Oh, would that it were so. The Bible is... not a single text, and different translations are based off different collections of source texts. Just for one example, translations made before and after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls are going to be differently informed.
I ask because the NIV is an explicitly evangelical Christian translation, and it was made because the Christian Reformed Church and a couple other evangelical churches found the RSV too liberal. I've always been a bit suspect of its scholarship, though it at least has the decency to have gone back to contemporary Greek and Hebrew texts rather than rewriting the KJV as some "translations" do.
It looks like the KJV uses "an antichrist," but the RSV and NRSV use "the antichrist". I wonder if this is a KJV mistranslation, a change between the earlier texts the NIV, RSV, and NRSV are based on and the later texts the KJV is based on, or a bit of modern evangelicalism slipping into the translation. My guess was the latter, but now I'm not so sure.
I agree that "the antichrist" in the context of the Epistles doesn't have any particular eschatological context, though.
no subject
I ask because the NIV is an explicitly evangelical Christian translation, and it was made because the Christian Reformed Church and a couple other evangelical churches found the RSV too liberal. I've always been a bit suspect of its scholarship, though it at least has the decency to have gone back to contemporary Greek and Hebrew texts rather than rewriting the KJV as some "translations" do.
It looks like the KJV uses "an antichrist," but the RSV and NRSV use "the antichrist". I wonder if this is a KJV mistranslation, a change between the earlier texts the NIV, RSV, and NRSV are based on and the later texts the KJV is based on, or a bit of modern evangelicalism slipping into the translation. My guess was the latter, but now I'm not so sure.
I agree that "the antichrist" in the context of the Epistles doesn't have any particular eschatological context, though.