| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | Between 5 to 7 billion Bibles have been published. ]] | | Between 5 to 7 billion Bibles have been published. ]] |
| | The '''Revised Standard Version''' (RSV) of the [[Bible]] was first published in 1946 and was intended to be a revision of the [[American Standard Version]]. | | The '''Revised Standard Version''' (RSV) of the [[Bible]] was first published in 1946 and was intended to be a revision of the [[American Standard Version]]. |
| − | 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, but the 1952 publication of the [[Old Testament]] received such criticism as to prevent the RSV's 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 [[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.) | | 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.) |
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
| | | | |
| | The Oxford College Edition of the Revised Standard Version is the epitome of [[liberal denial]] in its introduction to each book of the [[New Testament]]. Apparently there was not a vigilant [[conservative]] editor to object to how the commentary denies an early date to each book and instead estimates as late a date of composition as can be plausibly imagined, while typically also denying that the named author really composed it. | | The Oxford College Edition of the Revised Standard Version is the epitome of [[liberal denial]] in its introduction to each book of the [[New Testament]]. Apparently there was not a vigilant [[conservative]] editor to object to how the commentary denies an early date to each book and instead estimates as late a date of composition as can be plausibly imagined, while typically also denying that the named author really composed it. |
| | + | |
| | + | The Oxford College Edition misleads, with [[liberal bias]], in its introductory notes to the [[New Testament]] by saying that all of its books were written in [[Koine Greek]], when in fact the flawless masterpiece [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] was written in highly elegant classical Greek (the editors of this edition do acknowledge that this Epistle is "highly literary as regards sentence structure and vocabulary"). |
| | | | |
| | The Oxford College Edition dogmatically asserts, as [[liberal]]s like to do, that "Jesus himself left no literary remains" (p.1167), when in fact no author other than Jesus for the flawless masterpiece, the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], can plausibly be identified. ''See'' [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]] | | The Oxford College Edition dogmatically asserts, as [[liberal]]s like to do, that "Jesus himself left no literary remains" (p.1167), when in fact no author other than Jesus for the flawless masterpiece, the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], can plausibly be identified. ''See'' [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]] |