Rating: 
Summary: Classic
Review: "Literal and literary."The best. Evangelicals will be interested to know that the NIV is 65% word-for-word the same, and the ESV is a direct updating of this.
Rating:
Summary: Ignatius Holy Bible
Review: A very good translation of the bible that does not use inclusive language. If you buy one inspect it carefully, Ignatius has had production problems with quatity control.
Rating: 
Summary: What can you say about a book of this magnitude?
Review: An excellent idea for anyone that wishes to absorb the material and make their own decision. That, after all, is what the Word of God is all about: Free Will.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: As a mother with 4 young children, I found this Bible easy to read and understand. It is a brilliant translation and has the Church's approval. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Fine Translation - Awful Presentation
Review: As an American Catholic in the 21st Century, I've learned, the hard-way, that if the Church lacks anything, it's readable and reliable translations of the Holy Scriptures.
The RSV-CE is, for the most part, a fine translation of the Bible (with few, but notable, exceptions, such as Isaiah 7:14), which is a good thing 'cause we're running out of options!
But, like other reviewers, I'm saddened by the appearance of the translation on the page. Ultra-fine print, no breaks, not adequate footnotes for alternative reading, poor binding, no room for notes (if you underline a text, you cross out the line below it!), an odd cover. I could go on and on.
It would be nice to have an edition of this bible in a much more worthy format.
Rating:
Summary: The RSV, IMHO
Review: As far as I know, the RSV is a very good and accurate translation. It is especially good for those who are serious about Bible study-and we all should be-and not merely short personal, devotional reflections. Its accuracy in translation may lead some phrases to sound stiff, un-English as it were. But that's what you want in a good tranlation. Not a paraphrasing into a modern equivalent in English, which is the problem with the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem translation. I have to admit that I do not know if the Ignatius edition have added to or changed the footnotes because the edition of the RSV I have did not have much footnotes. But my copy is wilting, so I am looking for a new RSV! And if Ignatius Press is putting out a copy, I'm very interested. That's how good I think the translation is. I also know that Scott Hahn recommends the RSV translation. And I have seen a copy in the hands of Fr. Tom Forrest CSsR, head of Evanglization 2000. I must add something else: I appeal to all who are reviewing this book not to add their anti-religious baggage. Please, will only believers who have ACTUALLY READ the RSV Bible review this book. I would appreciate if there is proper screening of the reviews. Someone who is hostile to Christianity asking 'Why do people follow a book like lemmings' and not dealing with things like accuracy in translation and helpful footnotes is not giving a proper review by ANY standards.
Rating:
Summary: Just check Psalm 1
Review: Blessed is the man ... This is all you need to know you are looking at an untainted translation. The RSV takes advantage of the best scholarship available, and the Catholic edition puts it in conformity with Catholic canon (chapters in Daniel, books of the 'Apochrypha'). Just wish there was a leather-bound version and a pocket-size version.
Rating: 
Summary: I Do Not Recommend the RSV
Review: Dear Christian, this is some information you should consider before purchasing the RSV-CE. A Critique of the Revised Standard Version (1953) by the Faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary: "The inescapable conclusion, then, is that in this version a group of liberal Committeemen has produced a translation which frequently and at most vital points undermines conservative Christian truth. The use of this version therefore should be limited to comparative and critical private study by discerning students only, and it should be referred to with the same reservation and precaution that one uses in consulting other liberal versions and religious works." ...... I recommend the English Standard Version (ESV) instead of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) if you are looking for a bible that you are planning to get a lot of use out of. It is a conservative revision of the liberal RSV, keeping the RSV's strengths while successfully extirpating its undertranslations and bringing the RSV in a more literal and less dynamic direction.
Rating:
Summary: I Do Not Recommend the RSV
Review: Dear Christian, this is some information you should consider before purchasing the RSV-CE. In the very influential _A Critique of the Revised Standard Version_ (1953) by the Faculty of the Dallas Theological Seminary, they summarized their review by saying:
"The inescapable conclusion, then, is that in this version a group of liberal Committeemen has produced a translation which frequently and at most vital points undermines conservative Christian truth. The use of this version therefore should be limited to comparative and critical private study by discerning students only, and it should be referred to with the same reservation and precaution that one uses in consulting other liberal versions and religious works." The committee making this translation was composed of men who in their published writings deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, refuse to concede the full divinity of Jesus Christ, question the true messianic character of OT prophecies used by NT writers, contradict or deny the doctrine of the Trinity, accept the critical skeptical views of academic Higher Criticism (e.g. denying the Mosaic authorship of the first five books, denying that a single author wrote Isaiah, the historicity of Job and Jonah, or in the NT denying the four gospels accurately portray Jesus Christ, that Paul wrote all the epistles attributed to him, etc.). This did affect their final translation, as witnessed by the long list of "problem" passages that the RSV has that you can find elsewhere on the Internet, and that the ESV translators had to undo before the good features of this translation (its elegance, beauty and literary force) shone through without the mass of anti-Christian translations bogging things down. I recommend the English Standard Version (ESV) instead of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) if you are looking for a bible that you are planning to get a lot of use out of. It is a conservative revision of the liberal RSV, keeping the RSV's strengths while successfully extirpating its undertranslations and bringing the RSV in a more literal and less dynamic direction. The ESV lacks the Apocrypha but the RSV Apocrypha is available elsewhere online for free.
Rating:
Summary: Hard to read
Review: Even though the Bible was organized and structured, I found the Bible hard to read.
| 
