© Glendon Mellow, The Flying Trilobite


After good input from several fronts, I’m abandoning the idea of working with King James. I do love the poetry of it, and it is the version the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible uses, but let’s use the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which is searchably available here.

I’d also hoped to use Bible Gateway, which is unbeatable when it comes to comparison of versions, but they don’t include the NRSV, for copyright reasons.

If you can’t get the NRSV, just grab something and come on in!



This was written on Wednesday, 28. November 2007 at 17:10 and was filed under bible study series. You can keep up with the comments to this article by using the RSS-Feed.

You can leave a Comment, or Trackback.

«  –  »

Comments »

  1. Having studied as a linguist, the first thing I look at in a book such as the Bible (any book that has been translated from its original language or languages) is how the translation was carried out.

    I have not done much serious Bible-reading before. I did study Matthew (or was it Mark?) not long ago as part of an introduction to Christianity (my purpose was education, not conversion). We used NIV. It looks like NRSV is similar in outlook – a serious, adequately objective translation undertaken. The people involved seem seriously interested in trying to keep their own denominational prejudices in check.

    As a result, you get some very interesting and unexpected footnotes. Watch for asterisks if you read through the online version linked above, and enjoy some of the new meanings that alternate (equally valid) English renderings of the original Hebrew reveal.

    I remember one passage from the NIV New Testament gospel we studied where Jesus is referred to as either “the son of God” or “a son of God”, depending on how you read the original. This is a significant difference – I have no doubt that churches have schismed on more subtle distinctions than that. And they are both perfectly legitimate alternative translations of the original (Greek?) text.

    Makes you think.

    At any rate, as a secular linguist, I approve of NRSV as a linguistically sound rendition of the Bible. Better than King James (much as I approve of the Scottish roots). But then NRSV is technically just a revision of a revision of a revision of King James anyway.

    You’re right, Dale. Far too much of this knowledge filling up otherwise productive space in my memory.

    Comment: TimMills – 05. December 2007 @ 11:19 am

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.