Very interesting! Thanks for that informative comment, Peter. (A few years ago, when I had a web site, I asked a Christian publisher for permission to show its translation continuum chart on one of my pages, so I could compare it to my own chart. They wanted me to send them a $100 licensing fee, despite the fact that my web page didn't generate any income.)

@@RGrantJones Wow. Unbelievable. And I thought the Christian Music Publishers were bad enough: the sermons for my church's KZfaq channel get pinged with ads if we even have a part of our congregation singing a song they have published a performance of - out of copyright hymns included!

@@RGrantJones first, thank you for this upload. As is typical with your videos, this comparison was very nicely organized and clearly presented. Good stuff. Second, the $100 fee for brief use of a chart is a bit ridiculous. ("mammon" comes to mind) Cheers

Thanks for the encouragement, Conspiracy Cuber!

I second this!

Thanks for commenting, Thrift Store Bibles!

You're welcome! Thanks for commenting.

That's good to hear! In the U.S., when I was young, the Gideons passed out free New Testaments in schools. But I don't think the government permits that anymore.

@@RGrantJones Ooh man.. 😟 USA belongs to God

@@RGrantJones Depends on the state and School district. My rural district in West Virginia still does but the more urban district to the north of us does not allow the Gideons in.

@@zachsmith8916 - good to hear they're still allowed in some districts!

I concur. But see the comment from Peter Chapman. Peter is a Gideon, and he says that TR readings were added with a focus on the salvation message. Perhaps that idea subjectively applied, along with a desire to present certain other familiar readings, is sufficient to explain the result. Thanks for commenting!

Good points, M.A. Moreno. Thanks for commenting!

I wish I had your enthusiasm. Sectarianism in Bible translation has always struck me as a bad thing. I realize that pining for the past is misguided, but surely something was lost when the KJV ended its reign as "_the_ Bible in English." Of course, even when the KJV had primacy, there were all sorts of sectarian groups that interpreted it however they wanted, but at least they all agreed on what it said, even if there was disagreement on what it meant. I can't decide which is better: their situation, or ours. Perhaps there's tradeoffs with both. So we do the best we can with what we've got.

I examined the ESV at 153 points where there are textual variants and found that it agrees with THGNT's choices 51% of the time. I haven't scored the Gideons ESV, but it should be close to the regular ESV. Thanks for the question!

I don't know of any other Bibles that are available in an optional TR edition. Thanks for commenting, Yvonne!

Not a TR edition, but there's a Majority Text edition of the ASV. To the best of my knowledge though, it's digital only, as it was made recently.

This is an ESV 2016 change, but not in the Gideons ESV, as that is based on the 2011 ESV. The Gideons' changes are only to the New Testament.

Thanks for the comment, Jay! It strikes me as weird too. But Peter Chapman, in a comment on this page, says that the changes were made to focus on the salvation message. (Peter is a Gideon.) Perhaps that principle applied subjectively, along with a desire to introduce other familiar readings, explains the resulting text.

I haven't found the pattern, if there is one. I didn't notice any incorporation of TR-unique readings (like Rev 16.5).

There seems to be no shortage of volunteers to slice and dice the Bible to their heart's content without any fear of the author and his wrath and judgement.

Thank you for that kind comment, ό αγωνιστής!

@@RGrantJones Never thought I’d see a comparison of the two. Good job.

I agree, Edward. I haven't been able to detect a pattern or set of criteria behind the Gideons' textual choices. I'm with you on a Majority Text translation. I'd love to see one, based on the KJV, NKJV, or ESV, for instance.

@@RGrantJonesI'm very hopeful that someone will try it at some point in the future. It'd be great Bible to have.

@@edwardgraham9443 - yes, definitely!

@@RGrantJones I'm definitely an NKJV user, but a second translation, what would you recommend, NASB, ESV or CSB or any other? I use the NKJV almost exclusively and sometimes the KJV, but for study purposes, would like a second translation, as someone who's been a subscriber to your channel for a little bit, and greatly appreciated and respect your opinion, I'm asking this question.

@@edwardgraham9443 - Of those three, I would choose either the ESV or the CSB because I like the idea of using a more interpretive translation alongside a literal one. Since you're already using the NKJV, the NASB likely won't give you much additional perspective. I'm not that familiar with the CSB, however, though I do know that the textual notes are relatively thorough. Since the CSB isn't in the Tyndale line, perhaps its renderings would give you fresh insights. But I hesitate to recommend it without firsthand experience using it.

Mark - does this mean you no longer prefer the New Revised Standard Version? I thought you were an NRSV supporter.

​@@RGrantJones Great point. Yes, I'm still a huge NRSV supporter, even if it has defects, it's defects are fewer in damage than other translations. One defect is adding "brothers and sisters" throughout the New Testament when the original wording was the Greek word for "brothers". It's not that I'm against gender inclusiveness. I'm against erasing history and pretending that they had our modern value system, when they didn't, they had THEIR value system. Instead, we need to understand their culture, and understand that "brothers" also implies "sisters". But I also understand the argument that "brothers and sisters" is "literal" in the sense that it literally means the Greek word for "brothers" now that we live in a gender explicit society, it seems. As far as Textus Receptus is concerned, I'd rather NRSV be based on it than Nestle, or whichever it is (in fact I have to plead momentary ignorance on that). I'm a Huge fan of NRSV for their standing their ground against erasing old lingo and replacing with new lingo, especially when I imagine diabolical plots in doing so. For example, the complete eraser of the word "fornication" in modern bible translations. Fornication is not an obsolete word, but modern bible translations seem to think that it is. And, if the argument is that the word changed it's meaning over time, then the churches that promote impose the new ignorance is actually responsible for those changes in meaning of words, during their earlier culture wars, and now they want to add "homosexuals" into every bible when in fact, during the New Testament writings, their was no conception of that modern definition. Rather, the phobias of their times were based on masculinity roles and femininity roles based on age, with males slowly growing into masculinity over time. - - - okay, lets compare 1 CORINTHIANS 6.18 - - - 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. [kjv] 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. [asv-1901] 18 Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. [nrsv] 18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. [nkjv] 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.[esv] - - - a major shift in translation occurred during world war 2 when "fornication" was removed and "homosexuals" added by the RSV translation team, and introduced in popular hardback edition in early 1946. This was not a spiritual decision, but rather a top-down-authority decision, for the purpose of "culture change" and "purifying the bible" so that homosexuals would be persecuted and shamed, and thought of as "the sexually immoral" in every place the New Bibles mention sexual immorality (rather than fornication) which is in 45 verses of the King James Bible. ESV, NIV, NLT, CSB, TEV and many others follow this authoritative dictate from above. I believe it's purpose is to allow the bearing of "false witness" against our brothers and sisters. And, the authorities were scared, during WW2, that there would be a gross decline in marriage and birthrate post-war. After prior major wars, this has happened, and many soldiers come home happy in life with the comradary of their newly found brothers in arms, and simply aren't going to care for family life and baby making, which social engineers want. So, after the war, in parallel with the red-scare, the lavender-scare also started. Governments fired singles as suspected homosexuals. Businesses followed suit. Teachers were instructed to look the other way when boys were bullied as sissies. Churches stopped teaching the "sin of fornication" and instead preached fire and brimstone exclusively to "the homosexuals". whereas schools use to be strict in separating genders, they now held dances, home-comings, proms, etc, and celebrated "first dates" "going steady" getting engaged" and then "getting married" all the while the David & Jonathan's, and those like the apostles of the New Testament, were bullied as sissies. However, NRSV did not fall inline with this agenda. And, that's why I support it. Although we are searching out minor translation mistakes, we have missed the really BIG MISTAKE, which turns out to not be a mistake at all, but rather a diabolical translation plot, the purpose of which is to bear false witness to innocent brothers and sisters, so that they will be shamed into joining the authorities human-farm-husbandry program. However, we are diverse, and the real Bible truly reflects the true nature of human kind. Farms are never diverse, and when we are placed in them, we become yet another stalk of corn on the farm. :-) Thanks for asking. So, which translations are based on Textus Receptus??? NKJV and other directives perhaps? They are defective in MAJOR ways, even worse than NRSV

@@markwiygul6356 So, in other words, you're saying that a HOLY GOD considers those who practice perversion " innocent brothers and sisters" in Christ, when that same HOLY GOD says that there's nothing Holy or innocent or natural about homosexuality or any other sexual perversion.

@@jamestrotter3162 I never mentioned homosexuality or perversion in my comment above. But, since you want to discuss "homosexuality" you should know that "homosexuality" was never mentioned as a sin in the Bible until early 1946 when a large committee of Bible translators (translating during WW2) published their New Testament in popular hardback edition, becoming a best seller. This was the 1946 RSV New Testament, and the verse was in 1 CORINTHIANS 6.9. The footnote said that 2 Greek Word was used to translate "homosexuals". So the Greeks had not one but Two words used for homosexuality? Not so, they had zero words. It was mistranslated. So if the Greeks had two words (in that verse) that 1 COR 6.9 that referred to homosexuals then why didn't the translation use two words? Because the translators wanted to invent a new class of individuals to harass and purge. Why would the original Greek writer (Paul) use two words when one would have been satisfactory? Because he was identifying two different classes of sin, not one class called "homosexuality". That class didn't exist in his time. To demonstrate how wrong that was to translate the two words, both as "homosexuals" imagine that we lived in a Vegetarian society and we wanted to condemn meat eaters. (perhaps in the future all farm land will be required for farming beans instead of meat, so more protein per acre, to feed a world with more people). So, to do that, using RSV translation tactics, they could go back to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and mis-translate the eating of "Pork" to the sin of eating "Meat" then when everyone in the future says, "that's wrong translating!" the translators would rationalize by saying "but that ancient word "pork" means "meat" in our language today! WRONG. The Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals, it condemns various sins that some might commit, just as Leviticus doesn't condemn eating all meat, only certain varieties of meat, just like today we don't condemn all heterosexuality, but do condemn certain forms like rape, or in the old days, illegal positions contrary to the "missionary position" which the early settlers use to condemn native Americans of practicing, as sin. 1 SAMUEL 18.1 - - When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 1 SAMUEL 20.17 - - Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life. 2 SAMUEL 1.26 - - . . . I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. 1 SAMUEL 21: [4] The priest answered David, “I have no ordinary bread at hand, only holy bread-provided that the young men have kept themselves from women.” [5] David answered the priest, “Indeed women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?” [nrsv] 1 SAMUEL 20.41 & 20.42 - - As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. REVELATIONS 14: [3] . . . No one could learn that song except the one hundred forty-four thousand who have been redeemed from the earth. [4] It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins; these follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They have been redeemed from humankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb, [5] and in their mouth no lie was found; they are blameless. [nrsv] (Heterosexual Immorality) MATTHEW 5: [27] “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ [28] But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [nrsv]

@@markwiygul6356 You're wrong on every point.