come into the world through. He only did that to give opportunity to satan and his minions to know where the power was and not be able to thwart it.

there was a time when I was jealous and envied israel, that is until I read the bible and saw their plight. no way. i am glad i am not of Israel.

Christianity like any group can be corrupted. Islam has been corrupted as we see now a day. where humans are involved there is always the possibility of corruption.

but please show me what advantage king james has given to white people by his translation of scripture. the answer is not one that can stand the test of the truth of rightly dividing the word of God. like most scriptures or suras they can be easily misconveyed or taken out of context.

meknow, lexicologists scrutinizing the dictionary for the sake of making improvements is NOT the same as BIBLICAL SCHOLARS admitting that the "King James Version" of the "Holy" Bible is "not so Holy" after all. The implications of the latter are far greater.

If these CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS are saying that the KJV has "grave defects" that are "so many and so serious" as to call for revision of the English translation, that is TELLING you that the KJV cannot be trusted as the pure Word of God!

Now, unless you are willing to challenge the Scholars, you have to wrestle with that.



But again, you're basing your whole view on a text that has "grave defects", which means it is corrupted...which means your view is as corrupted as the text you base it on, if you take it on face value.

This I will agree with. Because human beings are flawed, we have a tendency to corrupt clear principles, even when the intent is to "clarify" or "simplify"; but what we are dealing with here is not just human error. We are dealing with a deliberate attempt to hide the true meaning of the Bible from the masses of the people through the use of allegory, analogy and interpolation.

Do you think it is a COINCIDENCE that the King James Version was "authorized" AFTER the beginning of the Trans-Atlantic slave Trade?

What color is the "Jesus" portrait in most Christian homes?????

What color was "Jesus" in Truth?

Why did White people Change it?

Why did white people give black slaves a white Jesus to worship???

Avoiding the issue is not going to make it go away. The Truth is out there, Neo, and it will find you...if you want it to.

RM

Sorry but i read the scriptures with the hebrew and greek dictionaries.

my point was that anyone at any time can make critical analysis of any script.

don't know if you were here when i asked the question about translations. but i will give it to you. if you were a teacher, how would you teach Ethiopians what your language says without translation? most certainly there would be something lost in it, but by and large the gist would be made clear.

sorry but there is no reason for me to wrestle with any scholars who like you oppose the authenticity of the Word of God. no reason what so ever.

as i have already stated your semantical argument against those who occupy Israel now is of little concern to me RM. I know that nations mixed as they do now and there were black jews as well as whites.

my point is that the promise of Jehovah is yet upheld and true. do you believe that israel has been destroyed off the face of the earth? methinks not. the case is even still made as we see those who as you say claim to be Israelis in the midst of those sworn to destroy them and yet they remain basically unscaved.

for nearly 6000 years they have over come every challenge under the protection of Jehovah. Israel is certainly not without sin. even now they as the muslim deny the deity of Christ while acknowledging Him as a prophet/son.

i am glad we could agree on the one point sir, but the bible is the word of God and Truth will never be surpressed. those who intentionally try to add or take away from it will be found out and will not go unattended sir.

and as for the questions below:

Do you think it is a COINCIDENCE that the King James Version was "authorized" AFTER the beginning of the Trans-Atlantic slave Trade?

What color is the "Jesus" portrait in most Christian homes?????

What color was "Jesus" in Truth?

Why did White people Change it?

Why did white people give black slaves a white Jesus to worship???

Avoiding the issue is not going to make it go away. The Truth is out there, Neo, and it will find you...if you want it to.


I have addressed these before. i too will agree with you that certain scriptures were used to justify slavery. but this was not done to trick the slaves...he initially was kept from learning or even worshipping. it was only after the slave owners began to allow certain slaves to watch and listen from the balconies or back of churches that they began to believe that allowing us to be exposed to Christianity was harmless. [little did he know...]

it was quakers and Christian zealots who began the march to abolution not slaves. Read Nat Turner word of how his mistress taught him to read.

none of the above questions have anything to do with the bibles message. the color of Jesus does not matter one iota for the message to be true.

jesus probably was not black and certainly was not white. it is most certain that he hadcolor but to neither extreme. these questions are nothing but baseless racial mutter sir with no impact on the message of the bible.

[quote=One Zero Seven;1441277]

I am not so sure that the KJV came about after ther the start of the slave trade. I understand that Shakesphere was involved. The botomline is the KJV was a political move of British monarchs. This was necessary to allow the emergence of captalism. Capitalism is the basis of the American-style slavery.

I always think it is wrong to be overly concerned about skin color or race in Ancient times. Racism is a mdern thing that came about as a result of African slavery in America. The Bible does not use racial language. In Islam, we never protray any images as representing any of the prophets. So, skin color is always secondary to a Muslim.

The early depictions of Jesus and Mary (Peace and Blessings be upon them) is of people who are black. But, along with the KJV, we see that these images are rendered as white people. I think this is the beginning of white supremacy, American-style racism.

What is most important is the fact that all of The Holy Scriptures are connected to Africa. There have been atempts to confuse the issue by separating the Middle East from Africa. And, claiming that Arabs are Asians, not Africans etc. But, when we carefully study The Holy Scriptures we find confirmation for Pan-Africanism and African Continental Unity. This Unity is not and cannot be based on race or skin color. It can be based on a belief in the One True GOD and the historical connection of Islam and Christianity to Africa.

how did allah mistakenly allow white people to come into existance?

i thought that you say allah is all knowing as we do jehovah.

and the bible assisting with capatilism. come on guys.

capitalism has been around since the beginning in one form or another.

the truth, the truth whether it hurts or not the truth is the only thing that will enable us to over come.

[quote]?????????Allah makes no mistakes. Islam has no place for racism whether it ios black racism or white racism.


Correction: We are saying that those who brought us capitalism as we know it also tampered with The Bible. The basic message of Tjhe Bible is still intact. And, it goes against modern capitalism.

Do not confuse all economic activity with the blood thirsty, dog-eat-dog capitalism that led to the murder of hundreds of milliuon African slaves and the enslavement of many more. The capitalism that we speak of in this context is that capitalism that starts with African slavery and the slaughter of the Native American Indians.

[quote=abdurratln;1443419]Look I know nothing about Islam. I am asking questions.

I was sure that I read recently on here where someone mentioned that the white man was created by and evil entity and the black man by allah.

if this is so then why did Allah allow this? did i read that wrong?

Capitalism is certainly not for poor and very much for those who have.

After we take control will we be any different that the white man as far as economics?

where in the bible is African history fabricated and distorted?

Shemsi let's be realist and seekers of the truth for a moment.

neither you nor i were anywhere 4000 to 6000 years ago on this earth. neither of us have gotten any first hand information about this or that as it related to the issues that we may differ on historically.

but for sure either one of us o