I have watched and enjoyed many of Sergio and Rhoda videos yes... Great team..

Thank you for the kind comment, Peter! Glad you found one too!

Thanks for the question. It may have taken about a month -- I can't recall exactly. I searched eBay daily for an extended period of time.

Thanks for the encouraging comment! Unfortunately, I haven't collected the changes I noticed in the pre-95 editions of the NASB. My impression is that they were minor compared to those introduced in '95. But it would be helpful if someone would post them online (rather like the lists one can find of changes made in the ESV in 2007, 2011, and 2016).

R. Grant Jones precisely! I recently picked up a ‘71 SCR and was curious how it compared to the more commonly discovered ‘77 version. I would be grateful to any who discovers such a list! Thank you again for your content! SDG

Thank you for the encouraging comment! Beneath the Table of Prophetical Books on page 53 of the Bible Readers' Aids is a drawing labelled "Babylonian Brick Inscription." The caption reads, "Text of Nebuchadnezzar's Brick Inscriptions, found in large numbers in Babylon, whose temple and palace he rebuilt and restored (c.f., Dan. 4:30). The text reads as follows: 1, Nebuchadnezzar; 2, King of Babylon; 3, Patron of E-sagila; 4, and E-zida; 5, Eldest Son; 6, of Nabopolassar; 7, King of Babylon." The numerals correspond to the rows of the drawing.

Thanks for the kind comment, Be Skeptical of Everything! King James Onlyists hold that modern translations are 'New Age' and 'Satanic' because they rely on manuscripts like Vaticanus, which resides in Vatican City, and Sinaiticus, which was in an Orthodox monastery in Sinai for centuries, protected by Muslims. Those manuscripts differ from the printed Greek editions that were used to translate the KJV in a number of ways, most of them minor. Some of the more significant differences are the omission of the "Three Witnesses" passage in 1 John 5.7-8, the story of the woman taken in adultery (beginning of John 8), and the long ending of Mark's gospel. For a readability test, I suggest just about anything in Job after chapter 3.

@@RGrantJones thanks for the reply! Very insightful!

For those of us who love old Bibles. Thanks for commenting, Joe St_Eggbenedictus!

I don't know of anyone who currently publishes the 1885 RV. Used copies can be found sometimes at sites like eBay.

@@RGrantJones I appreciate your kind and quick reply. Surprise: I just found one new copy / new edition. (I had provided you with a link, but it has been erased by KZfaq.) More blessings to you!

Yes, the information shown with many listings is inadequate -- I agree. As I hinted in the video, I came across one of these on eBay recently, listed for more than $400 dollars. As far as I could tell, it was identical to mine. The title page had ' "International" Series' and 'Divided Verses' at the top, identified the publisher as the International Bible Agency, and had 'Long Primer' and 'Octavo' at the bottom. Also, that seller posted a few photos of the interior, so there was no doubt. I think that the title page is key, and a photo of text is helpful.

@@RGrantJones thanks... :) yes, in this case the title page is key, i agree...

Thanks for the suggestion! I'll look into it.

The Hebrew Roots Movement twists translations...

Fernando - my memory's not reliable enough anymore for me to relate the history of my views accurately, so don't take this an a historical account! A couple of years ago i was undecided between the Majority Text and a critical approach. I wrote 'a critical approach' rather than 'the critical text,' because that's one thing that's become clear to me, especially through the exercise of comparing translations to various Greek New Testaments, and various Greek New Testaments to each other, that following a critical approach one can develop a wide variety of Greek New Testaments. NA28 differs from THGNT in many places, though both follow critical approaches. Each of the diamonds on my scatter plots represents a hypothetical Greek New Testament that could be generated using a critical approach, and, of course, many, many more Greek New Testaments could be generated in the same way. What they have in common is that they examine each location where there are variant readings and attempt to determine, based on evidence and the application of certain logical principles, which reading is correct. (As I've stated in several videos, that isn't science. It's more like detective work.) The TR is a family of related Greek New Testaments generated in that way, so I don't see why any edition of the TR should be preferred over any other critical approach-generated Greek New Testament. (But that's not new. After I had given them a hearing, I simply didn't find the arguments of the TR advocates convincing.) So what about the Robinson-Pierpont (Byzantine) text? Some theory is needed to account for the relative uniformity of the later manuscripts used and preserved in the Eastern Roman Empire, but, clearly, Hort's theory of its origin via a recension is unproven and unlikely. An alternative theory is that the Byzantine text is relatively uniform because it's the original (the idea that the majority remains the majority). But it seems to me highly improbable that we would not have more early evidence for it in the first three centuries if it did represent the original text. I would expect to see a high rate of quotations from that text in the extant patristic writings, for instance. The papyrus evidence from Egypt shows a variety of readings, but no strong preference for Byzantine readings. The Old Latin isn't Byzantine, and neither were the Greek texts Jerome translated. The paucity of evidence for Byzantine readings in early sources is difficult to understand if the Byzantine text were original and its manuscripts were in the majority. (Some discount this conclusion by pointing out that the early Christian writers were isolated to certain limited locations, and that the surviving papyri were restricted to Egypt, so that some other form of the text could have predominated in Asia Minor, from which we have little early evidence and where the Christian population density was high. But that Byzantine text manuscripts would been largely isolated to Asia Minor in the first three centuries, in an empire where there was a good deal of movement of goods and people, strikes me as implausible.) So how do I think the Byzantine text arose if it wasn't original and wasn't the work of an early editor? It seems possible that it arose through an unguided process of ecclesiastical selection within the Eastern Roman Empire. The extant manuscripts imply that the Byzantine text didn't become the majority until the ninth century. So, over the period from the fourth through the ninth century, readings preferred in ecclesiastical centers like Antioch and Constantinople, or in monastic centers like Mount Athos, may have been selectively reproduced by copyists. This is a poor analogy, but it could be likened to the process whereby regional accents are weakened due to the emulation of the speech of prominent individuals, say in movies or on TV, the radio, and the internet. I could well be wrong, but that's what I'm thinking at the moment. I believe the original text is best reconstructed using the early evidence (manuscripts, quotations in patristic writings, translations). Precisely how to do that I leave to the textual critics, since I'm no expert.

R. Grant Jones This is deeply helpful in trying to make sense of a highly complex subject.

Thank you for taking the encouraging comment, Mr. Wilderspin! And thanks for that quote from Spurgeon.

Thanks for the question! I wish I knew of a red letter premium verse-by-verse NASB, but I don't. You might want to keep an eye on Zondervan. They appear to be bringing out new NASB formats from time to time, some of which are red letter.

R. Grant Jones thank you. God bless

Me too. Thanks for the view and comment!

I believe 1895 was the year the Revised Version Apocrypha was published. Thanks for the question, Cesar Gaming and Vlogs!

Andy -- It's been a while since I made this video, so I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. King James Version Onlyists sometimes refer to modern translations as Satanic, so it could be that I was making light of that.

@@RGrantJones Oops I meant to say hello not hell. Yes that’s that I was referring to. I’ve never heard anything about these new age bible versions, so when you mentioned it at the beginning of the video I was quite confused.

The grandaddy of lol....

These old Bibles smell amazing, reminds me of my grandfather....

I'm happy you could find a copy of the RV, Haexz1. I suspect that's somewhat easier to do in the UK than here in the US. When I search eBay for "Revised Version" here, most of the items are actually Revised Standard Versions, and some of them are 1901 American Standard Versions. Copies of the '77 NASB aren't uncommon here, but those with the words of Christ in black, all of the translators' notes, and a sewn binding are a challenge to find. Thanks very much for taking the time to comment!

​@@RGrantJones Thanks for the video and the response to my comment. This maybe too personal for you to answer so feel free to say no but I was wondering what church denomination you go to (if you associate with a single church)? I saw on another video comment section a while back you said you were Anglican (I'm a Church of England Anglican), do you go to the Episcopal Church or the ACNA?

@@Haexz1 - in the hope of retaining a degree of anonymity on the internet, I've avoided naming my specific denomination. I will say that, forced to choose between the ACNA and TEC, I would go with the ACNA. Thanks again for commenting!

Thanks for commenting, Edward! Transliterating the name of God makes sense to me; but, as I said in the video, I have no problem with 'the LORD'. I prefer the '77 to the '95 because the '77 more literal -- and the earlier translators seemed to pay more attention to detail. For instance, the '95 doesn't include marginal notes when the translation is non-literal with the same consistency that the earlier editions did. The major drawback to the '77 edition, in my opinion, is that it doesn't include a few of what Hort called 'Western noninterpolations', particularly near the end of Luke's gospel. The '95 edition put those back into the text, where they should be. I think I scattered some of the reasons I prefer the '77 to the '95 in the NASB vs ESV video I posted a few months ago. I think the 2002 NASB Side-Column Reference Bible in Calfskin review also contains some remarks favoring the '77 over the '95. Hope all's well with you!

@@RGrantJones I'm well where I'm at. A whole community literally a stone's throw away from mine is under quarantine after a church service where multiple people were infected, incidentally by a pastor who came from the USA to preach at their service. Ironic isn't it. It's sort of put churches under pressure here in Jamaica. I'll look back at those videos, and see what I can glean from them. I know that the 77 is still available but not sure if they have all the notes. One thing that catches my mind is the number of NASBs that will around in the next year or so. The LSB might be the saving grace, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. I hope all is well with you and your family too. Thanks for the response.

@@edwardgraham9443 - sorry to hear about that quarantine. Yes, as far as I can tell, the AMG editions of the '77 do not include all the footnotes.

@@RGrantJones I'll be having a look at them both to see which I'll have. I'm also thinking of getting a CSB to go with my NKJV. I've had a brief look at it and like what I've seen so far. It's not literal, but decent enough. I've been through 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Jude and really like what I've read so far.

rraddena - King James Version Onlyists view all modern translations as New Age, satanic versions. The Revised Version was the first major challenger to the King James Version and the head of a long list of modern translations.

Yes, if you can find it. There's also something called the Two Version Bible, which is the KJV with the RV's changes in side-column notes. Thanks for commenting, Fernando!

R. Grant Jones It is available on Amazon. Pricey

Thanks for taking the time to comment!