I'm just having a hard time finding one that isn't just the basic paperback or the Fire Bible variant. I already have that study Bible in the ESV

@@weast6388 that's their biggest downside. I wish they Zondervan or TN owned it.

@@anatoliystrizheus I found the charisma house hase a thinline version. So when I get paid Friday I'm ordering one in case they just completely stop printing it.

@@weast6388 they're promising to release more later this year. But we'll see 🤷‍♂️

@@anatoliystrizheus hopefully so, I'm really getting more into liking the TR translations and seeing how they pull more from the LXX and it's significance.

How do you know an update is coming?

@@kjhgfdsd76654 There were reports that an update was in the works for quite some time now. At one point I heard summer 2024, but I think there have been more delays...🤷🏼‍♂️

I do hope that the update is released soon. I first heard about the update back in 2019 and have been eagerly waiting ever since.

I've heard there are typos but can't find much info about what flaws are present.

Greetings, just curious what is meant by a “more conservative translation”? Seems to me that all literal / word-for-word translations that truly adhere to the original texts will be conservative. Paraphrase … we’ll that’s another story.

@@sheldon3996 Conservative = traditional Christian interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. See Isaiah 7.14, for instance.

@@MAMoreno I guess I’ve never used a Bible other than a word-for-word translation, what a difference. Thanks for enlightening me!

@@sheldon3996 The RSV is a word-for-word translation. It just happened to be a controversial one. Isaiah 7.14 RSV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7.14 ESV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isaiah 7.14 NKJV: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. As you can see, the wording is almost identical between these three translations. The main difference is that the RSV is translating the Hebrew word "almah" as it would be understood in most contexts (as the female equivalent of the word for "young man"), while the ESV and NKJV are translating it based on how the Greek Septuagint translated it (and, by extension, how Matthew translated it in his New Testament Gospel). As a result, the RSV is not considered conservative, though it is just as word-for-word as the ESV and NKJV right here.

Thanks for the update!

This is kind of anti-climactic and disappointing. It almost seems like the folks at MEV are trying to keep the newly completed revision a secret. 🤔

Yes, that sounds funny to my ear too.

Modern renderings can be great though: I have a translation called "THE UNVARNISHED" that renders "Our Father Who Art In Heaven" as "Our Father in the skies" I don't think that is an accurate translation, but it is poetic. But the word "Slackers" has too much cultural baggage today. @@AFrischPerspective

For sure. Good idea!

I think "goes out" is a way of saying "shines forth" though admittedly very easily misunderstood wording there

Me too! A bit awkward at first reading. But, the MEV is favored by the US military, and it IS TR-based. I am a TR person, thus seeing the US military as a huge influence for the TR in this case.🙏📖@@AFrischPerspective

First 2 editions of Erasmus lack it, 3rd and onward include it; take that as you may.

Though some try to say that there is not enough manuscript support for 1 John 5:7-8? Then they want to give “carte Blanche” to the minuscule 3 manuscripts of Alexandrian/critical text: Codex Alexandrius, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, when they are spurious at best in their origins? Ignoring the more than 5000 plus of the TR/Majoriy Text/Byzantine type text? This is not at all a red flag 🚩 🤨😵‍💫🙃? Besides the regular manuscripts with 1 John 5:6-8, we have early Church leaders quotes: ie Poly Carp-John’s disciple, and Cyprian(200-248 died a martyr). Then we have ancient Bibles: Greek Orthodox Bible mid-2nd century AD(for English only use the KJV), and the Old Latin 90-130 AD: started by the Apostle John, with Poly Carp, and Papias his disciples. Completed by Poly Carp, Papias, and their disciples Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr. These two Bibles technically are the oldest manuscripts we have, both have 1 John 5:7-8, and match the KJV.

Even if that is the case, the only way that it would be a concern is if two translations were revising the same earlier translation. The NIV and CEB don't sound different because one was trying to avoid infringing the copyright of the other, but because one translator's work will inevitably sound quite different from another's, especially if they are not striving to be excessively literal. For comparison, look at these very different translations of the opening lines of Homer's Iliad. They are naturally distinct enough to avoid copyright infringement: "The wrath sing, goddess, of Peleus' son, Achilles, that destructive wrath which brought countless woes upon the Achaeans, and sent forth to Hades many valiant souls of heroes, and made them themselves spoil for dogs and every bird; thus the plan of Zeus came to fulfillment, from the time when1 first they parted in strife Atreus' son, king of men, and brilliant Achilles" (A.T. Murray). "Goddess, sing me the anger, of Achilles, Peleus’ son, that fatal anger that brought countless sorrows on the Greeks, and sent many valiant souls of warriors down to Hades, leaving their bodies as spoil for dogs and carrion birds: for thus was the will of Zeus brought to fulfilment. Sing of it from the moment when Agamemnon, Atreus’ son, that king of men, parted in wrath from noble Achilles" (A.S. Kline). "Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans. Many a brave soul did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures, for so was the will of Zeus fulfilled from the day on which the son of Atreus, king of men, and great Achilles, first fell out with one another" (Samuel Butler). "Achilles sing, O Goddess! Peleus’ son; His wrath pernicious, who ten thousand woes Caused to Achaia’s host, sent many a soul Illustrious into Ades premature, And Heroes gave (so stood the will of Jove) To dogs and to all ravening fowls a prey, When fierce dispute had separated once The noble Chief Achilles from the son Of Atreus, Agamemnon, King of men" (William Cowper).

For example Luke 24:25, the CSB says “slow to believe” and then gives a footnote that says “Lit slow of heart”. Why change it? Slow of heart is good English for today, everyone understands it, and it is what most think that is what the Bible says there, so why change it? The NKJ says “slow of heart to believe” and that would have fit perfectly in the CSB. I can think of only one reason to change it, you needed too. There are numerous examples in the Psalms that the wording is changed and a footnote given, saying “Lit” or “Or”, so again why change it?

And in some cases it does change the meaning of the verse, in particular in Psalms and Proverbs. I know we are supposed to be thankful for the “embarrassment of riches we have” in all the newly found texts, but it really bothers me and causes me many sleepless nights. I don’t like using the KJV for obvious reasons, especially since I deal with teenagers and college age a lot, but all the new translations cause just as many problems as the KJV does because they want to know why does this one say this and that one says that. I try to explain to them about text and textual criticism and such, and in my opinion it only causes problems and in some cases it has caused doubts. That is why I am asking.

@@61ranger188 Do people understand "slow of heart," though? We typically use the word "heart" to refer to our emotions, but the Biblical authors instead used it in reference to the rational will (closer to our figurative use of "brain").

I stay away from the elect standard version.

@@KevC1111 😂

I've read the ESV, it is not one of my favorites.

I have no idea what that means. Perhaps you could clarify why you stay away from the ESV and provide examples of what you're referring to. Thanks.@@KevC1111

​@@KevC1111just because you read it, doesn't make you a calvinist. I despise Calvinism and can't find it in there.

Forsooth, it doth not feign to be aught but what it is. King James hath naught to do with it.