Oxford Annotated Bible - RSV vs NRSV edition?

>>9272432

I'm reading the oxford annotated right now and enjoying it, historical context via annotations adds enough to compensate for any stylistic niggling

>>9272673
Are you reading the RSV or NRSV edition?

>>9272432
RSV is from 1977, NRSV 4th ed. is from 2010.

Of course you can get the NRSV NOAB and a copy of the RSV with Apocrypha (with just the text of the Bible), or read the latter online for free on BibleGateway.

>>9272735
>BibleGateway
I remember there's an online bible with language commentary, historical references, etc. But it escapes my mind .

>>9272765
Biblehub has several tools, including commentaries, Hebrew and Greek with Strong's dictionary, etc.

It has many translations but not the RSV nor the NRSV, I assume it's because of an Evangelical bent.

The NRSV has gender inclusive language inserted into the text that would otherwise be masculine. Like instead of "man" they would use "person." To me that's enough to not trust it because man and person in this context literally mean the same thing but was changed anyway purely for political purposes.

>>9272864

Here's a good page with a lot of examples that show why this sort of political activism is a problem for bible study.

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5Bible/TransWhatsWrongGenderNeutralBible_Grudem.aspx

>>9272717

The RSV

>>9272872
SJWs are the false prophets. The End is near.

I thought these nu-translations were heretical because they are based on the Westcott-Hort translation?