Thank you, professor. I always learn a lot from you.❤❤❤

Finally a KZfaqr with knowledge, elegance and class.

Another interesting, fair and balanced presentation. Thank you for your meaningful work.

So glad that you've chosen to stay with translation for now. (It goes without saying that I trust wherever you choose to go next.) As a huge fan of the GNT, I'm glad you featured it. Robert Bratcher got himself into hot water with the FunDumbMentalists. ('A fundamentalist is an evangelical who's angry about something.')

How about a video on JB Phillips

How about the revised version of 1885 and its American revision in 1901? Followed by the subsequent NASBs. 71,77,95.

If we do a more intensive analysis of the two translations methods significant differences at certain points definitely arise from time to time. Particularly since dynamic equivalent translations do not use italics to indicate when words are being added to the original text which the reader is not but should be aware of. Second avoiding whats in the mind of the writer as opposed to what the holy spirit is conveying through the particular writer can be a significant issue with any particular text. This needs to be understood by the student of scripture. However each passage stands on its owm merits and may or may not create any noteworthy error of doctrine or practice. Exact literalism is impossible and the dynamic may be required to really capture the richness of the original. Such as the various ways an aorist tense may translated which provides a better mode of thought in the original. Example Matthew 28:18, " having gone" rather than "go." The aorist tense captures the great commission as something already in progress rather than just beginning. The elder brother who was said to be angry when.he saw the welcome and reception of the younger brother after leaving his father's house. We could translate the anger as " he flew into a rage". Which would capture more of the actual attitude of the elder brother in that moment. Jesus casting himself to the ground repeatedly in the agony of the garden. Kenneth Wuest in his NT translation is excellent for this aspect. The definite article may seem to be a small matter but in Greek it carries much more weight when used than the English reader is accustomed to. Certain nuances of the Greek and Hebrew can be overlooked in a literal or formal than in a dynamic translation. Likewise a dynamic can be over simplified and somewhat misleading here and there. Therefore I do not hesitate to use and benefit from all translations. I do prefer the literal as my basic trans because as I said I want to know when words are being added to the text whether out of necessity or deliberately for whatever reason. The truth is most people people who are heretical and very unsound in the doctrines of holy writ use the more liberal dynamic translations. The NET NIV NJKV NASB ESV LSB are all good translations. The NLT REB RSV NRSV NEB and the Amplified Bible are all useful and not to be rejected necessarily. All translations are flawed and can be improved upon because only the originals are theoneustos. God-breathed and infallible. I still love the KJV and ASV 1901. Youngs Literal translation Literal Translation Of The Holy Bible the Literal Standard Version and the Berean study bible are also near by. As are Tyndale, Geneva 1560 and 1599 the Tenach JPS for the OT. The first JPS OF 1917 OT. Use it all friends.