Lol! If I hadn't been hosting this channel, I wouldn't have purchased this Bible either. But a viewer suggested it, I didn't have a copy of the NLT, this edition is not very expensive, and it seemed likely that a video review of it could be of use to Catholic viewers. Thanks for commenting, MrMtotheTizzle!

Thanks for commenting, Albert! I wasn't aware of the liturgical use.

Thanks for the encouraging comment, Antjammat! I didn't realize that use of the ESV-CE in lectionaries was so widespread.

Thank you for the very kind comment!

Thanks for the kind comments, Ken! I reviewed the paperback edition of the ESV-CE (Augustine Bible) some time ago. I haven't seen the leather edition. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qNZjaq6XxrjTeWg.html . By the way, this NLT Catholic Readers Edition video has 81 likes and one dislike at the moment. I typically switch the settings so that the like and dislike counts don't show. I think that may discourage the trolls. But likes are very much appreciated, since the KZfaq algorithms use them, I think.

Thanks for the kind comment, Tim! It may take me some time to score the NLT: The more interpretive translations are challenging to score because they include so may "liberties." Yes, I noticed footnotes with Septuagint readings as I was scoring the NLT for the Masoretic Text chart. In particular, the NLT will not infrequently follow the Masoretic Text in the Old Testament, but provide a helpful footnote to render the Septuagint and to reference the New Testament passages where the Septuagint rendering is quoted.

Thanks for commenting, Rachel! I've read two other comments here to the effect that use of the ESV-CE is becoming fairly widespread outside of the U.S. among Catholics.

Thanks for commenting, Peter! The list in Numbers 13.4-15 reminds me of the tables one finds in study Bibles, complete with column headings. I agree regarding the utility of the dot leaders. I also found the paragraph formatting in, say, Joshua 13 interesting and helpful, where the descriptions of tribal territories are offset from the main text as though they were quotations (with the same unjustified right edge). Lengthy monologues (e.g., 2 Samuel 7.5-16) and letters (e.g., Ezra 4.11-16) are formatted the same way. Very useful in comprehending the structure of a passage at a glance.

Thanks for commenting, Joe! Before a viewer suggested I make a video about it, I had never heard of the NLT-CE either. I've never tried to insert a ribbon into a glued spine. If I decide I need more ribbons, I'll likely paste them to a card and slide it between the back of the text block and the cover.

Thanks for the encouragement, Paul!

I'm getting ready to order this bible for that exact reason. It's a very affordable Bible too.

Thanks for the encouraging comment!

Thanks for the question, Wild Olive Branch Ministries! I hadn't finished scoring the NLT when I did this video. But you can find that chart at the channel's community page: kzfaq.infocommunity .

@@RGrantJones Thank you. Your work is inspiring and informative.

You're talking about the RSV New Oxford Annotated Study Bible with Apocrypha, right? If so, it's one of my favorites too.

@@RGrantJones Yeah, that one. I didn't bought it as I have already bought NRSV with Deutro, ESV, RNJB, KJV, and Tanakh. But as a single source Oxford RSV Study Bible is quite good, notes are fine too. I usually avoid skeptical notes in Jewish and Christian Bibles.

@@RGrantJones One surprising thing about Tanakh is that the way it reads and their order of books, the whole flavor and feel of OT changes because of it. I am not sure if book of Chronicles should come at the end, is it historically chronological? Which was the last book of OT before the start of Intertestamental era?

@@hassanmirza2392 The book of Chronicles was written during the time of Ezra (at the earliest), so it's one of the final books of the Tanakh to be completed.

@@MAMoreno Then why don't the Christians put book of Chronicles at the end of their OT?

Yes, it does. Thanks for the question, Cheryl!

Is there a particular edition you'd like to see? I searched for World English Bible and found a few different editions. For instance, Amazon sells a paperback that it calls "World English Bible: 2016 Update Paperback - September 19, 2016". There appears to be a paperback from Bible Domain Publishing also, and a hardback from Athanatos Publishing Group.

The Catholic edition is no different with the exception of the Deuterocanonical books inserted in Septuagint order. IT is a great translation and text.

David Dewey, in his "A User's Guide to Bible Translations," calls it a "thoroughgoing revision" of the old Living Bible. The Living Bible was a one-man effort, based -- as I understand it -- on the American Standard Version. The NLT was translated by a committee from the original languages.

@@RGrantJones I have an old 1970s Catholic Edition of the Living Bible called The Way. It has an Imprimatur and an introduction for Catholics but none of the Deuterocanonical books.

@@RGrantJones I always thought it was more of a paraphrase than a translation. In Revelation 1:8 and subsequent Jesus says, "I am the A and the Z..." Did that make it into the update?

@@colonelvideo No, the NLT has Alpha and Omega there. I'm actually a bit surprised that it doesn't read "the A and the Z."

Thanks for commenting, Edward! I just checked John 3.7 (one of the KJV Onlyists' favorite verses to use to show the weakness of modern translations), and the NLT includes a footnote that reads, "The Greek word for _you_ is plural; also in 3:12". But the NLT is simply much too interpretive for italics to be practical. Here's Ephesians 1.5 in the NLT: "God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure." Compare that to a relatively literal translation like the ASV or NKJV, and you may end up wondering whether you shouldn't italicize the entire verse, except perhaps "to himself" and "Jesus Christ".

@@RGrantJones That's my problem with these types of Bible. I'm not sure about there usefulness to be honest, as I believe that a more literal translation of the Bible is always a better idea. I want, and I believe that others should too, be able to know what the writers wrote. It may mean that I may have to do a little bit more work to get a complete understanding of the Bible, but that's what should really happen in any case. When one sits down with the word of God, there should be some amount of "wrestling" to get the full idea of the the writer said rather than having a translation committee telling me what they think the writer was trying to say. That leaves the burden of interpretation on me the reader and because I want to be a faithful Christian, it then becomes increasingly important for me to rightly "divide" the word of truth. While I don't think that there is any need for another new translation of the Bible, I'm not that naive as to think that there will not be another. Whether they are going to be new translations or updates of current ones, I sadly believe that they are going to get freer and freer in their translations to the point of becoming unrecognisable because people don't want to do the leg work in studying their Bibles, they are quite happy to let someone else do it for them, even to point of diminished returns.

@@edwardgraham9443 - I agree in that I appreciate translations that preserve the ambiguities present in the original languages, so I can consider the range of possible interpretations. Loose translations like this one have value in that they sometimes present interpretations that didn't occur to me, but I would never rely on the Jerusalem Bible, the New English Bible, or the NLT for my primary translation.

@@RGrantJones I see your point. But at what point does a translation become too free. Where is the cut off point. The sacredness and importance of the Scriptures is too great to leave to such an arbitrary decision. It might well be that we all should just learn to read Hebrew and Greek and read it from the copies of the originals. But that would then only lead to another problem, which are the correct copies of the original, Alexandrian or Byzantine text type? That would maybe be a good idea for another poll. Alexandrian vs Byzantine text type. I can already see the KJVOs. Maybe it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. 😂😂😂

@@edwardgraham9443 - I think I'll take a break from polls for a while, to avoid being a nuisance. I was surprised that so many people prefer page-bottom references. My hunch is that most of them don't use the references very often, but that's just a guess.