Right! Amen!

You got out of KJV Only? I didn't know that was possible to leave them...

To a non-speaker of English (like I am) there is no 'best translation'. The REB is the English translation I have used for years and still use and I wonder why this translation is not mentioned. I like the NIVUK, the NKJV and all the other translations but to me they're 'just other versions'. I can't tell the one from the other.

@@Nick-wn1xw the church of scientology says the same thing.

It's definitely worth having!

Yes! I've used it countless times! And their beautiful ESV website.

Thank you for your kind words! This the experience of so many-and a reason why I'm trying to help the church take up its embarrassment of riches in English Bible translation. So few of us can come anywhere near close to guaranteeing that we'll get to live in a church community that uses our favored Bible translation. I myself haven't been able to do this. I've gone from KJV to NASB to ESV to NASB in the four churches I've been a part of in the last 30 years.

Sounds great! I use all those translations all the time!

@@markwardonwords Just watched your video and the way you talk about all of the translations is awesome. I haven't even heard of the translation you mentioned at the end. Looking forward to it!

Thank you for this thoughtful and kind word!

You’re so welcome! I think you’re thinking well.

The ESV is translated from the vaticanus and sinaiticus texts which are not credible at all. The KJV is from textus receptus, which has been passed down from the original texts. The minor translation issues this pastor mentions are not the issue, it’s the fact that they are everywhere and minor mistranslations have led to 50,000,000 Baptists burned at the stake during the dark ages. This pastor is not interested in the true word of God, but the Bible is very clear over and over about the preserved Word. Walking away from the KJV is the biggest mistake you can make.

You’ll like the first two videos, then! And thanks for the kind word.

Luke 2:33 KJV: "And 👉Joseph👈 and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." ESV: "And 👉his father👈 and his mother marveled at what was said about him." I could show you hundreds of other satanic changes. Stay away from the satanic modern perversions.

@@Beautreillis17 If the original Greek text says "patēr" which means "father", then how is the ESV translation satanic?

Wonderful! Love this!

Glad it was helpful!

Thank you for watching and commenting!

I think that's where a lot of churches are going, and I'm fine with that. But I don't have hard data on this, just experience.

I had one of those and sold it after nearly no use. I just couldn’t justify keeping it when I already had a premium ESV. Sigh. But it surely was nice! You will love it! I have boots in that leather.

@@markwardonwords Oh...you sold yours. I feel sad for you, now. I am going to sell 3 premium bibles on my eBay today to cover the cost of this new gorgeous bible....looking forward to the ESV. Now, that means the new translations this year I am getting stuck into are LSB, NRSV, and ESV....I am a long way from KJV and NKJV now! You have been a good influence on me, Mark!

I love it! It doesn’t work quite as well with Alfred as it used to, but it’s still useful.

All good options! I never did read through the HCSB. I've used it, for sure, but I haven't read it from cover to cover.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that you're not me? Our preferences are just about identical. I think the RSV sounds more natural than the ESV, because it seems like a true UPDATE of something older, whereas the ESV seems more like, I dunno, "Let's backpedal this update a little for no clear reason" (who really says "lest" anymore, even though its a pretty good word?) HCSB vs. CSB: Speaking as an English teacher, I find the HCSB a bit more unnecessarily wordy when compared to the tauter, leaner English of the CSB. I also consider the HCSB's distinctions between "LORD/Yahweh" and "Christ"/"Messiah" more confusing than helpful to a hypothetical "average reader." Anyway, thanks for reading about my opinions.

Honestly, if you're a TR guy, stick with the NKJV! The reading level is not different from the ESV; that grade-level number is artificial. For help understanding how that number was generated, watch this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y82erLN-2tvQkY0.html

This is a good idea. I'm not personally aware of choices like these. I haven't seen serious people saying this. That doesn't mean there isn't a case to be made here or there. Got a link for me to an article by someone who seems reasonably conversant in the issues?

1) Logos! 2) I don’t know! 3) A trusted and capable pastor friend loves it. I have not read it.

@@markwardonwords Thank you. Keep up the good work. God bless you.

I'm not very knowledgeable about the NRSV and CJSB.

@@markwardonwords I'm pretty sure the ESV was taken directly from the NRSV. They are very similar versions. The CJSB, with notes and articles, is a good introduction into the Jewish mind and history, for believers who want to better understand everything about Yeshua before actually meeting him. (Thanks for the work you put into your videos)!

@@barbariska757 it wasn't. The forward states the RSV 1971 was the basis.

@@Nick-wn1xw That makes sense - the RSV being the source for both the New Revised Standard Version and ESV. Thank you.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Grab the ESV or, I suggest, the CSB!

Yeah, I was about to say the same thing. Rev 13.8 in every other translation says from the foundations and not before the foundations. That's not the only place where I scratch my head with the direction the esv translators decided to go but they're all fairly minor points. Over all I do like the esv but I tend to stick to nasb, but I really will use many translations during my study and I have gripes with nasb as well... 😆

Yes.. I, too, do not want to use the ESV for my personal Bible study because of how Calvinist-friendly it is in comparison to other translations. (A common note from many ex-Calvinist pastors I have listened to). Which translation did you end up going with? I'm thinking about the NASB? 1995 vs 2020? Also, praise the Lord for guiding you away from those teachings. That's great, my brother!

@@Rawkabilly57 Yes.. I, too, do not want to use the ESV for my personal Bible study because of how Calvinist-friendly it is in comparison to other translations. (A common note from many ex-Calvinist pastors I have listened to). Which translation did you end up going with? I'm thinking about the NASB? 1995 vs 2020? Blessings~

@@elaineauo I use the NASB95, NKJV, and NLT mostly.

@Elaine O NASB95 is probably my main, and sometimes I'll read the NET because they have meticulous textual notes. For a more functional translation, I like the csb as it's about "middle of the road".

AMEN!!

The Reformation Study Bible has a helpful note on the matter: *Presenting a rosy picture of the Christian life and minimizing that it is filled with trouble does not follow the lead of our Lord (Acts 14:22). It may be that the "false prophets" of v. 15 are especially those who deny that the way is narrow and hard.* Here is Acts 14.22 in both the ESV and NIV: - ESV: *strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.* - NIV: *strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.* The word translated "tribulations" or "hardships" in Acts 14.22 shares the same Greek root as the word translated "hard" or "narrow" in Matthew 7.40, so it might be especially helpful in interpreting the meaning of the "narrow road" metaphor.

I just got the 2015, I believe. The NLT is one I haven’t read all the way through; I’ve only checked it (but I have done that many times).

I like to call the NLT a para-translation cause it’s a paraphrase that got turned into a more accurate translation. Definitely nowhere close to a literal translation, written at a 6th grade reading level it’s great to read to kids.

It’s done-it took me longer than almost any other video I’ve ever done. I ended up having to reshoot one section three times. Production issues!

@@markwardonwords technological issues = the work of Satan! Haha

I’m simply not very familiar with the NRSV. I have used it, but I’ve never read all the way through. I miss going to Canada! We’ll be back in Vancouver as soon as we can!

The way I see it, the NRSV and ESV are like two siblings who argue about politics but otherwise seem eerily similar in their appearance, speech patterns, and mannerisms. For example, consider the book of Obadiah. It's only 21 verses long, so it's an easy comparison. In verse 1, there's a one-word difference ("her" vs. "its" in reference to Edom). Same thing with verses 4 ("says" vs. "declares"), 6 ("searched" vs. "sought"), 15 ("against" vs. "upon"), and 18 ("of" vs. "for"). In other words, nearly a quarter of the verses in Obadiah are essentially identical. Most of the time, the difference comes from the NRSV making a little more effort to rephrase the RSV than the ESV did.

Thanks for the sub!

I'm heartened that the conversation was apparently this reasonable. I find it hard to get this far with people. I pray that your mutual love is keeping the conversation going. Part of me wants to say to them, "Brothers/sisters, do you really and truly understand what your brothers in Christ who prefer the critical text would say about these passages? You are concerned that Satan may be subtracting truth little by little from the Bible; they are concerned that fastidious scribes may have accidentally (or in some cases purposefully) *added* to Scripture. If it is possible that God let some manuscripts lose "verses" (though they were not called "verses" at the time-the verse numbers weren't added until the 1500s), surely it is possible that he let some manuscripts gain them. Right? And how might we know this?" But the bigger part of me feels like these conversations almost never go anywhere, because they are held by people who, by the nature of the case, cannot look at the evidence for themselves-because the evidence is in Hebrew and Greek. So I urge people to focus on what the Bible actually says-edification requires intelligibility-and deflect all talk about something it does not directly address, namely how to perform textual criticism on variants in the manuscript tradition. This is my standard line: "My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you." I want the conversation to be about dead words and false friends. I want to see some honest engagement with those points before I'm willing to proceed in talking with someone about New Testament textual criticism.

@@markwardonwords thank you for your reply. My desire is to avoid carnality in the conversation, but i am afraid at times we have both responded carnally in a desire to be right. However, I am still glad we are able to have these conversations and I strive to be loving and I know he does as well. In reality, this person does not say he is strictly KJVO, rather TR only. I have asked which TR he prefers but have yet to receive an answer. While he focuses on the many diferences between the texts, I think we can and probably should focus on the vast number of similarities. There is still a lot I dont understand on the subject, of course, and there are still some questions in my mind, but I appreciate your videos and your loving spirit.

@@jamespolk4322 I may do some more videos on New Testament textual criticism. Until then, I urge you to read Dirk Jongkind's Crossway book introducing the THGNT and then go through Dan Wallace's free Credo House course on textual criticism. Those are my top recommendations. More recommendations here: byfaithweunderstand.com/2020/09/03/answering-a-question-i-get-all-the-time-the-places-to-start-in-studying-new-testament-textual-criticism/.

@@markwardonwords thank you much

No. But not because there's one that's more conservative. I just don't think that you can generalize like that over 800,000 choices. It's just too complex to be simplified to such a label. Not trying to be evasive, just truthful! The ESV was done by conservatives, some of whom I know personally and love very much. It's probably my true personal favorite. But I really think it would be a fine choice for just about any Bible-preaching church, even those who are less conservative.

He has a video discussing his main issue with the NRSVue, and he generally does not recommend it.

Wonderful! I really love this! You discovered why I’m here!

The ESV is an excellent translation of the Bible in the King James tradition. It is, I think, what the KJV would be if it were made today rather than 400 years ago. It's made into contemporary English rather than Elizabethan English.

Love your testimony!

Planned!

Not a big fan of TPT myself… kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iL6ckqydz9-2iaM.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aKqil5qpzuCxZYk.html The CSB is worth looking at, though.

That makes two of us.

@@markwardonwords keep up the dope work much love from the Chicano community.

I really appreciate this!

When I get a chance to clarify which are "all the good ones," I say that I trust the major modern evangelical English Bibles. These are the ones I've used the most over the years, the ones I know-and whose translators I know. I just got off the phone with one of them! LEB NKJV NASB ESV CSB NIV NET NLT I'll use others on occasion, just for an opinion. But these are the ones I personally trust.

They are all so confusing. The KJV has the power and tells the true story when translated with strongs concordance

Not sure what you mean: elaborate?

We have an embarrassment of riches in English!

Wait! I’m about to put out a video in which I show this same basic process using Raycast. I may take my Alfred video down. Raycast is far superior. But you still need the ESV API. Honestly, I don’t remember the process! I know I had to email Crossway. Now that I work here, I should know, but I don’t! Oh-send an email as instructed at this page: api.esv.org.

@@markwardonwords great I’ll subscribe so I don’t miss the video!

I'm planning on it! Much of the script is written!

They didn't really choose anything here. They just left it the way the RSV had it: "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain." (The NRSV reversed it back to "from," as it was in the ASV.) You can spot inconsistencies in the handling of "ἀπὸ the foundation of the world" in other places: the RSV and ESV both say "from" in Matthew 25.34, but "before" in Ephesians 1.4. (In the latter case, the NASB and NRSV also use "before," so the only thing that's consistent is inconsistency!)

All are good tools for understanding God’s word!

I wish I could purchase the NET notes as a stand-alone book without the NET text.

You can Logos!

You might have gotten the wrong impression from the title! The ESV is indeed my main squeeze, but I use tons of others!

@@markwardonwords In the video you said that You have thought of changing translations before but it would be to hard because that's what your church uses. So I was trying to ask what would you change to if your church didn't use ESV or would you still use the ESV.

@@user-me358 Ah, I see. Hmm. My circumstances have changed since then. My old church voted to close after COVID, and my new church uses the NASB-but I still use the ESV when I preach or teach there, and it causes no problems.

Brother, I get it! Be a Berean! But let me ask you two things… 1) Do you consider it likely that the bunch of Calvinists who created the ESV (from the RSV) were trying to sneak works righteousness into their translation in places? Is that a John Piper thing to do? A J.I. Packer thing to do? I’m asking seriously: what do you think? 2) If you wanted to know whether or not the word “reach” is an accurate translation of the Greek word (or words) here, how would you go about finding that out? What study tools would you reach for?

@@markwardonwords Is the word “come” a false friend? When Calvinist embrace ESV, trust is an issue. Man has a way of skewing that’s the fear. Trusting man is the false friend. Because we don’t see their hearts. Who can we trust, not to skew?

@Mark Ward calvinists don’t believe in works righteousness. That’s a misrepresentation. There are always bad examples, but J.I Packer for instance would never say we are saved by our works.

As Mark Ward subtly suggested, the ESV simply stuck with the RSV's wording here. Conversely, the NRSV parted ways with the RSV and reverted back to the Geneva/KJV/ASV wording of "come to repentance," which is also the wording found in the NASB, NKJV, and MEV.

@@markwardonwords No I don’t believe a bunch of Calvinists sneaked works righteousness into the text...my question is...knowing that we reformed folk are believers of grace through faith, why go with this rendering that isn’t in any of the main translations? Why go with a rendering that seems to imply works righteousness?

Excellent! I love it, too!

;)

Does he prefer it? Good point either way. But if he’s made a statement, I’d like to see it!

Yes it was! What a fantastically beautiful spot! That was a special time.

Fair enough! Enjoy!

Yes, I'm familiar with it!

This is the channel for you. Obsession every Thursday morning.

I haven’t had a chance to look at them. Have you? Got a link?

@@markwardonwords Peter Chapman goes over a number of the changes on his KZfaq channel and he links to this for a fuller breakdown: archive.azurewebsites.net/Documents/Differences%20Between%20the%20ESV%20and%20ESV-CE.pdf

I'd say that the changes are so minor that they make little difference either way. Out of the four minor revisions the ESV has received from 2007 to 2018, the Catholic Edition is arguably the least substantive.

Wonderful! I’m glad to hear this. Crossway has so much good to give the church.

Watch my video, "The NIV Is the Best Bible Translation." I discuss the issue there.

oh did you discuss about gender neutral in the bible, in that video? I'll take a look, however. thanks!

Literal, higher register, direct heir of KJV, reflects KJV word order and word choice often, uses a different Greek text but does so in line with the proclivities of the KJV translators (in my opinion).

@@markwardonwords so you would agree with many Bible reviewers pastors and even lay Christians who would say that the ESV is the King James Bible of our day? Again not saying I agree or disagree I just want to know your thoughts that's all.

Yes. But our day is so different than 1611.

@@markwardonwords how do you mean?

@@markwardonwords are you referring to the fact that we're not ruled by kings anymore and so therefore any translation we make will receive more opposition in the King James Bible did?

A win!

I was writing some of the script this very day!

@@markwardonwords That's great! It's a very obscure translation but I like it. (No, I was never a TR/KJV only person, I just legitimately like the MEV's translation).

@@markwardonwords I would love to see a video on the Berean Study Bible (BSB)!

MEV is An Excellent Translation!

More power to you! Nothing wrong with using the ESV only or mainly, as long as you don’t turn it into a doctrine! I encourage the use of other translations, of course, but I don’t see that use as a biblical requirement.

“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” (Deuteronomy 32:8 ESV) Enlighten me!

Good plan. I support that choice.

Both are good tools!

It was sweet!

Right! And yet very few Christians have the capacity to evaluate the only objective criteria that matters: fidelity to Hebrew and Greek. This is no shame: God doesn’t call everyone to learn the original languages. But I’d like to see more Christians acknowledging that their opinions of the fidelity of various translations are taken on authority from others who can read the languages.

@@markwardonwords That's an excellent point too! I know a big part of the reason I primarily read from the NRSV is because of the influence of N.T. Wright, among others. Had I been influenced differently then who knows what translation I'd be reading from now!

Many thanks!

I think this is taking a tiny kernel of truth about one controversial but obscure choice in Gen 3:16 and blowing it far, far out of proportion. It sticks because the progenitors of the ESV were Calvinists and complementarians. M.A. Moreno had a great comment on this… M.A.? I feel like I saved your comment somewhere, but I can't find it.

When I've asked for evidence of Calvinist bias in the ESV, I've received verses that were left unchanged from the RSV, which means that the ESV committee did nothing to insert bias in those places. One other argument I've heard is related to the ESV's use of "people" rather than "men" in passages dealing with the scope of salvation: - John 12.32: will draw all people to myself - 1 Timothy 2.4: who desires all people to be saved - 1 Timothy 4.10: who is the Savior of all people It is true that the RSV used "men" in those places, and it is true that the ESV does use "men" at times to refer to the entire human race. It's also true that the word "people" leaves a little wiggle room for saying that these "people" are people groups and not individual people. But it's a bit much to say that the word "people" is explicitly biased toward Calvinist interpretations of Scripture. _________________ As Mark Ward noted, there's a stronger case to be made that the ESV has a complementarian bias. Most infamously, Genesis 3.16 was adjusted to follow Susan Foh's complementarian interpretation of a woman's "desire" in the 2016 edition. (Foh took the "desire" to be in opposition to the husband's authority rather than seeing the desire as a longing that makes a woman bond to her husband despite the toils of childbearing.) But more generally, the ESV almost always translates verses in ways that discourage egalitarian interpretations. For instance, in Romans 16.1, the RSV calls Phoebe a "deaconess," but the ESV changes it to a "servant."

Not that I’m aware of. =| It’s really handy!

Your written English certainly does not sound like a second language. Judging solely by your skill in written English, I'd say the ESV is a great choice. And the ESV Study Bible is indeed excellent. There's also the NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible. My good friend Andy Naselli worked on that. www.amazon.com/dp/0310450403?tag=3755-20

@@markwardonwords haha, I do have a somewhat better understanding of English than my fellow countrymen (if you're wondering, I'm from Indonesia), but when conversing directly, I don't sound like a native speaker at all. I did want to try the NIV, but I've heard some criticisms of it, and I think you just mentioned in your recent video about the whole gender-neutral issue. I admit that the NIV is quite easy to understand for an ESL guy, but I just decided maybe I should choose one that's closer to the word-for-word translation. The KJV is a bit heavy on me, so I'll probably use it as a secondary reference for my study. I think ultimately the ESV strikes the best balance between the NIV and KJV, but I'm just wary of certain theological leanings of the translation. I guess I'll go with the ESV first. Might use the NIV or KJV for secondary reference. Watching videos about translational issues and the whole Textus Receptus vs Critical Text debate just seems downright depressing for me. Just want to thank you for all these videos you do. I think it's better to start now than get hung up on all these translation issues.

That cadence is something I hear, too.

I have not personally seen an example of this. I'm open to it, in principle. The main serious, accredited critique of the ESV that I've seen came from Mark Strauss (who endorsed my book!). He did not mention Calvinism or Reformed theology in his review.

@@markwardonwords Thank you, Mark. I'll check out Mark Strauss' critique.

I’ve often thought that Crossway’s wisdom with digital tools has helped encourage paper and other adoption of the ESV. It helped me!

I've been needing to tackle this. I've collected some notes. It may take a while. It's definitely on my radar.

I'm not super familiar with the NRSV; it's been quite a few years since I read it much-though I still check it occasionally in given verses.

Agreed on turning my back. Haven’t done it since. You may be right on 1 Tim 1:16; would have to take some time to look at that.

All the translations you mention are good; I’m glad you make use of them!

I kinda went through that stage and then back around to the ESV. There really is something about the proven value of the Tyndale tradition, and of a mostly literal and literary rendering. I’m just over the division and the oneupsmanship.

I love the study notes in the Archeology Study Bible. If you get the chance pick up a Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible. It's a great companion to the Archeology Study Bible.

@@johnmcafee6140 Thanks! I'm interested in one of those too.

You don’t have to decide! They’re all useful!

@@markwardonwords Thanks & agree! I think mostly the difficulty for me was deciding which is easier for memorization - probably ESV mostly but could mix with other versions.

I love Crossway!

You found it!

The Pure Wheaton Edition of 2001. ;)

Could you link me to some examples?

I don’t think those leanings show up in the translation, and if they do, only in obscure and minor places. But I could be missing something!

;)

I do tend to see it as smoother. So check out my "The CSB Is the Best Bible Translation" video! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b92RqJhmpqqWZXk.html

What led you to the CSB? (And you'll love my next video, this coming Thursday!)

@@markwardonwords Years ago when Ed Stetzer was working for Lifeway I won a copy of the HCSB The Mission of God Study Bible from his blog. Loved it ever since.

Cool!

I'm ok with this sort of thing. It has an honored tradition in the English Christian heritage-because the KJV translators chose often to do things like this. I think they chose a good balance of literal translation of idioms vs. idiomatic translation of idioms.

I made a video about that verse: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eMh0bKil0b2ofKs.html

@@markwardonwords great video.

Why?

@@joegame4576, can you please clarify something for me. Are you asking "Why is it a good video", or "why do I like to consider the interpretation of a verse like I Corinthians 16:13"?

Sorry, what i mean is, what’s wrong with the line “act like men”? And what does the version that you support say instead?