NRSV Pew Bible (Hardcover, Black) Hardcover – May 1, 2004

I’m a theology major who bought this to study and analyze passages. The King James editions tend to be rather biased in translation and meaning. This one is an excellent attempt to analyze and translate the original text into what it was intended to say originally. An absolute must have for any theology majors or those looking to study the original meaning of the Bible.

Love it. Much easier to read than my old Bible.

As described. Arrived 2 days after promised delivery.

Very accurately translated, easy to read and fairly conservative in style -- all makes a good Bible!But what annoys me about this Bible is that it can sound rather bland sometimes and is not vibrant enough, and the inclusive language can be very annoying at times!I understand these days we have a conscience when we speak, make sure we includee both man + woman (eg -- storeperson instead of storeman), but in Jesus' era it wasn't an issue! A clear and simple Bible philosophy is to translate; they way they would have said it! If Paul said "men of Athens" he meant this! And this is what he said at that time!Apart from these things, it's not too bad. I like it a lot more than I use to, and think it's a good teaching aid. If you are an Anglican, Uniting Church or a church that is doctrinally similar, you'd have no problems reading this version.Doesn't have the divine name like the New Jerusalem Bible or the New World (which uses the more correct Hebraic "Jehovah") but most Bibles use LORD which is typical of a mainstream Bible.This Bible has become respected with many churches, including the Catholic version (which has minor changes) and which of course includes the Apocropha.My original review said about getting the English Standard Version for non-inclusive language, but lately I have changed my mind and now I don't recommend it all! See that review for more information!

I was very happy to receive this In the mail . But right when I opened it . It was written on so Disappointed . I want to return it for a new one but I’m not going to pay to return something I already paid for .

It was okay for the price, but I expected more maps and such. It has only one or two maps, and that was a selling point for me. These were for presentation to 6th graders, and I will probably look for a different Bible next time. I also prefer a less-rigid cover and binding. They arrived quickly, though, and I appreciated that.

Very quickly, the Anglican Church published the well written "King James" version in 1611. By the mid 1800s, the Anglicans felt there were enough defects in it to call for a revision. At the risk of over simplifying a bit, the 'English Revised' version came out in the late 1800s, and by 1901, the Americans published the 'American Standard.' There were some notable variations between the 2. Well, not much later, the changes in the 'American Standard' were rebuked, and the Americans decided to revert back to the English roots. This is when the excellent "Revised Standard" (a grandson of the "King James") came to be. By the mid 1900s, girls and women verbalized their requests for a Bible that was more gender inclusive. This is when the "King James's" great grandchild (so to speak), the "New Revised Standard" came to be. This great grandchild of the "King James" Bible is commonly used and accepted in Anglican as well as Roman Catholic Churches. While I have some respect for this version, I can not honestly place it on the same level as the "King James" or the original "Revised Standard." (Or for that matter the 1901 "American Standard.") While I understand why girls and women wanted a more gender inclusive translation, there are times when it is awkward and notably out of place. One example is in the Gospel According to Matthew when Herod kills the new born children in fear of a 'new king.' In the more reliable "Revised Standard" it is only the male children Herod kills. (The "New Revised Standard" changes it so he kills the children both male and female.) If Herod is afraid of a new 'king,' why does he kill the young girls as well? It is little wonder that the overly gender inclusive language of the NRSV triggered 2 reactions against it. (The MODERATELY gender inclusive "English Standard Version" and "Holman Christian Standard".) There is also a trend going BACK to the ORIGINAL "Revised Standard," as well as other older Bibles. (The "New American Standard" and the "New King James.") Back to the subject at hand, in the NRSV, there are some poor choices are made in other areas. In the Gospel According to Mark, John the Baptist says: "The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me..." (New Revised Standard - Mark 1:7). This gives a wrong image of Jesus. The "Good News" actually words it in a more appropriate way: "The man who will come after me is much greater than I am..." (Good News - Mark 1:7). Another poor choice is in the Gospel According to Luke, where the rich man forgives 2 people who can not pay him back. (One person owed him 500 coins; the other owed him 50 coins.) When Jesus asks Simon who will love his master more, Simon gives a crucial answer that helps explain the essence of Chirst. The "King James" and the original "Revised Standard" keep this in tact: "I suppose that he to whom he forgave most" (King James Version -Luke 7:43). The original "Revised Standard" words it: "The one I suppose to whom he forgave more" (Revised Standard - Luke 7:43). The "New Revised Standard" makes a poor change here: "I suppose the one for whom he cancelled the greater debt" (New Revised Standard -Luke 7:43). While in some ways, the "New Revised Standard" is a respectable Bible, I can not call it the most theologically sound. (That award is shared between the "Jerusalem" and the original "Revised Standard.") Nor can I call the "New Revised Standard" the best for beginners. (That award goes to the "Good News.") But all of that said, it is appropriate to use a gender inclusive version in church. And along with the "King James" version, the "Living Version," the "New King James," and the "New American," version, the "New Revised Standard" is still better than the poorly written "New International Version."