The Town Hall Archives

Eugene Kendall™ · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2003 4:17 am Post subject:

what is rsv

Jared · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:29 am Post subject:

The RSV is the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. In the 1880s, the Church of England authorized the translation of a new version to revise the King James. The translaters created two versions, the English Standard Version and the American Standard version, the second made specifically to appeal to Americans by making it better fit the American culture.

(To me, that seems very problematic... That sounds very much like tampering with the Bible.)

The American Standard Version was published in 1901. Shortly afterward, it started to be the subject of controversy over this tampering. The copyright was sold a few times and eventually ended up with the National Council of Churches, who gave the go-ahead to rework the translation. The new version was available in 1951 and published under the name of the Revised Standard Version.

So, there's your history lesson for the day... ;)

The sad thing is that this translation is under the control of the repulsive National Council of Churches, which over the last few decades has become a haven for everything wrong with churches today.

These people are the ones who do pro-sodomy rallies and hold conferences where they "educate" the leaders of various liberal denominations on how homosexuality is a personal matter and shouldn't interfere with one's ability to be a pastor. These are the people that have a working relationship with the militant Sierra Club environmentalist wackos. Whose former board chairman wrote a book about how God is a woman - and got praised for it within the organization. Who teamed up with the National Workers Party of America [yep, quite literally the communists] to organize anti-war rallies. These are the people who openly side with the Palestinians against God's chosen people Israel.

They are sadly quite capable of mangling a Bible.

I have problems with the American Standard Version and with the National Council of Churches' first try at a translation, the Revised Standard Version. But their newest attempt, the New Revised Standard Version, doesn't deserve the title of Bible. It doesn't deserve being called Christian. It's a propaganda book for their liberal agenda.

It's sad that people who run a supposedly Christian organization have stooped to these lows.

Eugene Kendall™ · Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:40 am Post subject:

that really is pitiful who would tamper with the bible

Hisgirl84 · Junior Member Joined: 16 May 2003 Posts: 199 Location: US

I use KJV...I like reading the Old English style and since it's what I've grown up with, I understand it just fine. As to whether it's the *only* right version, I doubt it...it's just my favorite.

Susie · Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2003 1:05 pm Post subject:

I use NLT most of the time. Actually, my Bible is a parallel KJV/NLT. I like the NLT because it's written in English, the English we use, and it is much easier, at least for me, to relate it, and apply it to my life today. I don't think it's the only translation out there that is good, but I do think it's important to have a Bible, especially for new believers, that they can easily understand.

*daniel · Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:00 pm Post subject:

I use NKJV most of the time. I'm quite confident that the NKJV will continue to surplant the KJV in many circles, especially as the English language continues to drift ever faster away from King James English.

I also find the language much more understandable and easy to follow, and I don't like using Thee and Thou in Bible reading or prayer, mostly because I don't like to pray any other way than I would speak, but also because of the connotations attached to that (fundimentalism, etc etc).

As for using this debate being silly I think it is to a point. For the common man, using the NKJV/NIV won't make any difference at all in their salvation and doctrinal position, so at the lay level it's sort of a moot point. However, when you come to the people translating the actual Bible, it becomes much more of a relevant issue. The accuracy of their translation is extremely important at that point in the chain.

Anyways.

Xhan

DrWhit73 · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:03 pm Post subject:

Is there something wrong with fundamentalism?

Jared · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:42 pm Post subject:

Not that I can think of!

Of course, the term "fundamentalism" has been misused and maligned so many times. The Taliban were "religious fundamentalists" assumedly akin to the Southern Baptists or something. The ruling Shi'ite in Iraq? Right wing fundamentalists who must be a lot like the Mennonites...

Molly Ivins uses the term "Taliban Republicans"; Maureen Dowd prefers "Shi'ite Republicans." And on the religious level, the same thing happens. Those Bible thumpin', shoutin', spittin' fundamentalists (to fully accept the stereotype, which is interestingly somehow acceptable while other stereotypes are scorned) are no better than the people who fly planes into buildings. Why, they'd get in on the terrorism thing too ... if only they weren't dumb southern guys. Or so some say.

But really, fundamentalism is exactly right. The term in itself, stripped of all the negative connotations added by those who despise it, simply refers to the fundamentals of faith. The modern fundamentalist "movement" traces its key moment back to the 1950s, when a group of prominent preachers from numerous denominations could no longer abide by the doctrinal liberalism seeping into their churches and decided on a return to the "fundamentals" of faith. Of course, this realization had come to many long before and some early traces of the movement can be seen as far back as the 1900, when two brothers wrote series of papers and pamphlets explaining the need for a return to the basics. Twelve in all, they titled the pamphlets "The Fundamentals" and sent out an astounding three million copies. Although it created quite a stir, the movement didn't really get a strong start until, as mentioned above, the 1950s, when the papers were adopted as the foundation of the much-needed return to the Bible.

Fundamentalists didn't agree on much, actually. Some of those behind the movement identified with the teachings of Arminius on issues relating to a Christian's path to salvation; others were Calvinists. And that was hardly the only matter of disagreement. Fundamentalists weren't, as some might imagine, some Baptist offshoot filled with those who wanted to end every sermon as hoarse as possible; it was a wide variety of individuals from an equally impressive array of belief systems deciding to get back to those beliefs. They agreed to disagree.

Yes, one believed in "irresistible grace" and another did not. What they did agree on is that each church should take a stand on its beliefs, should toss out tradition in favor of sound biblical teaching and should act in accordance to the commands of God.

If someone calls me a fundamentalist, I take it as a compliment -- even though they probably didn't mean it as one. The title means that I believe what the Bible says. Sure, there are interpretation differences. Being a fundamentalist doesn't mean you understand every doctrine perfectly. It means, though, that you base what you believe on what you read in the Scriptures. Not in Roberts' book (for several Baptist denominations, including General and American); not in the Westminster Confession (Presbyterian). Not in Matthew Henry, nor in Barnes' Notes or in Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, although all are good sources (though I've never particularly liked Henry's commentary, despite its detail). The fundamentalist believes that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

And even though that's how the phrase goes, the fundamentalist also believes it on every other matter. No, the Bible is not a scientific text. But if it makes a scientific observation, it's correct. (Spare me the "but the Bible says the sun goes down and it doesn't!" comments... that is quite clearly a figure of speech and one still used today, unless you look out at the sunrise every morning and note "the earth rotation causing the sun to appear.")

Would that we were all fundamentalists. Because why would you ever want to half accept what the Bible says? And why should one ever be ashamed of being labeled a fundamentalist? You've just been referred to as one who believes the inspired Word of God. Is that really a label you want to shirk?

Yeah, somewhere along you might be called a Wahibbist Christian. But chances are that if you asked the person using the term to explain what a Wahibbist is, they'd have no idea. Just a neat little phrase they picked up in the pages of the New York Times Editorial Section.

I'm glad to be a fundamentalist. And for the record, my pastor doesn't bang a thirty-five pound leather covered Bible on the pulpit as he spits out fire and brimstone preaching.

But then again, when has a little fiery preaching ever hurt anyone? The Bible actually commends it: "And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." (Jude 1:22,23)

Fire can be a good thing, after all. It is not the job of the church to make everyone feel good. It is their job to make sure that people are tried in the fire and come out purified. Refined, as silver is refined. Molded as clay. All that can't be done with soothing words.

Sometimes you need to stir people up. Sometimes you need to bother them. People don't get saved out of complacency.

So let's get back to the fundamentals: getting people saved, delving into the Word and actually believing and practicing what it says.

And let's be proud to be called fundamentalists.

DrWhit73 · Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:51 pm Post subject:

100% agreed! I am very glad to be a Fundamentalist!

Respectahobbit · Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 3:52 am Post subject:

I use KJV, but sometimes when I don't clearly understand, I read NKJV. Most of the time, I use KJV. Very Happy