The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version

Product Information

English Bible translations fall somewhere along a continuum between a woodenly literal rendition and a free, or liberal, style. An example of the former is the venerable King James Version with its flowery 17th-c. language, and the modern-sounding "The Message," as rendered by its translator, Eugene Peterson. The present work is an attempt to update the RSV. On the above-referenced continuum it falls between the KJV and the New International Version (NIV), the latter an attempt to strike a judicious balance between word-for-word literalism and a paraphrase. And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying, At least in translation, most of the poetry is not compelling and most of the stories are boring. The morals are terrible; virtually everyone in the Bible is a terrible person, even the protagonists. The amount of violence is horrific, and is often treated by the narrative as a good thing, when when it happens to the ’right people’. From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies. I wanted to preface this by saying I'm going to be reading the Bible and Qur'an parallel to each other for academic and philosophical reasons. I've been interested in Abrahamic religions and want to start somewhere. In no way am I doing this for religious reasons, but purely because I want to understand theism. I was raised in a pseudo-Christian setting where on the surface level, everyone pretended to be Christian but really were undecided and ultimately didn't think.

Oxford Annotated Bible-RSV (Revised Standard Version New Oxford Annotated Bible-RSV (Revised Standard Version

The first edition of the OAB, edited by Rev. Dr. Herbert G. May and Dr. Bruce M. Metzger was published in 1962, based on the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible. [1] [2] [3] In 1965, OUP published a matching edition of the deuterocanonical and apocryphal books as well as a version of the OAB including them. [2] The deuterocanonical books are used by the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek and Slavonic Orthodox Churches, as well as churches of the Anglican Communion (including the Episcopal Church). In the same year, the OAB received the official imprimatur of Cardinal Richard Cushing for use by Roman Catholics as a study Bible. [4] [3] [5] Later, the NOAB was also warmly welcomed by Orthodox leaders. [6] Study Bible published by the Oxford University Press The 2001 edition of The New Oxford Annotated Bible, with the NRSV textI heard someone say in my youth that even if the Bible is not the divine word of God, it is still the best guide going to living your life. While it may be difficult to see this is the Old Testament, it does serve to establish a context for the "new" message of the New Testament. Now for simple reading pleasure, instead of The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, I do in fact still very much prefer the King James Bible, which we actually read at school for grade seven English (the Old Testament) and for grade eight English (the New Testament) and thus in the early 1980s. But I also and really do have to wonder if in today's world, reading the King James Bible in a secular type of school setting would even be deemed as acceptable and as appropriate (although indeed, our perusal in English class was always completely and totally based on seeing and approaching the King James Bible as a work of literature, as a work of fiction, and not ever as religious dogma). The new testament is just a fraud; it was written by Greeks pretending to be Hebrew-speaking Israelites, trying to convert the Jews to their new religion. Some of the philosophy seems to be inspired by Plato, to the point some lines are copied word for word. I’m not going to rate this book. Despite the fact that the Bible itself is not great, I’m sure the translators worked really hard and did a good job, so I don’t want to leave a bad rating. Leaving a good rating doesn’t feel right either because it’s an awful book.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, New Revised

Like the ESV (a longtime favorite of mine), the NRSV is a descendant of the RSV, belonging on the formal equivalence end of the translation spectrum. However, the NRSV uses gender neutral language more often than does the ESV, and it is less tied to previous traditions of translation. For example, whereas the ESV keeps the classic rendering of Psalm 23 - "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil. … I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever" - the NRSV rendering of Psalm 23:4 is: "Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I fear no evil. ... I shall dwell in the house of the Lord my whole life long." Similarly for Genesis 1, the ESV has, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters," whereas the NRSV has, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters." While in many cases I remain fond of the more traditional translations, the NRSV attempts to be more exact and faithful to the original text, and that makes it helpful for personal study (though not necessarily for liturgical use). The first edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) was published in 1973, employing the RSV text. [2] [3] After the release of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible in 1989, OUP published a second edition of the NOAB based on that translation. The NRSV was also the basis of the third edition (2001), edited by Dr. Michael Coogan, which is considered to be much more ecumenical in approach. For example, it calls the Old Testament the "Hebrew Bible" out of consideration to Jewish readers. [7]

Navigation menu

I'm agnostic and way more spiritual - in fact I'm more in tune with the spiritual ancestry of my Maori forefathers and believe in the interconnectedness of humanity. I'm incredibly tired of being shunned from discourse of theism due to Christian family saying I know nothing of the Bible and Qur-an - and thus cannot defend Islamic individuals or criticise Christian ones in their eyes The sections on "injustice," "family values," "cruelty and violence," and "women" fail to account for an important concept—the Bible was written to reform our souls, not our societies. While the teachings of the Bible were revolutionary in the protection they gave to slaves, women, etc., some of the commands and statements seem brutal and unjust to our modern minds. God "breathed out" the Bible in an ancient culture. God approached the sins of man from the "inside out." If a man comes into a relationship with God, God will reform his heart, teach him to love, to respect, to forgive. Yes, some of the laws in the Bible seem brutal and primitive, but if a person had a genuine relationship with God, the laws would not even be necessary. I admit that I skimmed some parts, and by the middle the only thing that kept me going through to the end was bragging rights; being able to say that I have in fact read the whole thing.