Thank you!

NRSV is not in accord with LA and is NOT Vatican approved

Fails to acknowledge the bad translation of Tyndall and almost every English Bible that improperly translate genitives. Gal 3:22 … so that the promise from out of Jesus Christ’s faithfulness might be given to the faithful - not: so the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to the believer. Ek is not “by” and the Greek never intends the faith of Jesus Christ but Jesus Christ’s faithfulness, nor does it intend believer rather than faithful

The hero of the comments section 👍

Thank you for this!

Thanks for summarising this brother 😀

NIV is most controversial and subtly anti-God along with some others. It not a true translation but a corruption of the original. Don't put if pass Satan to be involved in bible translation under the deception of making it it plainer. God is his own intetpreter.

NIV for accuracy? Yikes.

@@properpropaganda9831 I kinda feel you on this one; however, the NIV is fairly accurate to what the Greek was trying to convey, though not always.

Wonder why he doesn't mention the CSB? That's a great bible! Very clearly written.

Yes you are correct David, I absolutely love listening to this guy, and I always learn something.

Me too!❤️

It's like the beauty and the beast's library

I know right 😂

Totally awesome

Maybe it's a green screen =)

Truly done right. 👌

I did also 😊

It doesn't

Net bible: John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. ESV: John1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. KJV: John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. NASB: John1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. Trinity? No Trinity? Depends on which text you desire? Best bible translations? No such thing.

You are correct.

Not really

I was curious about that too...but he said Alan bloom so perhaps he is referring to " the closing of the American mind"?

Thank you both. I assumed he must be talking about the book David mentioned, but then found the book Jane mentioned when I tried to look up Alan Bloom in connection with cultural literacy: glad to have my assumptions confirmed by others.

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Paul! I wish we would have covered the NAB. Very glad to know you were involved with it and I will be sure to get a copy for my own use!

@@MikeLiconaOfficial thanks so much! And, the Jerusalem Bible is also a fine translation--even for a Quaker, here. (smile) I really loved the NASB in college BECAUSE it was so close to the Greek. I'm also getting Henry Cadbury's works out into a new book--fun hearing him (and a foreword by Bruce Metzger before he passed away) on RSV-project reflections. One essay is on "revision-after-revision".

@@paulanderson2410 That sounds very interesting, Paul!

How does the new NAB treat gender-neutral language (it has been a criticism of previous editions)? Will the new translation use the Grail Psalms or will they use their own translation? Thx

​@@MikeLiconaOfficial Catholic here. I hope the new NABRE, whenever it comes out, is an improvement. The existing one is awful. The Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship rejected it for use in the lectionary because of its extreme use of gender-neutral language. The prose also is not very good. (Classics scholar Anthony Esolen has been railing against if for years.) Plus, the study notes are heterodox in many places, and not written from the standpoint of a believer. Personally, in the US, I wish either the RSV2CE or the ESVCE was adopted for the lectionary. (Of course, the Douay-Rheims is the gold standard IMO. When it was used, people actually attended Mass.)

This is my story, also. The only difference is that I never had an RSV. I let go of my Living Bible in the late 80's when a friend showed interest in the Bible. It was a sacrifice at the time I remember! I always return to KJV.

same

Yeah, I had one too. I bought it a a K-Mart. It was wonderful.

Most likely due to the fact that just having a Strongs alone doesn't always provide the correct word especially in Greek. You have to parse the word in order to get the correct gender and even the meaning in some instances. I like a Strongs Concordance and it has its value no question but you have to dig more into the word meaning that is provided to get its true value.

@@rhyne9388 Yes, a lexicon is preferable to just Strong's. Also, Strong's has been, and is still being abused by overzealous people that don't understand that context is very important. The purpose of Strong's was to show the reader the words BEHIND the KJV text. Not an exhaustive explanation of how those original words should be translated. Read the preface and the explanations at the start of the Original complete Strong's. It is there if people only look.

Like the key Word Study Bible?

Coveting is a sin brother.... I want a library of my own that looks just like that guys .😂

It is the most accurate your problem is that it doesn't use the corrupt critical text

The KJV is a bad transition of the original Hebrew. It’s an English translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew. It’s a copy of a copy of a copy.

I like that he affirmed the ESV as a good translation as I have come to the same conclusion, but without the depth and specificity of knowledge that Dan gives. I'll have to spend more time including NET in my studies.

You meant N.T. Wright, who has the "Kingdom New Testament." I have it and it is rather poor. His version of Romans is a mess.

Great talk btw.

@Hdjd Udjsjwb Well Bill Mounce has been involved in two, both the ESV and the NIV. Two translations with different philosophies so he can have much to say.

@Hdjd Udjsjwb Certainly. But Dan Wallace was also involved in the NET. It's just good to hear and learn more from different perspectives.

your bible interpreted so many times..become not book of God after interpretation

@@BB-bs7hmYou have no clue what you're talking about. All of the newer translations are translated from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It's not as if newer translations are being created by using older translations until the original meaning is lost. The original manuscripts are used to create a new translation. The main reason there are so many translations is because of copyright issues.

Yeah, the ESV is second best to being the most literal albeit's NT is lacking over 6,200 words and it has the MT OT like the KJV, etc.- all English Bibles; not the OT text the Church has preserved. St. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) (Dialogue with Trypho, 71-73) and St. Irenaeus (AD 130-210) (Against Heresies, 3.21.1) stated that the scribes deliberately removed, altered or distorted the Messianic verses in their Scripture. The New Testament has approximately 250 direct quotations of Old Testament verses. Ninety percent of the quotations agree with the Septuagint but the majority disagree with the Masoretic Text. “Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of the Holy Scriptures, of the Old Testament a true and perfect version, of the New the divine original itself.” - the “Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs” (AD 1848), a reply to the epistle of Pope Pius IX, "To the Easterns" English Bibles's Masoretic Text OT text : it's not the text the (Orthodox) Church has preserved: actually it's a falsified and mutilated revised Hebrew text named "Masoretic" [ from "Masoret" meaning "bond, collar" ]. Decent English translations of the Greek Old Testament / Septuagint ~ Seventy exist ; but the NETS translation of the Greek Old Testament is a fraud : it's based on the NRSV Masoretic Text hidden in Septuagint relatively superfluous words. To save time in seeing all i say is true you may see verses for comparison: 1) on archive.org - there search-bar : " mt vs lxx" ( i made it; contact me and I will send you the latest and improved version as PDF.) 2) And there's two charts online - one uv 25 NT quotes and their OT verses for comparison ; the other uv Proverbs - a 16 page chart - both on ecclesia . org . God Bless.

Ted Bruckner This is fascinating stuff isn’t it? Most people couldn’t care less but, I think this subject is so interesting.

Ναζωραῖος You got to love textual criticism!

I like those too. I also like the Modern Literal Version. It's not nearly as popular of a translation and it's new testament only.

Ναζωραῖος how about the Biblica Hebraica?

Go to settings and turn on English auto generated captions. This a feature of You Tube.

Straight? Try some interlinears… 🙂

And how about ESV in comparison to NASB95 or Legacy Bible?

@@MB-gd6be I highly regard the NASB95 & consult it for every sermon I prepare. I also consult the LSB now & then. But in the circles I move in here in Australia, I find very few people who use those translations, so I prefer to preach from the ESV. I only know one person here who uses the LSB. I do like how the LSB (& NKJV) use italics for extra words the translators have put in. That's one advantage they have over the ESV.

The NIV 2011 version is the best and most up to date Bible for study and preaching. I do compare to the actual Greek text when in the NT, and look up key Hebrew words as well.

I don't care for the NIV, but I will say that the 2011 edition removed some of its main problems and generally made it more accurate. No more "the smallest of _your_ seeds" nonsense.

Why are you having trouble reading one bible?

@@craigime Because it is a very big book. I am not talking about casual reading but studying and meditating and applying it to life. It takes a whole lifetime so I am told. Thanks for your reply.

@@reksubbn3961 "so I am told" so you never tried it yourself? I study the Bible daily and I've read through it several times. Saying "it's a very big book" is just an excuse. There's no way your that busy that you couldn't have read through the Bible at least one time in your entire life

You're a saint.

@@kc8ppo i second that

Thank you!

ESV is a great translation.

I love Dr Wallace, and his work, but remember, he has a not so small axe that he is sharpening. He invested a lot in the NET. And it shows. Having read and compared all the translations he talked about, I would NOT put the NET as the "best" in whatever category. Admittedly, that is because I personally enjoy a more literal translation. What the NET does offer is a wealth of study and textual notes, and for that... It is FANTASTIC. But, as Translation itself, it is too dynamic equivalent for my taste. At least he acknowledged the ESV, and for serious Bible study, trying to get to the meaning of what is being said, it is probably one of the best currently available. The ESV, LEB, and CSB for more conservative evangelicals, the NIV and NLT for more devotional reading, and definitely the NET for textual and study notes.

I’d add the NKJV to the list of translations to memorize from

KJV is far and away the easiest for memorization.

​@JayMoreau it's not

Indeed indeed. From a Jewish perspective, he made a fresh sense out of the Hebrew idioms, especially in Psalms.

I'm not as fond of Alter's notes as I am of his translation. Alter certainly is a fine literary scholar, but he's largely beholden to a more secular Judaism and his biblical and theological notes often reflect that. However the linguistics portions of his notes are valuable to read. And his Hebrew Bible translation as a whole is pretty good. For example, I enjoyed his rendering of Ecclesiastes, especially the Hebrew word "hebel" or "hevel" which is so central to understanding the meaning of the book and which many English translations fail to capture. In fairness, it is as elusive as chasing the wind to translate "hebel" into English! In any case, Alter translates "hebel" literally as "mere breath". I think that's probably the best we can do. Or something similar like "vapor" or "mist" would work as well (e.g. Ardel Caneday's article on translating it as "vapor" and Jason DeRouchie's article on translating it as "enigma").

It is better show me one error.

@@mikemaid5350 check our Isaiah 40.3 in Hebrew and then compare that to the KJV. Why does the KJV say “The voice of him that cries in the wilderness…” when voice doesn’t have the definite article and there is no “of him” in the original Hebrew? Also it says that the voice is in the wilderness but the Masorah that the translators used doesn’t say the voice is in the wilderness…

​@@mikemaid5350just one?

That at a false version King James know nothing about it.

@@fransikajohn9005 not understanding your statement. Are you saying that the NKJV is a false translation? Just trying to clarify

King James is attached to the 1611 version because he authorised the translation and choose the scholarly translators of 1611. The NKJV was first published in 1982 with many changes not in agreement with the AKJV. It is a false impression to attach King James to it when it is different from the original. The scriptures cannot be updated like a science text. The AKJV is my choice, I glimpse at some of the others, the majority of them false. Translators do not interpret, they translate only as interpretation belongs to the Spirit. The believers must depend on God to understand his word, he is his own interpreter. There is a devious agenda behind many of the different translations in the Roman racist religion of Christianity eg. the NIV is religiously anti-God.

@@fransikajohn9005 Different languages don't directly translate with literal word for word, interpretation of context and intention is required to prioritize proper meaning for actualizing the accuracy of the delivery.

@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat meaning ought not to change. That's Satan in man interfering with interpretation which belongs to God only.

I noticed that as well. I actually like the NASB. I much prefer Deut. 22:28 in NASB over the NIV which I think creates confusion. However, I very much appreciate the notes the NET bible adds to it.

I like the NKJV more than the KJV and Douay-Rheims more too

There’s some political motives behind his comments.

Exactly, "word for word" doesn't mean "same meaning" in the new language the words are translated to. I don't see how people find it hard to understand.

@@thetruthapologetics879 Thats not the problem. Once you introduce this heavy interpretational element in a translation, it becomes difficult to ascertain when a translator is potentially going overboard. All translation is interpretation, but some interpret more than others. A lot more than others. A better idea would be to use footnotes to either highlight what a word literally means, or to "interpret" it (in the footnotes) what it likely means. This is already done to some extent, but needs to be done more rather than make changes in the text that dont directly reflect in the originals. For instance: in the town and the city example, a two word footnote would have suffices however the text read. Some idioms just cannot be translated literally, but those are exceptions. Also, dont forget that some translators actually want to make the gospel more "palatable", and that affects the way they interpret the text. This is why many advocate a more literal translations for study purposes. This does not eliminate the problem but sure does reduce it.

I like the NET because of its apparatus. I would never buy an NET just for reading - but for study - I think its one of the best Bible products out there.

@@jamesmccloud5166 The literal words we need is to understand definitions and deeper meaning and cultural meaning, other than that often the interpretation expresses intended context correctly. Of course exceptions are there...

"This is why many advocate a more literal translations for study purposes. " The idea of using a word-for-word is not to merely understand what the text says and leave it at that, but rather, to encourage to learn what the phrasing means by doing a more thorough study on it (likely using other resources). If one is only stuck with, say, the NASB and no other resource, the NASB will not be as useful to him as if he used the NASB as a starting point to get deeper in the text. For casual reading - I find the KJV or the ESV second to none. The NASB or the NKJV is probably not the best translation for devotional reading - at least for those not used to it.

@David Zant My NIV from 2003 is not gender neutral, where as it seems the latest NIV has gone gender neutral. I'm really glad I have my older version because much is lost from this change and nothing is gained.

He would say they went more feminist/gender neutral .. Angry lesbians and Trans people need bibles too.😏

"Readability and accuracy the NIV is the best... It tries to follow natural english, the work that has done into this translation... the work that is going on to it is by highly rated scholars behind it... it is examined, reexamined and re-reexamined through the decades."

@@brando3342 The 2003 edition is the TNIV.

I wish mine required a ladder!

the English translation(s) of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) but not one called NETS is crucial to use and not to use the current (and only ) Hebrew text if you want the truth and joy of reading.

I agree. No other version, no matter how good, can compare to reading the Psalms in the KJV and NKJV.

The KJV is not "Olde English "

Exactly. They go out of their way to not be "traditional "

What's net stand for? I m a nas girl and kjv

New English translation.

Haha, my thoughts exactly! 😅

I can already tell that the text size is a no go for me in that NET version. I'd rather have the notes in separate section or binding.

Yeah it's not the best

The CSB is a revision of the HCSB lol. Also, both the NET and the NIV are their own translations though now revised from themselves from earlier revisions.

@@aperson4057 I think Peters point was that the HCSB was a fresh from the ground up translation, not using a prior English translation as a base text to work from. the CSB may be a revision, but its from is own line, rather than being a revision of another English line of translation..

I also grew up with the old KJV and still read it but for study I prefer the Revised Standard Version but as it's out of print, I use and recommend the NRSV. To each their own.

KJV, NKJV and ESV are all my translations of choice. I use all three.

Same here! I feel like the NKJV is the easiest for me to memorize, but I do really enjoy the way the ESV phrases a lot of verses. Even though it's a looser translation, I like the NLT for devotional reading sometimes too.

And the missing words and verses don't concern you in the ESV , surely you notice them gone .

​@@nzbrotrev9028they're not missing

Poor name, @Nunya Dibness, but a great translation.

You're really going to enjoy it, @Nunya Dibness.

He said it’s good, not the best. Denomination driven.

Paleo Hebrew?