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!

modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.

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. 👌

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.

"Reinventing Jesus" is one of my favorite books

@@Johnny-mz9ot I haven't read that one. I'll have to check it out.😎

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.

I did also 😊

@@billyr9162 Understanding the Greek words is merely the starting point of translation. A greater challenge arises when deciding between interpreting a meaning within its historical and grammatical context versus a direct, word-for-word Greek translation. It becomes even more complex when trying to present these ideas in a way that's readable and relatable for modern audiences. Translation is a demanding task best handled by highly skilled experts, which I feel has been done well in various translations. I prefer to read a trusted choice (my daily driver) while relying on comparison of various other translations along with an Interlinear, word dictionary and other tools, when in tough spots. I feel by reading the various translations that it usually suffices to assist my understanding for the most part, for a normal read. My Greek is way too weak to trust, although I'm working on it.

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus keep working on it. Sounds like you got a long way to go

@@billyr9162 I'm likely further along in my Greek than you are, but yes I still have a long way to go. Like I said even knowing Greek isn't going to make me into a translator.

@SpaceCadet4Jesus sound like you have a long way to go. Keep gong

Not really

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.

​@@susanstein6604modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.

Great talk btw.

modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.

modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.

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.

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

You're a saint.

@@kc8ppo i second that

Thank you!

Straight? Try some interlinears… 🙂

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.)

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

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.

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.

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 "

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.

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.

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

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?

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").

meh

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?

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.

I wish mine required a ladder!

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.

Not everyone agrees about anything. That's not the point

Know that the NIV is very good in conveying things in easy to understand Modern English because it's a paraphrasing/"Dynamic Equivalency" as is the NASB althouu the NASB is more literal [ word-for-word ] but both uv their NTs are, as well as all modern versions of the NT, lacking over 6,200 words. Bruce Metzger and friends are wrong; soundly proven by the Eastern Orthodox Church's statement* and Justin Martyr quoting Matthew 5:44 as it is found in the Byzemtine Text-type used by them and the English translations uv the 1500's and the KJV (+ NKJV). *“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". 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. meaning Also to know, the NETS translation of the Greek Old Testament / Septuagint ~ Seventy is a fraud : based on the NRSV Masoretic Text hidden in Septuagint relatively superfluous words.

@@TedBruckner which translation would you recommend?

Ted Bruckner I don't think the NIV is considered a paraphrase version though. It's just a translation. Something like the NLT is a true paraphrase.

@@brando3342 The NLT isn't a paraphrase (the updated version), the message bible is however

Ted Bruckner True easier to read but if it’s inaccurate then what??? I’m not saying anything about the NIV or any other translation I’m just making an a point here. Readability it’s not always more accurate.

@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.

It exists only so LifeWay could stop paying royalties to publish NIV Sunday School materials.

I used it last year. This year I picked up and ESV creeds and confessions. But I will probably return to the CSB next year.

I have an embarrassing amount of translations and have read from each. I spent some time with both NIV2011 and the CSB2020 and the ESV2016. Out of the 3, the CSB really was my favorite in how well it translates and readability. I like using the CSB202, NASB1995 and the NKJV together if I will be studying and even just reading, just to see the differences. Also, I the CSB2020 is not a denominational translation from what I have been studying. I still bring out my ol' HCSB2012 from time to time, just because it has some great work too.

Excellent and probably sexist :)

Your teacher has problems

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

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

KZfaq will put ads regardless

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

Jesus is not almighty God, jesus said at mathew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service

At Credo House you'll find plenty of Wallace's teaching, as well as Understanding Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses - Digital Audio. I'm not advertising, just informing.

@@GregoryAnderson trinity is a lie, jesus said the father is greater than I am

@@GregoryAnderson Thanks for the tip. Do you know if he addresses what I'm asking for?

@@AstariahJW I'm greater than my son in many ways. Does that mean he's not human? Does that mean he's less human?

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?

​@@craigimeMathew 12:1... was there corn in Israel back then?

@@AdjectivesRGreaterThanPronouns did you reply to the right person?

Interesting! Can you give me an example of this?

Where does the ESV do that?

Thanks man, I am struggling with the KJV

Hi, Jason. I had not heard of the New Century Version Bible so I looked it up: it looks like a good translation! If you were curious about trying a different translation: I would suggest the New International Reader's Version, which is the NIV that Dan Wallace praised for readability and accuracy, except with shorter sentences and simpler words. It's target audience are children and people who speak English as a second language. I only mention the NIrV because it is also marketed for adults and so has editions with giant print, which I thought may help you, and has nice leather-looking covers. I have been wanting to listen to audio versions of the Bible. I've listened to David Suchet read the Gospels on KZfaq and I really enjoyed them. Is there a certain audio Bible you would recommend?

@@MM-jf1me I really like the audiobooks voice that they have on the U version app. They have a lot of different versions that are really good. So you can have your pick.

@@Jay123hollis Thank you; I'm look into that app.

@@MM-jf1me You're welcome do you version Bible app is really good. It also has some really good Bible study plans on it.

@@Jay123hollis I hadn't heard of it before so I really appreciate the heads-up. :)

When he earns a real PhD he can correct Wallace

🤣. Are you interested in the legacy standard Bible?

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..

Another Latter-day Saint in this comment section? Exciting to me! I feel that sadly most evangelicals even people such as Dan Wallace tend to not have the best understanding of the Church, purely because of the antagonistic view they have towards us. I feel regarding NT text and preservation he is less likely to make bad assertions due to his amount of knowledge on them. (I was a religious studies major at a non-BYU school too if it makes any difference).

Joseph Smith did attempt to change the KJV with an inspired re-interpretation. He claimed that the scriptures needed to be corrected from an LDS perspective. In addition, Dan is referring to a translation “about to come out”… I am not LDS but enjoy learning about its history; the LDS church is not afraid to make changes to anything to meet the times if they are too caustic. (Like changing the rule on black men being allowed in the priesthood).

@@MyLifeInTheDesert First of all, thanks for the perspective and comment. It is refreshing. While I love and respect both Mike Licona and Dan Wallace, I was a bit perturbed at how misinformed the comment was regarding the LDS Church. If he can’t get that detail right for which I am informed, what other details are just as misinformed for which I do not have an eye or ear to catch? Getting the information right at the source is fundamental historiography. The spring water is best upstream before the cattle have had a chance to wade through it. Thomas Wayment, a BYU scholar, recently came out with his own translation but that translation is not endorsed or even used by the LDS Church. Regarding the Joseph Smith Translation, Joseph began that work in June 1830 but was never entirely completed though some of the translation can be found in current footnotes and appendices of LDS scripture or in privately published volumes. Joseph Smith never viewed that work as something necessary to be made “from an LDS perspective.” In fact, “LDS” didn’t exist until 1838 (D&C 115). Joseph wrote, “I resumed the translation of the scriptures, from sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points, touching the Salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” (The Joseph Smith Papers, www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/189). Regarding the LDS Church adapting or making changes that “are too caustic,” I’m not sure what you mean. I do know that while the doctrine of Christ is eternal and unchanging, practices continue to change relative to the circumstances of the day. The same is true of Levites holding priesthood as opposed to any of the other tribes, circumcision, preaching to the Gentiles pre-Acts 10 vs. after, etc. Best to you!

@@juliannalane9907 Aye! On one level, I understand the antagonism. In my adolescent years, I assumed Catholics loved darkness more than light because of all the candles everywhere. For crying out loud, turn the lights on! I assumed evangelicals had more zeal than knowledge, and non-denominationalists were nothing more than glorified middle-schoolers at lunch who could not choose between the bologna sandwich and the chicken fried steak. It wasn’t until I read some Tolkien, Chesterton, and Lewis that I started to question my assumptions. Like Bill and Ted, I began to realize that “strange things are afoot at the Circle K!” Every religious system looks strange to those on the outside. My beef here is that great scholars understand that principle so when scholars speak of a religious tradition, they ought to at least know the difference between good historiography and a bad hysterectomy. Best to you!

I believe Dan said he thought the Mormons were coming out with a translation. I don’t think he was making a claim coming from certainty.

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

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