@@KaiHenningsen "Now with 100% fewer contradictions!"
@scienceexplains3024 ай бұрын
@@minaguta41471000%!
@icypirate114 ай бұрын
@@minaguta4147 😂🤣
@skyinou4 ай бұрын
@@minaguta4147 I would have said "with 100% more accuracy". Because, you know, 100% more of 0%... 😁
@dancahill95854 ай бұрын
It's hilarious to me that the Fundamentalists made a translation that removed contradictions because of their beliefs that the Bible was the literal "inerrant" work of God. It is so inerrant, you have to change the source material to remove errors.
@karldehaut4 ай бұрын
🎯
@fabiolean3 ай бұрын
The lack of scruples is stunning
@bman52573 ай бұрын
How they did not explode from the cognitive dissonance is beyond me.
@shanegooding48392 ай бұрын
Most of them are unaware of how much the NIV has been altered from the original texts as their church leaders have fallaciously taught them that it is the most accurate version. The biggest problem with fundies is that they blindly trust the words of their leaders and in turn teach these fallacies to new converts all the while believing that they have found the truth that everyone else is missing out on.
@brock2k14 ай бұрын
And if the NIV publishers think they can get away with changing the text in these days, when digital texts make it very easy to compare and search in seconds, imagine how easy it would be for priests in ancient times to add, delete, or smooth out verses they disagreed with, when only they had the scrolls.
@Rhewin4 ай бұрын
They just put into writing the apologetics that have been in place forever. Even a diehard KJV only Baptist will insist there aren’t 2 creation accounts, and that 2:4 onward is a zoom in on day 6. It’s not, but they’ll insist it despite what the words say.
@dechasrisen47834 ай бұрын
@@Rhewin it's a particular version of that conviction, which is a consequence of evangelical shortsightedness and their failure to think critically or acknowledge the existence of interpretative schemata. Any intellectually credible branch of Christianity insists that the Bible doesn't make mistakes, but only Evangelicals *also* insist that it must be incredibly obvious and superficial in the interpretative act. There are plenty of traditions which understand the Bible coherently without doing this.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
@@Rhewin Why do you think Geneis 2 is not a zoom in of day 6 in Genesis 1?
@Rhewin3 ай бұрын
@@AlanCossey because it’s a different story. The most obvious difference is the creation of birds. Gen 1 puts it on day 5, before animals and humans. God doesn’t actually create the birds either, he commands the waters to do it. Then on day 6, he commands the earth to create animals. Finally, he personally creates humans, male and female. In Gen 2, he makes man first. When he realizes it’s bad for Adam to be alone, he takes dirt and creates birds and animals at the same time. And I’ve heard people try to say these are additional bird and animals, but the text is very clear that he creates *every* bird and animal at this time. God, in a scene played for comedy, shows Adam the animals to see if he can find a companion. When that fails, he finally creates woman. Gen 1’s God does everything through diving command; Gen 2’s does things by hand. Gen 1’s is elegant and divine; Gen 2’s is a bumbling fool who thinks Adam might want to shag an animal.
@QuinnPrice4 ай бұрын
Yes, but the churches who use the NIV have guitar players who shred for Jesus. Mic drop.
@What-he5pr4 ай бұрын
Lol true.
@KaiHenningsen4 ай бұрын
@@What-he5pr Worse. They have people who voluntarily listen to that!
@loriallan92944 ай бұрын
🤣
@cedricgaming51064 ай бұрын
Lol
@thalasyus4 ай бұрын
It's basically the only place where rock is not dead nowadays. (Some would say that there are fates worse than death)
@KGchannel014 ай бұрын
Very interesting! I'd like to hear more examples of the NIV's harmonizing mistranslations!
@munbruk4 ай бұрын
1st Tim 6:14-16 they added "God" so that it is not Jesus the only sovereign who is alone eternal etc. They are right.
@scienceexplains3024 ай бұрын
Genesis 37:28 {NIV} “So when the Midianite merchants came by, -his brothers- *they* pulled Joseph up out of the cistern…” NIV is inserting “his brothers” as the subject of Pull, apparently to harmonize with other Genesis text. The antecedent in 37:28 is Midianite merchants.
@CB669414 ай бұрын
There's Genesis 2:17: (NIV) 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, *for when you eat from it* you will certainly die.” (notice it does not mention when you eat of it, to harmonize that Adam will eventually die) Edit: sorry it does kinda (?) mention, but it does not mention a specific time period (NRSV) 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, *for in the day* that you eat of it you shall die.” (notice this mentions the day you eat of it, but this would contradict the story since Adam dies 900+ years later) Jeremiah 7:22: (NIV) 22 For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not *just* give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, (notice the word "just", implying God gave additional laws apart from what he gave) (NRSV) 22 For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. (notice the lack of any word "just", implying God did not give them these commandments at all)
@scienceexplains3024 ай бұрын
@@CB66941 Jeremiah is a great example. The next verse even starts “But,” rather than, “I also commanded,” which shows that the intention behind 7:22 was “Not,” not “Not just.” But G2:17 says “when,” which sounds more specific than “on the day.” I can’t think of an example of When that does (edit: Not) imply immediacy, as long as you don’t add “Eventually,” or “you start a process,” or something similar, and NIV G2:17 doesn’t.
@scienceexplains3024 ай бұрын
*John 19:16 NIV adds “soldiers”* John 19:16 Pilate handed Jesus over to “them.” The antecedent is the chief priests (of the Jews). “So -the soldiers- they took Jesus.” The antecedent is still the chief priests. In 19:18 the same “they” crucifies Jesus. 19:23 Here the Greek does say the soldiers crucified Jesus. Is “soldiers” here a later interpolation?
@toritori58354 ай бұрын
One of my profs used to call it, “The New Inaccurate Version.” 😊😅😂
@shenencalhar4 ай бұрын
I just had a conversation last night with a friend about allowing the text of the Bible to speak for itself instead of viewing it through the lens of particular religious interpretations.
@Adamborries4 ай бұрын
I would love to have a spreadsheet with a list of these references that the NIV mistranslates and harmonizes.
@totallyturtles4804 ай бұрын
I've found a lot through Google searches, but they do have apologist bias. I'd love to see a Bible scholar without an agenda give more examples, like Dan!
@ChristianCarrizales4 ай бұрын
There actually is a really good site that does this. Just search on Google for “Poor and Misleading Translation in the NIV”. It’s from a site called “Is that In the Bible”. Should be the first search result. It’s quite a comprehensive list.
@ChristianCarrizales4 ай бұрын
There’s a good one if you search for “Poor and Misleading Translation in the NIV”. Very comprehensive.
@Otome_chan3113 ай бұрын
Basically every English translation is redacted, censored, or altered in some way. When in doubt I just refer back to the Vulgate
@bman52573 ай бұрын
An example David Bentley Hart has complained about is how they translate sarx/flesh as something different than flesh in 1 Corinthians in order to make Paul sound less Gnostic when he says that the flesh fights against the spirit. And that flesh and blood can’t inherit the Kingdom of God.
@georgeflowers37304 ай бұрын
Think about how many times this has been done in the past 2000 years...
@apachewraith4 ай бұрын
The rewriting of the Septuagint in the 7th or 8th century being the most obvious example.
@MitzvosGolem14 ай бұрын
1 John 5:7-8 ,John 7:53,8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 not in earliest original koine Greek new testament. Mathew 17:21 removed. Church fathers modified edited Hebrew scripture such as Isaiah 7:14 to Virgin in future tense added. Dozens of modifications made to Hebrew scripture.
@user-uo7fw5bo1o3 ай бұрын
Celsus in his _On the True Word_ complained that the Christians kept changing their scriptures to alter, eliminate, or cover up problematic passages.
@MitzvosGolem13 ай бұрын
@@user-uo7fw5bo1o Fact ,indeed, there are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the earliest original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew sources.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
@@apachewraith //The rewriting of the Septuagint in the 7th or 8th century being the most obvious example.// Eh? We have the Greek Old Testament in manuscripts from the 350s-ish AD, e.g. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
@NielMalan4 ай бұрын
To me this is like learning that there's no tooth fairy. My native language is not English, and I knew practically nothing about the English Bible, but what little I knew was probably mostly quotes from the KJV. So when we got an NIV in the house, I was very impressed with the fact that it was a translation from the original languages, and I enjoyed reading the Bible in a contemporary language. (The freshly translated version of the Bible in my home language was still a year or two away.) Today I'm an atheist, so to hear Dr McClellan explain what the problem is with the NIV is like learning that there's no tooth fairy.
@cardy5124 ай бұрын
One thing I always found interesting is how evangelical churches rotate using the NIV and the ESV. I'm an atheist, but my wife wanted to go back to church, so I went with her to a "non-denominational" church. They rotate through 3 to 4 Bibles when referencing scripture. I find it humorous how dishonest evangelicals are and how they rely on ignorance and crowd manipulation.
@MarcosElMalo24 ай бұрын
I’ve come to the conclusion that evangelicals worship “The Bible” as a stand-in for God. The Bible is their proof that God exists and their proof of crucifixion/resurrection. So it must be inerrant and univocal or the jig is up. The circular claim is the Bible is the word of God, therefore God exists, therefore the Bible is inerrant. And because their particular idea of deity is unseen (if not absent as the atheists claim), the Bible is the only constant manifestation of God. “God is in the Bible” shifts from metaphor to concrete belief. He who controls the Spice . . . I mean Bible. He who controls the Bible controls the Bible worshippers. The NIV represents a new-ish form of control not seen in centuries. The book worshippers have lost control of the interpretation of the Bible, so why not just impose control on the Bible by rewriting it. This isn’t the first time it’s been rewritten. But it might be the most radical rewrite.
@FernLovebond4 ай бұрын
I'm sorry you're stuck going to an evangelical service. Been there, done that, awful stuff. I'm glad you've managed to maintain a marriage despite the discrepancy in beliefs, tho. I've been unable to, myself.
@byrondickens4 ай бұрын
If you could get her to go to an Episcopal church, you will find that a lot more palatable. Any Mainline denomination will be better.
@drakkonis14 ай бұрын
The ignorance is yours, sir. There are two main differences between translations. One is a literal translation and the other an attempt to communicate the essences of the idea the text is trying to convey. Forget that it is the Bible. Consider any other ancient text. You can create a literal translation of it but that doesn't guarantee meaning. In order to understand what is being said, you have to understand the culture to which it was being written. You have to have the assumptions they had. You had to have the worldview they had. If you don't, you won't understand what is being said. That is why multiple translations are used by pastors. They are trying to convey a concept, not literal translations of words.
@squiddwizzard88504 ай бұрын
@@drakkonis1 that and sometimes a passage is phrased in a more pleasing manner in one verse but another does for another. I'm talking about aesthetics and subjective beauty not validity.
@timothymalone70674 ай бұрын
Thanks! You continue to provide clear concise explanations that those of who are not Biblical scholars can understand and appreciate.
@bazcuda4 ай бұрын
I abandoned the NIV about 40 years ago, after reading it cover to cover twice and becoming an atheist. These days, purely for study purposes, I like the NRSV, especially the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 5th Ed., and the Harper Collins NRSV Study Bible. Both excellent resources, although I mostly consult the Oxford. Of course, I always defer to Hebrew scholars on any matter concerning the Hebrew scriptures, aka the "old" testament 😜
@FernLovebond4 ай бұрын
@@Texasmade74 Although I'm not the person you're asking, I've been approached by this kind of questioning when I admit my own atheism, and I hope maybe I can bridge the divide a little here. In your comment, you make a lot of assumptions about someone's mindset and views within a single question. It seems that you're asking this question as an entitled theist, so I'll address it as if that's the case. I'm pretty sure @bazcuda just told you the most critical reason they became an atheist: they read the bible cover to cover, twice. There's a long-running trope that the road to atheism is paved with sacred texts read cover to cover. When you attempt to make sense of the claims of such texts, approach them with basic openness to their actual history and origins, or even just read what they actually say, it becomes clear to many people that such texts are not any kind of "sacred" guidebook, but a list of fantasy tales written by ignorant people. In the case of the Christian bible, the text is full of gruesome, horrific tales of vicious, sexist, bigoted warmongering, with a narcissistic veneer of "love" over the top. Someone reading with an open mind to the most likely sources of the claims in it, and with a basic sense of reason and empathy, might find it repulsive. I'm sure @bazcuda has their own detailed list of things that, eventually, over time, caused them to lose their faith. A _personal_ list, like it would be for anyone, just like I'm sure you have a personal list of things that you feel support what _you_ believe or reject. But what I'm fairly confident in asserting on @bazcuda's behalf is that their position wasn't some ridiculous, cartoonish snap judgement like you're implying here. They didn't read the NIV the second time and suddenly say "Nope, that's it. I reject any and all monotheisms, and I am now an atheists." That's a preposterous reduction, dismissing the human struggle of belief that many atheists experience. Many of us fight against our reason and logic and the evidence before our eyes--often times for many painful, confusing, frightening years--before admitting to ourselves that we just can't maintain the suspension of disbelief any more. We face social rejection, loss of friends, family, and community, some of us even lose jobs and/or housing, because we no longer conform to the belief system. We don't want to lose these things, we struggle and anguish over these things, but we can't blatantly deny ourselves, deny the facts and reality before us, and still live with ourselves. I could turn the question back on you to show you how silly and insulting it is: Did you believe in a monotheistic god because you were automatically closed-minded to polytheistic religions? I dare say that's not at all what informed your beliefs. What do you think caused you to make such a strange assumption about @bazcuda?
@apachewraith4 ай бұрын
If Christianity isn't "true", and the atheist is right, then "morality" is irrelevant. As the 20th century bloodbath made very clear.
@firstpersonwinner74044 ай бұрын
I think it is funny that to make sure it didn't seem like Molech was incorrect they basically assumed that the previous references were all incorrect
@VulcanLogic4 ай бұрын
Just to show how dishonest they are, the 1978 version of the NIV has "miscarriage" in Exodus 21:22. The 1984 version changed that to "born prematurely" with no textual reason to do so. It was a politically motivated change to support their relatively newfound stance against abortion.
@totallyturtles4804 ай бұрын
I love how John Piper wrote an entire article about this and legitimately said, "The NIV agrees with me and so it's the best translation for this verse." Born prematurely does not make any sense given the Hebrew word used and the context of the verse.
@AlanCossey4 ай бұрын
Gives birth (prematurely) seems a valid translation of וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יה. Oh, and by the way, the NIV has "miscarries" as an alternative translation, at least in the 2011 edition.
@VulcanLogic4 ай бұрын
@@AlanCossey No, it's not valid. There's no crime or injured party for a fine to be paid if a healthy baby is born as a result, even if prematurely (and the word prematurely doesn't exist in the text and has no justification). The fine only makes sense as a miscarriage. They're deliberately rewriting the text.
@Sveccha934 ай бұрын
It’s not valid literally, contextually, or logically. I’m not even sure you could create a context where those words would be chosen. How could you construe “my products of conception were expelled” as a preterm live birth? Where would the legal harm lie even if we’re being generous?
@Otome_chan3113 ай бұрын
The Latin text has "abortivum" which basically means abortion or miscarriage.
@andrewm39974 ай бұрын
I shouldn't be surprised, but I still am. I'd love to see a follow up video going over more examples like these.
@jcausey86444 ай бұрын
Heres another one: Psalm 82:1, about God presiding over the divine council, the NIV adds quotation marks around 'gods' to make the verse align more with monotheism. This despite the common scholarly view the the ancient israelites fully acknowledged the existence of other gods.
@keith67064 ай бұрын
Much of the older parts of the Hebrew Bible only makes sense if what is written is based on the premise that there are multiple deities, and while Yahweh might have generally been the one that kicked the most ass, he was far from omniscient or omnipotent and was more akin to the portrayal of other gods in that he could be petty and vindictive and sometimes just wrong. It's the insistence on trying to jam a universal, single, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-loving deity into those old stories that cause most of the problems for apologists instead of simply reading what it says as opposed to what they want it to say.
@mikepolioudakis7754 ай бұрын
Good to know. Thanks much. Will influence my choices and reading. Mike
@UBEUILLBEME4 ай бұрын
RIP sola scriptura.
@user-uo7fw5bo1o3 ай бұрын
Or, "It's now sola scriptura the way we want it!"
@shanegooding48392 ай бұрын
This is the preferred version amongst many fundamentalists because it agrees the most with their own beliefs. However I'd wager that most of them are unaware of how much the original texts have been altered or have even the slightest idea of what the original authors intended with many passages as the majority of fundies are taught from the beginning of their conversion to trust whatever interpretations are espoused by their leaders.
@Set666Abominae4 ай бұрын
There’s something so utterly perverse in proclaiming an inerrant word of God, which is then *consciously altered by humans*. These translators have no shame.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
You seem to be mixing up the different groups of people. The NIV translators have not "consciously altered" anything. Like other translators, they have tried to give the best translation they could.
@hyperhyme19114 ай бұрын
This is why I only use the NRSVUE, when I cite or read the Bible.
@micah32093 ай бұрын
This video, especially the last part, is oddly the most compelling case for Catholicism I've ever seen.
@ramblingracheltrailtales4 ай бұрын
For study I use the NRSV. However, notice a lot of others use the NIV. It’s made interesting conversation in a Bible group I was once involved in, comparing the text and meaning of words.
@jameshose50433 ай бұрын
wow great topic and treatment NRSV rocks
@adamellison58973 ай бұрын
Thank heavens for your videos.
@MusicalRaichu4 ай бұрын
Hey I was wondering about some of those verses. I also noticed some books in the NT are replete with changes to the text. Like "former desires" got changed to "evil desires" 1 Pet 1.14. 1 Pet 1.13 "at his coming" is inserted gratuitously when it's just not there. Rom 1.24 "desires" becomes "sinful desires".
@clarencehammer35564 ай бұрын
I have never had an NIV version but it sure seems to be a popular version.
@weebunny4 ай бұрын
It was pretty much the only version used in the Southern Baptist church I grew up in. A few people preferred the NASB because they wanted to have some insight into the original languages without learning the original languages.(To be fair, for a lot of people, learning ancient languages would be a pretty hefty lift, while also working their full-time jobs and running their kids to soccer practice.)
@karmachameleon3264 ай бұрын
The Bible is perfect and absolutely correct, and therefore we need to modify it? Whuh?
@karldehaut4 ай бұрын
The NIV version of the Bible reminds us of something funny. The reform movement was born from the study of the Hebrew texts of the Bible to counter their translation into Greek in the Septuagint version. This is to attack the Latin translation found in the Vulgate. In fact Dan continues the work of the Reformers. The Evangelists and especially the apologists have taken up the torch from the Catholic Church which only authorized the reading of the Vulgate. In fact, the NIV version is the exact opposite of the critical work of the Reformers. I am waiting for the moment when the evangelists will officially create their Inquisition.
@minaguta41474 ай бұрын
Perhaps they should rename the NIV as "Jedi Mind Trick Bible"
@weebunny4 ай бұрын
These are not the contradictions you are looking for.
@robertmoore20494 ай бұрын
Please more examples later on in new videos, Dan. Thanks 🙏🏼!
@Rhewin4 ай бұрын
I was surprised to find the Gen 2 mistranslation was also in the ESV. Unsurprisingly, it’s another favored by evangelicals.
@Redtornado64 ай бұрын
What’s the most accurate translation?
@loriallan92944 ай бұрын
People just don’t realize how deceitful this is. I always read the NIV, but now I use the NRSVUE. You phrase things so politely. 🤣
@ballasog4 ай бұрын
Robert Alter's "The Hebrew Bible" has been complete since December 2018. Look for it at your library; I found the complete version but it was released in stages during the 20 years he was working on it so you may be able to get various published sections if your library doesn't have the complete version.
@JoseFernandez-mn6qt4 ай бұрын
IT is of the utmost Importance, that the oldest manuscripts of this collection of writings be kept and preserved, in order to avoid attempts by people to re-write and provide new authority to said writings. We cannot permit people to repeat the creation of such mythological traditions and the allow them to be assigned authority over people!
@gdevelek4 ай бұрын
OK but you need to also tell us what version you do consider to be accurate.
@belisariobenites10914 ай бұрын
Your presentation was very enlightening and super helpful. I use the NRSV or the ESV. What’s your opinion of the ESV? Un abrazo.
@chuckshingledecker22164 ай бұрын
The ESV otherwise known as the Extra Sexist Bible. It suffers from the same ideology as the NIV but IMO it’s even worse.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
@@chuckshingledecker2216 How did you come to the conclusion that it's even worse? What evidence did you find? Please be specific.
@Nymaz4 ай бұрын
Wow, I was completely unaware of this. Is there another (English) translation you would recommend as more faithful (pun not intended) to the original Hebrew?
@DavidAlastairHayden4 ай бұрын
New Revised Standard Version.
@dechasrisen47834 ай бұрын
It's so frustrating that evangelicals think this is the only way to harmonise the Bible. It's like even the translators had never read an ancient text (somehow), because they don't appear to have learned any lessons. It's fine to do Text Crit on Biblical manuscripts, and it's essential to try even just a little bit to understand the Bible when it appears to contradict itself. Beautiful revelations about the nature of God are born when we look past our first, superficial reading of the text and try to understand what it is actually saying. (And no, just saying 'it's a metaphor' doesn't count, intellectually dishonest liberal Christians). (To be clear, 'liberal' only in the strict sense of 'denying the authority and infallibility of the Bible').
@paulallenscards4 ай бұрын
Exodus 6:3 is an archetypal example of the kinship dimplomacy underlying the scriptural concatenation project between the northern and southern kingdoms.
@DavidSeruyange4 ай бұрын
Hey Dan, I have been in the rabbit hole of your KZfaq videos after watching your comments on ESV yesterday. Thank you for your work - the videos are short but I know a lot of effort is required in being succinct on these big topics. I was wondering if there is a translation you prefer or if there are a collection you usually triangulate when you are studying Biblical text. For nonscholarly folks who do not have a background in the original languages of manuscripts (Hebrew, Greek, etc) is there anyone who has written at length on these various modifications or "tradition" driven translations? You'd mentioned Samuel Perry in your ESV video but I think that was just a few papers, not a book.
@hive_indicator3184 ай бұрын
He usually recommends the NRSV for being faithful to the source texts. It's found as the Oxford Study Bible and the Harper Collins Study Bible
@matthewnitz83674 ай бұрын
In previous videos he has mentioned the NRSVUE as a good scholarly translation, and the New Oxford Annotated Bible as a good Bible translation with scholarly commentary. One of the better lists I've seen on NIV mistranslations can be found by searching "Poor and Misleading Translation in the New International Version". This doesn't even contain several of the examples that Dan gives in this video though, so clearly despite the hundreds listed there it is still not comprehensive.
@FernLovebond4 ай бұрын
A lot of questions people ask of Dan can be found answered in his earlier videos. A search for basic topics or key phrases/words can help you find answers to most questions. He has never--that I've seen--engaged in the comment section of his KZfaq crossposts.
@deadfdr4 ай бұрын
Dan, thank you for sharing all your hard work. Just thought I’d ask an expert, based on my 47 years of reading the Bible, I’m coming to the conclusion that only 20% of it, or less can stand the historical analysis of being factual. What do you think?
@Phylaetra13 күн бұрын
What do you think about Robert Alter's translation ?
@Agryphos4 ай бұрын
The NWT does fine on Genesis 2:8 but flubs on 2:19 with "had been forming" Likely they could reconcile that this specific garden was planted after Adam was created (haven't reviewed to make sure that's the order they believe) but animals being after Adam was a no-no
@Debunked4214 ай бұрын
The NWT is JW trash. It's OG translator was an ocultist. Look it up, bad translation with JW words inserted to assert their theological ideas
@apachewraith4 ай бұрын
What about other species of humans, I wonder? The Genesis story is one of A people, not "people" it seems.
@googolplex14 ай бұрын
For some reason, in the Spanish version of the NIV those changes are not so evident.
@kbelle95693 ай бұрын
Just wanted to say I'm the one thousandth like... Carry on.
@cygnustsp4 ай бұрын
I think guys like Kent Hovind don't like the NIV which i found weird but he's a kjv guy. When I was exiting the JWs it was was weird trying to figure out who used what Bible and why.
@weebunny4 ай бұрын
JWs have their own Bible translation, right? I was raised evangelical, and as a kid I was taught that the JW translation was deliberately altered to change the meaning of the original. It wouldn't surprise me if that were true, but it's ironic that the evangelicals' favorite translation is deliberately altered, just as they accuse some other sects of doing. :-D
@cygnustsp4 ай бұрын
@@weebunny yeah exactly, the JW Bible really isn't all that bad but it's terrible for reading, it has everyone talking like 20th century people and yeah there are many verses which make Jesus appear to be just a guy, definitely not God, so when I quit the JWs I bought a bunch of Bibles and one was one the niv and I read it and was like holy crap this is bad, then I found out it was based on the same texts and I was like how the heck is that possible. I find Catholic Bible to be the best to be honest.
@agustinthierry67194 ай бұрын
Hola, Dan. ¿Qué versión recomiendas en español? Yo uso la Reina-Valera pero me preocupa que tenga los mismos problemas que la KJV.
@bokafree2 ай бұрын
I just started reading and NIV is the only Bible i have. Tell me what version should i get please.
@Bright_Sol4 ай бұрын
What version would be faithful to the source text? Do I just get a copy of the Masoretic and Septuagint? What about NT? Thanks.
@WhichDoctor12 ай бұрын
When you believe in your holy book soo hard you intentionally corrupt the words written in it
@jimhere013 ай бұрын
All different translations of the Bible such as the NIV etc, should only be used to help people reading the KJV understand, and translate unfamiliar terms, words or concepts that they haven't come across before for better understanding the Scriptures as presented in the King James Version. I think the King James Version is the version approved by God to bring a person into a closer, truer relationship with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
//I think the King James Version is the version approved by God to bring a person into a closer, truer relationship with God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.// Why is that?
@baneofbanes3 ай бұрын
@@AlanCosseybecause that’s the version they grew up with. That’s the only reason. Also probably because they only speak English.
@AlanCossey25 күн бұрын
@@baneofbanes What about those who didn't grow up using the KJV?
@baneofbanes25 күн бұрын
@@AlanCossey then they’re just morons. Most KJV only people however grew up with the KJV
@thedude99414 ай бұрын
So what are some good translations?
@brettkeeler882228 күн бұрын
Do you have an explanation for why you use “Adonai” to always refer to YHWH, instead of saying Yahweh or Jehovah?
@FaughtyEmit3 ай бұрын
Does any know how the NET holds up as a good translation?
@cygnustsp4 ай бұрын
NIV uses westcott and hort and so does NWT who had a similar mission statement and totally presupposes univocality. I'd love to see you have a say about the NWT, which i actually prefer in certain instances.
@AndrewReesonLeather4 ай бұрын
Can someone tell me what "received tradition" means in this context?
@LensOfLove22393 ай бұрын
You're referring to the Nearly Inspired Version, correct?
@HangrySaturn4 ай бұрын
KJV is kind of old and NIV is very corrupt. Are there any really good translations of the Bible? I've heard of the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version).
@VulcanLogic4 ай бұрын
The NRSV is the most accessible, but the Jewish Study Bible and the Oxford Study Bible are also pretty good.
@HangrySaturn4 ай бұрын
@@VulcanLogic Thanks for the info.
@bristolrovers274 ай бұрын
Interesting as always I'm a Muslim, from a Christian background, and whilst we have what is generally accepted as our original text as a point of reference, any translation is regarded as a translation of the meaning of The Quran. Surely this is what the NIV is trying to be ? Expressing the meaning (as the translators see it) rather than be an accurate word for word translation. Is there a translation that sticks closely to the oldest texts, that you might recommend ? PS. I never thought I'd be defending Evangelicals in public ever 😮
@jelliottlein4 ай бұрын
Unlike Jewish and Islamic traditions, most Christian traditions accept vernacular translations as meant to be accurate and authoritative. Every translation is of course an interpretation; but deliberately distorting the text and representing it as accurate is a step beyond the literal/meaning divide. The NRSVue is the scholarly standard.
@squiddwizzard88504 ай бұрын
Any thoughts on the New Living Translation (NLT)?
@JasonPSchafer4 ай бұрын
I would be interested on your thoughts on the GNT. It is the one I was raised on and I still refer to since it's more verbose and seems to word things differently from others. I personally felt it has clarified things to me better than others. But I never knew if it was accurate in a scholarly sense or if it was more of a paraphrase than a Translation. My understanding it is more of a thought for thought translation than a "word for word" but I dont know how Scholars would view this.
@Rhewin4 ай бұрын
A “thought for thought” translation means that the translators have applied their interpretation to the text. Some nuance might get lost in favor of the translator’s theology. On the opposite end, translations like NRSV are concerned with being as literal as possible with no deference to theology.
@totallyturtles4804 ай бұрын
To back up what @rhewin said, even though the NRSV gets a reputation for being scholarly, I have found it to be one of the easiest translations to read. It makes more sense than the NIV or GNT to me.
@AlanCossey4 ай бұрын
@@Rhewin And sometimes being literal misses the point.
@Rhewin4 ай бұрын
@@AlanCossey being too literal is how you get the NASB.
@cenred48214 ай бұрын
Which is closest to the original source material?
@BobHutton4 ай бұрын
I have a 1978 NIV and it doesn't have the word "fully" in Exodus 6v3, but the latest version does. One the other hand, Matthew 13v32, in the 1978 NIV, has Jesus describing the mustard seed as "the smallest of all your seeds", with the latest version having Jesus describing it as "the smallest of all the seeds". It seems the translators are continuously looking to see what they can get away with. Occasionally, with the pushback from scholars who actually go by the text, they do actually show some shame at their dishonesty and revise their translation.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
Nope, they are looking to give the best translation they can.
@BobHutton3 ай бұрын
@@AlanCossey I'm sure that's what they would say. The evidence points to them pushing their pre-existing religious views regardless of the text.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
@@BobHutton But your pre-existing religious view doesn't? Are you saying that your views are more balanced than theirs?
@BobHutton3 ай бұрын
@@AlanCossey I'm saying I'll go with scholars and translators who haven't had to sign on to a confession of faith before they can start work. I'll go with the ones who's priority is to understand the original text in its original context. The only thing I'm looking for is accuracy.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
@@BobHutton Why do you think signing a confession of faith is incompatible with having a priority of understanding the original text in its original context? What problem do you see with the different translations of the NIV for Mt 13:32? The latest version "Though it is the smallest of all seeds" looks to me to be the better translation. Happy to discuss the Exodus 6:3 problem if you like.
@Debunked4214 ай бұрын
Yeah, but the guy's voice for the audio version of the NIV sounds the best.
@welcometonebalia4 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@hughb50924 ай бұрын
Although my favorite is the KJV, I’m well aware of its failings. I’ve always enjoyed the NIV, but I was unaware they had an agenda. The NASB is so dry. The NLT is very readable.
@cygnustsp4 ай бұрын
My favorite reading Bible was the NJB, a Catholic Bible that has Yahweh throughout
@hughb50924 ай бұрын
@@cygnustsp I’ve got that Bible!! It’s absolutely wonderful. I’m disappointed I failed to mention it. It actually uses the divine name + apocrypha + it’s a clear translation to read with copious commentary notes.
@Yaggayaggayeet4 ай бұрын
Could you please help me understand why you have YHWH in the subtitles but pronounce it as Adonai?
@jamesastle64724 ай бұрын
It's still my favorite version. Some of the stuff feels like straining at gnats. The Bible isn't the ultimate authority anyway, God is and always will be.
@sbeckmesser4 ай бұрын
So instead of Occam's razor they are using an actual razor.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
Nope.
@ronjones14144 ай бұрын
All of this is probably true, but it doesn't talk about groves.
@cinnamondan49844 ай бұрын
As a Latter-day Saint, I cannot fathom how you have any spirituality in your life even after watching the full Mormon Stories interviews.
@jhmaughan4 ай бұрын
Alma 32:21 “Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore, if you have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.“ Mistranslations and misunderstandings of the Bible lead people to “things which are not true” which creates weak faith that eventually fails. I believe having an accurate understanding of the Bible actually helps build faith and spirituality because we can better understand people’s experiences with deity, rather than filtering through our own ideas.
@cinnamondan49844 ай бұрын
@@jhmaughan that checks out. 👍
@shaded1214 ай бұрын
Agreed!
@BlackLionSupreme3 ай бұрын
Okay so tell us how the KJV is any different.
@jmcdhome4 ай бұрын
Just the fact the NIV itself calls itself a dynamic translation shows you that there is manipulation going on. They even tell you that
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
You misunderstand what "dynamic translation" means then.
@mdug72244 ай бұрын
It's ironic that in American vernacular, perfect tense isn't used, but when spin is needed, it suddenly finds a place.
@AlanCossey4 ай бұрын
I thought he said "pluperfect".
@mdug72244 ай бұрын
@@AlanCossey it's one of the perfects. Past perfect.
@weebunny4 ай бұрын
Nah, we use it all the time (and past perfect and pluperfect are the same thing, in English at least). "I went into the kitchen to have a slice of cake, but I discovered my little brother HAD already EATEN it all before I HAD even GOTTEN one piece." That's past perfect. The issue in Dan's example was that they incorrectly rendered the word into English in pluperfect tense, when in the original text, it was written in perfect tense (or its equivalent in ancient Hebrew).
@mdug72244 ай бұрын
@weebunny That's what I said in response to another comment: pluperfect is past perfect. I am pretty sure that the use of perfect tenses is not the vernacular in the US. The use of past simple is more often applied. Viewers of this kind of diagnostic content are probably more grammatically aware.
@Bigswinghae4 ай бұрын
Because of the implication...
@SunnyAquamarine24 ай бұрын
Cuz it's the non-inspired version
@MitzvosGolem14 ай бұрын
NIV noted passages that are not in original koine Greek new testament. Why are there hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the koine Greek new testament or Hebrew sources?
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
Would you give us a few examples, please?
@MitzvosGolem13 ай бұрын
@@AlanCossey 1 John 5:7-8. John 7:53 John 8;11 Mark 16:9-20 Mathew 17:21. Just a few not found in original koine Greek new testament.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
@@MitzvosGolem1 Agreed. Those items were not in the original text, but crept in via notes in margins that later copyists thought were actual text. Stuff like that. However, it is important to note that the vast, vast majority of variants in the manuscripts are not important and, according to people like Bart Ehrman, p252 in the American edition of Misquoting Jesus, do not affect any critical Christian doctrine.
@MitzvosGolem13 ай бұрын
@@AlanCossey 1 John. 5:7-8 Trinity an admitted insertion by church fathers. Isaiah 7:14 "Virgin birth in future tense" not in original Hebrew scripture. Molded shaped changed Christian theology.. To say they never affected such is not being honest. There was no Trinity in earliest original Church of James and Peter. All this came in long after Jesus died. Christianianity oddly follows Paul and paulianity anyways.
@rayneweber59044 ай бұрын
Ben Grimm is The Thing. Its dogma.
@paulcleary80884 ай бұрын
NIV also has that pesky problem of endorsing abortion in the case of adultery, whereas the others merely "imply" it.
@stalemateib36004 ай бұрын
The NIV is also the translation where the English text clearly implies in Deuteronomy that a woman must marry her rapist, which the Hebrew text itself does not warrant. (It comes right after a passage that is clearly about rape, but both that passage and the former one do share the similarity of being outcomes that the woman's parents did not want to happen.)
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
@@stalemateib3600 Agreed, that bit of the NIV is not a good translation.
@sael914 ай бұрын
Something that's sad to me is that, what these kinds of translations are engaging in is a form of creative writing. If they were honest about that, it could be an interesting exercise in retro continuity to see just how much editing and rewriting it would take to bring it into alignment with a singular, consistent narrative voice. Unfortunately, they're not honest about what it is they're engaging in doing, and their goals aren't to engage in a creative exercise for its own sake, or as a means of better understanding the source texts being altered. They're effectively abusing their own capacity for creativity for the sake of consolidating and maintaining their own comfort.
@totallyturtles4804 ай бұрын
The Passion Translation is an exercise of extreme creativity to the point of the Bible being a re-write. Unfortunately, Charismatic churches are using it as evidence of their theology being correct.
@apachewraith4 ай бұрын
These broom closet denominations cut ties to the history/tradition and therefore the "authority" of the teachings. Just make up your own shit, get a tax shelter, and write your own stories.
@karenspivey32032 ай бұрын
Glad I don't use the NIV!
@stalemateib36004 ай бұрын
Back in the early 2010s, conservative Christian Bible students were calling the NIV the "Not Inspired Version." Dan McClellan is not telling you the whole picture here. The NIV is WORSE than how he is presenting it in this video.
@chuckshingledecker22164 ай бұрын
That’s because there was an update to the NIV at the time which brought it more into line with actual scholarship. Evangelicals decided this update was of the devil.
@stalemateib36004 ай бұрын
@@chuckshingledecker2216 maybe yes, maybe no. It wasn't an issue of Alexandrian Text vs. Byzantine Text.
@lisachelton45993 ай бұрын
Tsk tsk.
@waynefeller4 ай бұрын
Dan, what are your thoughts on the ESV?
@Jd-8084 ай бұрын
He’s made a video on the ESV as well, you should be able to find it with a search. He’s not a fan.
@digitaljanus4 ай бұрын
If you've ever thought the NIV wasn't misogynist enough, the ESV might be for you.
@AmandaTroutman4 ай бұрын
#maklelan1914
@apachewraith4 ай бұрын
@@digitaljanusThe niv one upped itself and changed again in 2011.
@BradyPostma4 ай бұрын
How grim is Ben Grimm?
@timothymulholland79054 ай бұрын
Shame!
@ericstrahler57674 ай бұрын
Yeah yeah. Religion and all that. No one cares. The real topic is really....wow the new xman 97 show is great. Chime in any time here Dan. This is a show Abraham would enjoy no doubt.
@tombraiderstrums094 ай бұрын
Dan, you might want to write down this date, because today you actually agree with the KJV-only movement about something 😂
@whyisit38214 ай бұрын
The reinterpretation of so-called holy texts is not only a matter of re-translating - it is a matter of putting oneself to be the boss of God when one takes on even clear biblical language. There is no doubt about the biblical view of homosexuality. There is no doubt in NT regarding women's place. Church leaders are now putting themselves above God instead of giving up the entire set of holy books.
@danjohnston90374 ай бұрын
I think the technical term is " gas-lighting "
@agustinthierry67194 ай бұрын
I thought the NIV was good 😭😭
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
It is.
@kennethgraves96624 ай бұрын
This was the garbage Bible I was indoctrinated with in the 80s. I remember tje pastor speaking about how much clearer this Bible sounded and that there were Greek and Hebrew language scholars that was "fixing the mistakes" made by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox scribes and clergy members. That the King James was the absolute worst bible other than the Catholic version, which was pure heresy. What a load of crap.
@scienceexplains3024 ай бұрын
*Genesis 2 pluperfect* (had formed) When the author intended a pluperfect sense, they had a way to do it: 2:8 refers to _ha adam,_ whom Yahweh had already formed in the same passage. Otherwise, the sequence of the text is the sequence of creation. 2:19 does not do this, so as Dan says, it means Formed with no pluperfect (the past of an event that is already in the past). Another “proof:” The story goes 1. No man to till the ground, then Adam was created 2. Need an ally/ helper for Adam, and immediately the text says the animals were created for Adam to assess 3. No animal suitable as an ally, therefore make Eve. That is an internally consistent, flowing narrative, with *purpose followed immediately by formation.*
@bradleyschafer96224 ай бұрын
So what is the truest translation of the Bible?
@mandosamurai41694 ай бұрын
Without learning the original languages it's impossible to get exact meaning. Languages don't translate well between each other. We can get approximations though especially if no agendas involved. I recommend using multiple versions side by side. KJV and ESV is what I use. They have their issues but I'm not going to learn Hebrew or Greek.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
@@mandosamurai4169 One of the better posts here.
@andrewericjamesclark68084 ай бұрын
Any translation that removed verses belongs into the trash
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
Agreed... unless those verses were not in the original.
@andrewericjamesclark68083 ай бұрын
@@AlanCossey Except they were. The Textus Receptus IS the original.
@AlanCossey3 ай бұрын
@@andrewericjamesclark6808 Please would you explain why you think that to be the case (without using the circular argument of "it is the original because it doesn't have verses taken out").
@CHURCHofX4 ай бұрын
I mean to be honest you using Adonai in and of itself is corrupting what was really said. I get why you're doing it but if you're going to teach any kind of text critical thought or look at literature from historical perspective you should speak from that historical perspective perspective. Not from the perspective of now protecting people's feelings over religion.