วีดีโอ

Haha same here. I like the KJV still and use the LSB

@cloudx4541 💪 it's so refreshing to read the Bible and immediately understand it in plain English rather than having to take a second or two and get it.

@@thomasthewatchman fantasic! I'm so happy for you! The LSB and nasb are fantastic translations! Praise God for opening up your eyes!

@@bhsher that's awesome! Fantastic!

That's awesome!! That's so cool that you're a missionary! Keep it up brother!

@@LukeK.-he2bv a Cambridge compact 77 NASB

@@LukeK.-he2bv thank you so much!!

@@Wubss oh yeah baby!

@@peterschmidt6754 thanks bro! That means a lot!

@@Daves_Garage_Reviews 😂 I totally get it, compact size that comes with a cost

@@SDsc0rch I agree!! Excellent bible

@@SEL65545 nothing like doing a Bible study in the woods!

@@rhondamiles9660 I still have one of those. It's Tiny!! Lol great verse btw! Love you mom!

My wife still has one of those kicking around.

@@KildaltonTheologicalStudies 😂 I'm sorry! It's funny that you mention that, my dad just told me the same thing, he's had to "upgrade" to a larger print as well.

I can still read the main text ok, but I have to use a magnifying glass for the notes.

@@richiejourney1840 sure! Putting all my cards in the table lol, I'm pre millennial, pre tribulation rapture, dispensationalist. I believe that God has worked throughout the history of man in different stages (dispensations), and that thru the Bible we see very distinct and clear divisions where God interacts with the people of the earth in different and progressive ways. I think that at this level, at its most basic this teaching is very logical, however there are some that take this concept too far (ie "hyper-dispensationalist") those that try to categorize each and every book down to the most minute detail, where they say that most of the gospels and the book of Hebrews and James are not applicable to us today because they argue that it actually falls under the OT category. This teaching in my opinion is wrong and borders on the heretical. I hope that answers your question.

​@@JohnMiles117 It's good you can lay it out with such clarity. I started out pre mill pre trib but am now a disbeliever in the millenium and the rapture. If there is a rapture I'd see it as at the same time as the 2nd coming. If there is a millenium I think it likely to be the period of the church dispensation, which has been a millenary phenomenon.

@cpnlsn88 there ain't nothing wrong with friendly theological disagreement 👍😁.

@@JohnMiles117 I always enjoy hearing your perspectives as they are so well put and in such a measured and respectful way.

@cpnlsn88 that means a lot! Thank you so much! I've really tried to have as balanced an opinion as possible, I think a lot of times people get really dogmatic about their position without ever considering that there might be a possibility that they could be wrong. I don't want to ever box myself into a position so tight where I feel like I "couldn't" change my mind. With that said though on some things I think it is good to have an opinion and I have no problem speaking my mind, I just don't see why people can't speak their mind without being jerks about it lol

@@Dwayne_Green tell me about it dude! I also love the Pitt minions, you're right that they can be quite spendy.

@@fuelediowa hey in my book , personalized Bibles definitely count as compact!

@JohnMiles117 it is funny how from one publisher to the next their can be a pretty significant size difference. It is nice to find what is comfortable to read. It is funny how some things make a bigger difference than expected. Like single vs double column. Or vbv . Can be the difference of reading a few verses or a few pages.

@fuelediowa that's so true! I've definitely noticed that alternating between verse by verse and paragraph.

I rarely see the OT by itself in a Christian translation

@ if you can get past some of the references and who it is that produces it then the LDS church makes one that is cheap and actually includes some footnotes that can be helpful. Its the only pocket Old Testament I could find that wasn’t expensive.

@@danimal huh,that's interesting.

@@goldenarm2118 great question! I recommend you use either "Young's intermediate grammar" or "Robert Plummers intermediate grammar" I think that both of those are good! Youngs tends to be more concise and to the point it also matches Black's grammar the closest in style. However Robert Plummer grammar has more information. It's totally up to you, either way you can't go wrong with either of these. By the way, GREAT JOB teaching your kids Greek!!! Good for you!

@@JohnMiles117 I just ran across your review of "Young's Intermediate Grammar". Your enthusiasm made run over to Amazon and buy it. Thanks for your recommendation. I also bought Black's Intermediate Grammar since it was cheap. Just another resource. Thanks, again.

@goldenarm2118 fantastic! I'm so glad I could help!

@@BonyT2768 excellent question! You are right about the BSB by the way, it does have excellent foot notes, especially regarding the M-Text. As far as the WEB is concerned I hear that it's very good, in truth I don't really have anything against it and I actually forgot that it existed when I made this video. I was under the impression that the WEB was a one-man translation however unless I'm mistaken I think there was a group of people working on it, however I don't think that the group was as prestigious as that which worked on the NKJV. Really that would be my only hold back from using the WEB. As far as the NJV, unless I'm mistaken I looked in the preface of my edition and it says that it uses the critical text, also I haven't seen it using a lot of footnotes in the New Testament to show where it varies from the M- text but its possible that I'm either not seeing them or I have a unique edition. Also I don't know anybody that uses it personally, whether online or in real life. I've used it some, but always found myself returning to other translations instead. I guess at the end of the day regarding both the WEB and the NJV here comes down to how much experience I have with them, and at this current time it's not that much. In order for me to trust a translation I need to spend a lot of time with it and I just don't see myself doing that with these two translations, although I would like to look into the WEB more in the future.

@ Thank you, John! I’m kind of a TH-cam nobody 😜, a casual, so I’m not used to many responses, especially ones this engaged-I really appreciate it!! I didn’t realize that the WEB was kind of a one-man show-thank you for that information! That gives me some pause about it. I have it on Olive Tree or Logos, but I haven’t used it enough to meaningfully assess it. (I do recall that I like its translation of John 20:23 though 😂, although I’m in the minority on that verse, and the UBS Handbook tells me I’m likely wrong 😜). I think you may be thinking of something else other than the New Jerusalem Version (NJV) actually; I know it’s sometimes confused with the New Jerusalem BIBLE (NJB), which I believe is considered a Critical Text translation; but the NJB is a Catholic translation, so that may not be the one you’re thinking of. Anyway, the NJV is a small translation; there’s actually only one edition that can be had, directly from the publishers, Hineni Publishers. (It is bound and printed by Royal Jongbloed, so it’s really a fine quality book.) I would call it a “Messianic” Bible (though as far as I can recall they never use that term) in that it comes from our brothers and sisters in Christ who are “completed Jews” (as they sometimes refer to themselves). Like other Messianic translations I’m familiar with, it has the express goal of bringing back to the fore for the reader the Jewish roots of the Christian faith (but NOT to be confused with the “Hebrew roots” phenomenon); so it uses a number of simply transliterated (rather than actually translated) Hebrew terms, like “chesed,” and one really interesting thing is that, in the OT (the books of which are in the traditional Jewish order), it simply presents the Tetragrammaton in the unpointed Hebrew, the four consonants “Yod” “Hey” “Vav” “Hey”; this of course makes it an actual sefer, and the publishers recommend (though they do not demand) some special handling. Anyway, the Preface does state that it’s a Majority Text translation: “The ‘Brit Chadashah’ (New Covenant) is mainly based on the Byzantine Majority Text (M-text).” If they use the Critical Text at all, they don’t acknowledge it in the Preface. There is one other translation that occurred to me, btw, that states it’s use of the Majority Text and TR co-equally, the Literal Standard Version (LSV); from their Preface: “The goal of any good translation is to produce a readable text that preserves the original autographic meaning and comes as close as possible to translating, word-for-word, manuscripts that accurately represent the original writings. It’s with this goal in mind that the Literal Standard Version (LSV) was written-a modern, yet literal English translation based upon the most prolific texts: the Masoretic Text (MT) for the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus (TR) and Majority Text (M) for the New. However, in certain, specific instances other manuscript versions and text-types are used where the evidence seems incontrovertible (e.g., the LXX and DSS in the Hebrew and Aramaic; the Alexandrian in the Greek).” From my limited (and boy, it’s admittedly limited) dealings with the original languages, I have to say that the LSV seems staggeringly accurate in the Formal Equivalent translation philosophy, even to keeping the highly idiomatic verb tenses from the original languages in their English translation, and even word order wherever intelligible. This means it’s not much for reading, but highly useful for study. Just one example where this makes, I think, a real difference is Acts 15:11, normally rendered like this: (LSB) 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” However, if you look at the Greek, this translation doesn’t really follow word order; the LSV does meticulously follow the Greek word order, and to my mind it makes a real difference in this case: (LSV) 11 But through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, WE BELIEVE TO BE SAVED, even as also they.” (The capitalization is mine for emphasis on what seems to me the significant difference.)

@BonyT2768 wow! That was THE MOST comprehensive response I've ever had lol 😂 btw, I'm considered something of a nobody myself. 😉 I think I was referring to the Catholic Bible, I'll definitely have to check out the one you were referring to. Very interesting, I'm glad it's not Hebrew roots, I have many friends that are Messianic yet Orthodox, nothing but love for them! I as well love the LSV it's a fantastic translation. Good job on your homework! You were spot on! Keep it up. Btw I love comments like this, I love engaging with you guys

@@JohnMiles117 thanks, John! The LSV is one of only two translations that I can honestly say were so successful in the goal of the Formal Equivalence translation philosophy that they gave me the feeling I was actually reading the original languages; the other is the LSB (which, btw, I was initially leery of because of the obvious Reformed background-and, I feared, translation bias-of the whole alarmingly small 6-man translation team 😂), which has, I think, the finest statement of the ideal of the formal equivalence philosophy I’ve ever read in its Forward: “While the interpreter, teacher, and pastor have the goal of understanding what the text means, the translator is to provide them with what the text says. Consistently, the goal of this translation is to be a window into the original text. Within that goal, this revision has focused upon accuracy and consistency.” The LSB won over my hesitations, finally, with (of course) much reading, and with those words. And their commitment to that consistency of translation I’ve found to help make connections in Scripture more apparent than I’ve seen before. I have a feeling you may like the NJV. There’s a small list of verses I go to when I first look at any translation, and tbh I can’t say the NJV’s version of any of those was my favorite. 🤣 I know that doesn’t exactly sound like a ringing endorsement 😜, but it’s really an elegant, beautiful translation, and it gives me the sense of…how can I describe this? …okay, maybe this is as close as I can get to expressing what I mean: Once, in studying Job, I made use of a copy of the book of Job put out by the Jewish Publication Society; it had commentary by (if memory serves) Moshe Greenberg; and in his commentary, I felt the same thing I often feel on the rare occasions where I get to engage Jewish commentary-the sense of literally CENTURIES of grappling with the text, like Jacob grappling with God. It contained wise “wrestlings” that had never occurred to me before, and I still end up referencing things from that commentary. Reading the NJV gave me the same feeling; it just felt like a translation that resulted from committed real engagement over much time with the Word in Hebrew and Greek.

@BonyT2768 very cool! I like that idea of grappling with the text in search of a richer understanding!

@@sbs8331 that's more than fair 👍. I was mainly speaking from my own experience. I used to attend a John MacArthur satellite Church and I can tell you that those terms I used were very accurate for what I've heard people say about it. ( Btw, no shade against J mack) However you are correct that there is some discussion about translation philosophy that is valuable. I was primarily speaking from my own experience.

@@JohnMiles117 Thanks for the reply. If I may, one other issue to consider is that to attempt gender "accuracy" will often breed inconsistency, inaccuracy, or awkwardness. For example, in Psalm 1:1 the 2020 changes "man" to "person". Fair enough, but then in v. 2 it uses the masculine pronoun "his". Uh-oh. That's no more gender accurate than is the use of "brothers" or "brethren" in the NT. It's also inconsistent with the previous verse. A worse approach is dynamic equivalent translations' changing from singular to plural (NLT, CEV, NIV with "they" in v. 3, etc.), thus losing the accurate picture of one person standing against the ungodly. If the 2020 wanted to really be consistent with "brothers and sisters" shouldn't it change "his" to "his or her"? It would be very awkward, but perhaps not much more than how it handles ἀδελφός. At the end of the day, manipulating the text for purposes like this will sometimes create more issues than it resolves. Thanks again.

@sbs8331 I agree. I'm not championing them so much as defending them. I agree that the more traditional renderings are safer and sometimes better. However sometimes for the sake of readability and understandability sacrifices are necessary. Take for example the singular plur distinction that is lost in modern English, the thee and Yee is more accurate, however it was replaced due to understandability. Again, I prefer the older reading and think it is better, however the modern reading is more understandable to the modern English speaker. Ps. I agree that the change is psalm 1 is jarring and feels awkward, but I suspect it has more to do with my familiarity with the more traditional rendering.

​​@@JohnMiles117Understood. Functional equivalent translations often do a good job clarifying idioms that make no sense when translated literally, e.g. "cleanness of teeth" in Amos 4:6. The trouble is that they seem to invariably make changes where none is warranted. It was improved later, but the NIV '84 almost always translated "walk" as "live" in Paul's epistles. A friend with Wycliffe Bible Translators lamented that rendering, pointing out that one can "live" stagnantly, whereas "walk" implies movement and progress, a picture that was lost with the paraphrase. Translators have a tough job.

@sbs8331 that's a fair enough point. I appreciate your constructive criticism! 👍👍

@@DavidRamirez-ww5kv atta boy!!

@@ThePaPappy 😂😂😂dude I love Petra! "More power to ya!"

That's a more than fair take! My perspective was that although I prefer the more traditional renderings, I don't necessarily think the gender accurate renderings are inherently bad.

@@joelmcleay I'm sorry maybe you misunderstood me. You are correct that the Thee and Yee are an old English distinction to signify the difference between singular and plural. However The NASB77 does not use the old English plural distinction (yee), however it does retain the singular (thee) and this is only when someone is speaking to God, not when they are speaking to each other.

PS: as someone from the Open Brethren tradition (the Plymouth Brethren split into the Exclusive Brethren under John Darby and the Open Brethren who famously avoid singular figureheads, though both halves sometimes use the "Plymouth Brethren", especially in the USA) I enjoyed the little shout-out to our little-known tradition. From what I've seen on your videos we're probably fairly similar in worldview, theology and ecclesiology (Open Brethren here in New Zealand have sort of warmed up to charismatic ideas, though not the wilder side of pentecostalism).

@@joelmcleay that sounds very close what I am. 😉 Nice to have similar minded folk, also one of my heroes came from the Plymouth brethren, zane Hodges.

@JohnMiles117 I wasn't meaning that as a corrective, I did notice you were speaking about the use of Thee/Thou within that particular translation (I think my parents still use it to this day, actually). I put "fun fact" because it's amazed me, here in NZ anyway, how few people know what Thee/Thou means.

@joelmcleay no offense taken! I love "fun" facts! Send them all day long!

@@thirdworldadv1312 Amen! Praise God!

@@Mike-wf4pb Amen! I hope I didn't offend, I have no hate for Calvinists 👍

@JohnMiles117 no offend not hurt at just saying we have are spots we hold too.

@@dougrichardson5275 thank you so much Doug! I have no problems with his take on the situation! The fact that was the only negative I had with the book is a testament to how much I liked it!

@@Saru12249 I'm so glad it helped you! Keep it up!

@@dougbaker2755 well said, I think that's what personal preference can come in. Some music might be less beneficial to others. It's no different in our own secular music taste, I may prefer some music that other people don't. I'll definitely be making more reviews like this in the future.

@@puritanpioneer1646 😂 I figured you wouldn't lol. It's a good read, it's short too, it only took about three hours to listen to on audible. He didn't say explicitly to become a Presbyterian, it was more the system he advocated for. Honestly it wasn't a bad system, I just think that his reasons for it was putting too much emphasis on the Westminster confession rather than on what the Bible actually says. And in that case I think that the emphasis was placed too much upon opinion rather than on scripture. Just my opinion.