When the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible was issued, the publishers called special attention to the changed meaning of many English words since the King James Version was first published. This is true, and the use of modern English in the new version helps to clarify some texts. For example, the King James Version translates Psalm 119:147: “I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy Word.” The Revised Standard Version of this text reads: “I rise before dawn and cry for help; I hope in thy words.” The NASB reads: “I rise before dawn and cry for help; I wait for Thy words.” Obviously, these readings are more correct, for David could not very well “prevent” the “dawning of the morning” from happening. In older English the word “prevent” meant “to precede,” so it was a correct translation when first used, but not now.

Another English word which has greatly changed in meaning is “hell”. Originally it meant “to cover”, or “conceal”. In Scotland burying potatoes in the ground for the winter was referred to as “helling” the potatoes. Putting a thatched roof on a cottage was “helling” the cottage. Now, through misuse, hell usually suggests fire and torment. In the RSV translation, this word was not used to translate sheol of the Old Testament and hades of the New Testament. Instead, these words are usually left untranslated, as did the earlier RV and ASV. This is a step in the right direction, but the student of the Bible would have been much better informed on the state of the dead had sheol and hades in every instance been properly and uniformly translated.

In Matthew 16:18, the King James Version translates hades by the English word hell, in the expression “the gates of hell.” Here the RSV translates hades by the word “death.” This is better than the word “hell”, with its modern meaning, but it still leaves the student to determine what “death” might be. The NASB leaves hades untranslated. Probably the best translation of sheol and hades would have been “oblivion.” This, indeed, is the Bible’s own definition of sheol, as given in Ecclesiastes 9:10.

In some texts which deal with God’s great plan of redemption and restoration, the Revised Standard Version is not as accurate as the King James Version. Acts 3:21 is an example. Here the King James Version uses the word “restitution”, which is an equivalent of the Greek word which it translates. The text is part of the Apostle Peter’s sermon in which he explains that following the second coming of Christ there would be “times of restitution of all things.”

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) uses the word “establishing” instead of “restitution”, omit- ting the prefix “re”, which is definitely contained in the Greek text (apokatastasis). By this omission the reader is not made to realize that what is to be established as a result of Christ’s return had previously existed, particularly life and man’s lost dominion over the earth. (Matt. 25:34) The NASB does well in calling it “the period of restoration.” The ESV also does well, “until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke.” The NIV rendering, “until the time comes for God to restore everything” still preserves the thought, but it is a paraphrase. The TEV misses the nuance in another paraphrase, “until the time comes for all things to be made new.”

A text which more seriously tests the integrity of the translators is Rev. 22:12, which in the KJV says, “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” In the majority of later manuscripts this last verb is in the future tense—evidently future at the time of writing—which the KJV so translates. The RV, ASV, and Rotherham follow the better and older manuscripts in saying, “…according as his work is,” where “is” is to be understood contemporary to the time spoken of. But many translations corrupt the verb to a past tense, “…according to what he has done,” as does the NIV, and similarly the ESV, RSV, NASB (though corrected by footnote in some editions), and TEV. NKJV dodges the issue by omitting the verb, “…according to his work,” as do NEB and Phillips.

Another challenging text is John 1:18, where the ancient manuscripts read, “No man hath seen God at any time; an only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” Rotherham reads, “an Only Begotten God;” and NASB reads, “the only begotten God” (with a footnote that “Some later mss. read Son”). But a majority of translations create twisted or incomprehensible paraphrases, such as “God only begotten” (RVmg and ASVmg); “God the One and Only”; “the only God”; “The only Son, who is the same as God”; etc. Some, including NKJV and NEB, simply reject the manuscripts. The reader should well respect translations which translate difficult texts as they were written, and not alter them to any particular theology, mainstream or otherwise.