New Revised Standard Version Bible has Dead Sea Scroll input ?!?!

[vorlon13]

(wiki page if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revise...rd_Version)

Did not know any Dead Sea Scroll material could have been utilized in a bible version so quickly, and LOL, NSRV was released in '89.  No secret I'm a big fan of the KJV 1611, but  I could see the NSRV becoming increasingly useful.

Weird, no? There seems to be quite a bit of support for this version except for some Orthodox christer schisms. Can't please everyone, obviously, and in the christer orbit it seems usual to not be able to please more than one sect at a time.


Of course back in '89 I was otherwise engaged and apparently missed the release announcement, so a sorry I missed this by 28 years.

I might go buy one for my collection.  Might look for one on Ebay, maybe I'll get lucky and find one all marked up by a neo-Southern Baptist ??


(one of my Ehrman books has some penciled remarks in the last 1/3, somehow Ehrman comes across as 'too' Jewish. I found the comments hysterical in view of my recently increased appreciation for Jesus's intense Jewishness over his presumed intense Christiness I was previously aware of)

[ignoramus]

Vorls, did you ever watch that show (maybe TV flick) about the knights templar finding the scroll written by Jesus!
I think it might have been Pierce Brosnan...

I was moved! I wanted to believe.
It brought a tear to my eye!

Then I changed channel!

[Drich]

(wiki page if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revise...rd_Version)

Did not know any Dead Sea Scroll material could have been utilized in a bible version so quickly, and LOL, NSRV was released in '89.  No secret I'm a big fan of the KJV 1611, but  I could see the NSRV becoming increasingly useful.

Weird, no? There seems to be quite a bit of support for this version except for some Orthodox christer schisms. Can't please everyone, obviously, and in the christer orbit it seems usual to not be able to please more than one sect at a time.


Of course back in '89 I was otherwise engaged and apparently missed the release announcement, so a sorry I missed this by 28 years.

I might go buy one for my collection.  Might look for one on Ebay, maybe I'll get lucky and find one all marked up by a neo-Southern Baptist ??


(one of my Ehrman books has some penciled remarks in the last 1/3, somehow Ehrman comes across as 'too' Jewish.  I found the comments hysterical in view of my recently increased appreciation for Jesus's intense Jewishness over his presumed intense Christiness I was previously aware of)

Why would this be considered strange?

I have made the point in several discussions that 'we' are not responsible for content so much as what has been given to us. Meaning if we are given a bible through our best efforts and our best transcriptions we understand God wants us to aBc, then we are responsible for aBc. So then it is up to God to change his word OR simply forgive us for worshiping in error.

I've made the point that the dead sea scrolls is a perfect example of God changing his word. a Great example is before the dead sea scrolls the 6th commandment was "thou shalt not Kill" after the dead sea scrolls most modern translations shifted to "you shall not Murder." because in out oldest and best transcripts prior to the dead sea scrolls the verbiage was not there to support a prohibition against murder, but all forms of taking human life. Now because the dead sea scrolls that contained the 6th commandment has been confirmed to be older and or perhapse better written/more complete, the command changes from kill (to kill any human) to Murder (to kill outside what the law allows.)

[brewer]

Change from objective to subjective. Great!

[Mister Agenda]

So under the new/old definition, abortion is not murder in countries where it is legal.

[Edwardo Piet]

Wait... if Dead Sea Scrolls are part of Christianity now does this mean that Jack Sparrow is Jesus?

[vorlon13]

(wiki page if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revise...rd_Version)

Did not know any Dead Sea Scroll material could have been utilized in a bible version so quickly, and LOL, NSRV was released in '89.  No secret I'm a big fan of the KJV 1611, but  I could see the NSRV becoming increasingly useful.

Weird, no? There seems to be quite a bit of support for this version except for some Orthodox christer schisms. Can't please everyone, obviously, and in the christer orbit it seems usual to not be able to please more than one sect at a time.


Of course back in '89 I was otherwise engaged and apparently missed the release announcement, so a sorry I missed this by 28 years.

I might go buy one for my collection.  Might look for one on Ebay, maybe I'll get lucky and find one all marked up by a neo-Southern Baptist ??


(one of my Ehrman books has some penciled remarks in the last 1/3, somehow Ehrman comes across as 'too' Jewish.  I found the comments hysterical in view of my recently increased appreciation for Jesus's intense Jewishness over his presumed intense Christiness I was previously aware of)

Why would this be considered strange?

I have made the point in several discussions that 'we' are not responsible for content so much as what has been given to us. Meaning if we are given a bible through our best efforts and our best transcriptions we understand God wants us to aBc, then we are responsible for aBc. So then it is up to God to change his word OR simply forgive us for worshiping in error.

I've made the point that the dead sea scrolls is a perfect example of God changing his word. a Great example is before the dead sea scrolls the 6th commandment was "thou shalt not Kill" after the dead sea scrolls most modern translations shifted to "you shall not Murder." because in out oldest and best transcripts prior to the dead sea scrolls the verbiage was not there to support a prohibition against murder, but all forms of taking human life. Now because the dead sea scrolls that contained the 6th commandment has been confirmed to be older and or perhapse better written/more complete, the command changes from kill (to kill any human) to Murder (to kill outside what the law allows.)

I was just surprised an edition of the bible could be pulled together that fast and yet still garner approval of so much Christendom that quickly too.  Figured just the Catholics alone might take 2-300 years to cough up an approval, and having an Orthodox branch not signing off, while not surprising in their  disapproval, I'm surprised that came so quickly too.  Figured they would have upwards of 2000 years of red tape to contemplate before knowing conclusively they do not approve of this version.

[vorlon13]

To expand, it's my recollection the Catholics took decades to decide if an LDS baptism is 'transferrable' for a Mormon wanting to become a Catholic (it isn't) and wow, approving an entire bible would just seem to me to be something the pope would have committees and panels and advisors working on for literally centuries to make sure somebody didn't mess up a 'jot or tittle' somewhere.

Why would anyone in the curia take a chance and sign off on something like that ?

[Drich]

Why would this be considered strange?

I have made the point in several discussions that 'we' are not responsible for content so much as what has been given to us. Meaning if we are given a bible through our best efforts and our best transcriptions we understand God wants us to aBc, then we are responsible for aBc. So then it is up to God to change his word OR simply forgive us for worshiping in error.

I've made the point that the dead sea scrolls is a perfect example of God changing his word. a Great example is before the dead sea scrolls the 6th commandment was "thou shalt not Kill" after the dead sea scrolls most modern translations shifted to "you shall not Murder." because in out oldest and best transcripts prior to the dead sea scrolls the verbiage was not there to support a prohibition against murder, but all forms of taking human life. Now because the dead sea scrolls that contained the 6th commandment has been confirmed to be older and or perhapse better written/more complete, the command changes from kill (to kill any human) to Murder (to kill outside what the law allows.)

I was just surprised an edition of the bible could be pulled together that fast and yet still garner approval of so much Christendom that quickly too.  Figured just the Catholics alone might take 2-300 years to cough up an approval, and having an Orthodox branch not signing off, while not surprising in their  disapproval, I'm surprised that came so quickly too.  Figured they would have upwards of 2000 years of red tape to contemplate before knowing conclusively they do not approve of this version.

I'm not saying Catholics aren't Christians, they simply do not have the same views on the bible as 'protestants' do. Their source material of/from God is the pope/living apostle. where what anything else anyone outside the catholic church believes can only come from the bible. So then the idea is to have the best most accurate translation possible. That is based on the age of the manuscripts and their ablity to vett content with other manuscripts. If older works support other older works that are known then a change is made.

---

That is the difference between worshiping tradition, and the endeavor to worship God.

[Harry Nevis]

(wiki page if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revise...rd_Version)

Did not know any Dead Sea Scroll material could have been utilized in a bible version so quickly, and LOL, NSRV was released in '89.  No secret I'm a big fan of the KJV 1611, but  I could see the NSRV becoming increasingly useful.

Weird, no? There seems to be quite a bit of support for this version except for some Orthodox christer schisms. Can't please everyone, obviously, and in the christer orbit it seems usual to not be able to please more than one sect at a time.


Of course back in '89 I was otherwise engaged and apparently missed the release announcement, so a sorry I missed this by 28 years.

I might go buy one for my collection.  Might look for one on Ebay, maybe I'll get lucky and find one all marked up by a neo-Southern Baptist ??


(one of my Ehrman books has some penciled remarks in the last 1/3, somehow Ehrman comes across as 'too' Jewish.  I found the comments hysterical in view of my recently increased appreciation for Jesus's intense Jewishness over his presumed intense Christiness I was previously aware of)

Why would this be considered strange?

I have made the point in several discussions that 'we' are not responsible for content so much as what has been given to us. Meaning if we are given a bible through our best efforts and our best transcriptions we understand God wants us to aBc, then we are responsible for aBc. So then it is up to God to change his word OR simply forgive us for worshiping in error.

I've made the point that the dead sea scrolls is a perfect example of God changing his word. a Great example is before the dead sea scrolls the 6th commandment was "thou shalt not Kill" after the dead sea scrolls most modern translations shifted to "you shall not Murder." because in out oldest and best transcripts prior to the dead sea scrolls the verbiage was not there to support a prohibition against murder, but all forms of taking human life. Now because the dead sea scrolls that contained the 6th commandment has been confirmed to be older and or perhapse better written/more complete, the command changes from kill (to kill any human) to Murder (to kill outside what the law allows.)

So you can really know what is God's word until somebody writes it down.  And it could change at any time.  Great.  So much for all those Personal Relationships with Jesus".

---

I was just surprised an edition of the bible could be pulled together that fast and yet still garner approval of so much Christendom that quickly too.  Figured just the Catholics alone might take 2-300 years to cough up an approval, and having an Orthodox branch not signing off, while not surprising in their  disapproval, I'm surprised that came so quickly too.  Figured they would have upwards of 2000 years of red tape to contemplate before knowing conclusively they do not approve of this version.

I'm not saying Catholics aren't Christians, they simply do not have the same views on the bible as 'protestants' do. Their source material of/from God is the pope/living apostle. where what anything else anyone outside the catholic church believes can only come from the bible. So then the idea is to have the best most accurate translation possible. That is based on the age of the manuscripts and their ablity to vett content with other manuscripts. If older works support other older works that are known then a change is made.

---

That is the difference between worshiping tradition, and the endeavor to worship God.

But no difference between worshiping god and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.