Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 2:
Line 2: − +
Revised Standard Version (view source)
Revision as of 04:41, September 4, 2017
, 04:41, September 4, 2017linked phrase "higher critical" (bias) to article Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)
The [[New Testament]] of this version was widely admired at the time of its publication, however the 1952 publication of the [[Old Testament]] received such criticism as to prevent the RSVs use as a popular Bible in the [[United States]]. R. Laird Harris wrote:
The [[New Testament]] of this version was widely admired at the time of its publication, however the 1952 publication of the [[Old Testament]] received such criticism as to prevent the RSVs use as a popular Bible in the [[United States]]. R. Laird Harris wrote:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
It is a curious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, a monument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every important Old Testament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of [[Christ]] has been altered so as to remove this possibility ... It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the admittedly higher critical bias of the translators has operated in all of these places. The translations given are by no means necessary from the [[Hebrew]] and in some cases ... are in clear violation of the Hebrew." (Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), p. 58.)
It is a curious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, a monument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every important Old Testament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of [[Christ]] has been altered so as to remove this possibility ... It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the admittedly [[Historical-critical method (Higher criticism)|higher critical]] bias of the translators has operated in all of these places. The translations given are by no means necessary from the [[Hebrew]] and in some cases ... are in clear violation of the Hebrew." (Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), p. 58.)
</blockquote>
</blockquote>