Quote:
Originally posted by Taualumna
but "replenish" is not in the New Revised Standard Version. The NRSV says:
"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea..."
So which one is right? The NRSV was the Bible I used for my religion classes in middle school, and the version we used in our daily Chapel services.
|
Wll, I'm not going to tell you which bible to use or which one is right. Earlier I made the comment that many people believe that there is one "right" translation of the bible. There are some who believe that the New American Standards is the best because it most closely follows the "originals", most Southern Baptist Churches use the NIV, most Catholics use another version that contain the apocrypha, believing that these books are also part of the inspired scriptures, yet not part of other versions, some believe that the King James Version is the best English translation. You are right, the NRSV does not have the word replenish. Your beliefs and such would probably stem from which version you use.
Many words/verses have different meanings across translations. As a result I can see how many argue that there are discrepencies and/or contradictions in the Bible, although I truly believe there are none.
For example:
John 3:16 is one of the most well known verses in the world.
In the KJV is reads: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosover believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
If you look at the NIV, only begotten is replaced with one and only.
There is a HUGE difference between the meaning of only begotten son and one and only son. Example: A man and woman adopt a child thinking that they will never have a child of their own, and later the woman becomes pregnant. That second child is their 'only begotten child' but not their one and only child.
This may not seem like a huge deal, but there are many who look for discrepencies in the scriptures to claim that it is not the true word of God. When comparing John 3:16 in a version that reads "one and only son" to verses such as John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1-2, that use the term sons of God, it seems to be a contradiction. Some would ask, how can God have many "sons" if he has one and only son?
And case in point with our discussion here, replenish the earth and fill the eart have two different meanings, very similar, but different.
Anyway, that is just one of the many arguments I've heard about the question over different translations.