If anyone says a translation from Hebrew to English is word-for-word they're probably clueless. Actual word-for-word translation from Hebrew will end you up with a lot of "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra".
Here we go, Genesis 1:1-1:5 1. Inside beginning, created Elohim, (object marker) the dual-heavens and (object marker) the earth. 2/ And the earth, (she) was confused and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the breath of Elohim, (she) hovered on the face of the water. 3/ And said Elohim, light will be and light will be. 4/ And saw Elohim (object marker) the light, as good. And divided Elohim, between the light and between the dark. 5/ And will call Elohim to the light day, and called Elohim to the darkness night. And will be evening and will be morning, day one. -------- So some mentions. The exact same verb form is used twice in verse 3 and twice in verse five. I translated יְהִי the same way each time. Elohim seems to be functioning as a masculine name in the singular in this passage due to being followed by masculine singular verbs.
The fact that popular Christian influencers nowadays are just "some guy reading a Conservapedia article in his car while carrying a Christian bookstore in his backseat" really doesn't do much to show the legitimacy and validity, and certainly not the life-changing efficacy, of Christianity.
@@oltedders It looks like he's living in his car with bibles so...he either has absolutely zero problems or way more than any of us could ever possibly imagine.
@@inwyrdn3691 Well this sent me down a rabbit hole of Conserapedia articles on Bible translation. Did you know that the NIV was questionable because one of the translators was gay? You never hear Dan talk about that.
Dan: If somebody handed you a brand new translation with no translators’ notes and you knew nothing about the translators… what are the first 4-5 verses/passages you would look at to get a feel for what sort of translation it is?
That's a good question. Hope he answers. Im gonna guess the 2nd creation account verb tense and the johannine comma. And the Isaiah prophecy ("young woman" or "virgin")
It's like a "Bible Haul" video. Admittedly it would be an interesting hobby if they were older bibles like "here's my 19th century bible once owned by a civil war soldier"
I love that every time I watch a video of yours I come away feeling a little bit smarter and better educated. I also appreciate that even when you are vehemently disagreeing with someone, you go out of your way to discourage your followers from going after or being hateful towards that person or creator. Thank you for all the hard work you do to create transparency and give clarity.
Relatively neutral background. Plus, if you’re locked inside your car less people hear you talking loudly and it might be less embarrassing. Nowadays its not a great look though
I totally agree with you Dan. For years I always thought it was funny when my Christian friends would tell me that they understand what the Bible says, because they have the holy Spirit within them, when in reality they only understand it because some Bible scholar hopefully translated into English correctly. And even then the casual reader doesn't really understand the bible fully, because many don't understand the ancient culture surrounding the Bible to get its context correctly.
I've gone through most of my life feeling proud to consider my intellect to be reasonably competent. Then Dr. McClellan comes along and gives a presentation and I start to feel like a doofus. Fortunately, I don't mind. I'll take knowledge over ignorance any day of the week! 😉
I actually enjoyed the enthusiasm of the original creator and I'm sure he believed the information he was sharing was correct and was conveying it in good faith. It was refreshing that he didn't take a KJV-onlyist stance and didn't really invalidate or talk down about different translations or translation approaches - instead just sharing his preference. Now let's see if he stops, listens and learns something from Dan's response, or whether he digs his heels in like we've seen so many times before.
Gee, that remnds me of my time studing medieval manuscripts of Guilhme de Cabestanh's poetry. There were numerous versions for each poem. Comparing the language etc etc. Fascinating, I loved it...And in the end, you learn so much more abaout the scribes/copists/editors and their environment, than about the poem/bible itself, and where I am concerned, being an atheist, this is he main reason for studying these various versions.
And at the 14:10 mark, the content creator totally skips over the difference in translation ("I truly believe Jesus is the son of God." v. "I truly believe Jesus is God,") from earlier. Doesn't even blink.
The original creator isn't really making any horrible conclusions such as "Women must be silent under their men" based on bad translations like some Christfluencers do. He's just wrong on a lot of accounts.
For me, I think translations of the Bible hit home when in an undergraduate diachronic analysis course we used dictionaries created by Jesuit priest missionaries from Spanish colonial America (c.1611) to reconstruct cultural insights from phonemic analysis of moribund Native American languages. The challenges these priest had in word for word and thought for thought translations of the Bible are indescribable and they produced the most interesting versions of the Bible. Centuries later Dan Everett (b.1951) would consider translating the Bible into the language of the Pirahã People of Brazil. In part, he abandoned the project because the Pirahã people’s worldview is deeply rooted in the present and in personal experience. They show little interest in historical accounts or narratives about events they have not directly witnessed, which posed a significant barrier to translating and communicating Biblical stories.
The Piraha People of Brazil seem to have higher standards for truth and trustworthiness than most who might try to convert them today. They are most definitely more evolved than the US electorate.
FWIW, I looked into buying a SBL study bible and saw quite a few comments about how hard it is to read b/c of print bleeding thru the pages. So I am glad to hear that the New Oxford Annotated Bible is expected to be out soon.
The pages are very thin. I didn't find it particularly hard to read even with the bleed through myself (at least for the bit I read before simply losing interest), but turning the pages could be a pain because of how thin they were.
I'm with the other commenter. Reading is less the issue than flipping pages is... which consequently makes it annoying to read. Rare is the book where I've accidentally grabbed 4 pages and not noticed the problem. Get the digital version for the notes and if you absolutely must have a hard copy of the text you can get a non-study edition on nicer paper for a reasonable price.
I want a "chronological" Bible that's in scholarly consensus dated order...nothing would be where it's assumed to be by the advocates of inerrancy and half the scholars reviewing it would be arguing that something is in the wrong order, but it would be so much cooler and would be helpful for seeing how the theology develops.
My go-to is the Jerusalem Bible Study Edition - very detailed notes. I agree: you do need to have some understanding of translation methodologies and the cultural world of the original texts to begin to appreciate the Bible. So much of it is alien to our ways of thinking.
I agree. While the Jerusalem Bible is very English and very Catholic, the 1966 edition, with full translator’s notes, renders it as useful as any translation in arriving at an accurate understanding of what the original text says. Where the translators have ‘interpreted’ a text, they explain why and also set out what a literal translation would be. It reads well and was used, from 1970, to December 2024, for the English Lectionary. It has now been replaced by the ESV, which complies better with the norms for Scriptural scholarship set out by Pope Pius XII in 1943 (a direct, literal, word for word translation from the best original text).
@Mark3ABE As a constant reference I have the Jerusalem Bible Study Edition. I think the notes are superb - as good as you get in one volume - although for more detailed reading, I'll go to a good Commentary.
Over 12,000 edits to the English and updates from the newest editions of critical texts in both the Hebrew and NT Greek. Only the Bible nerds will notice them though, but it's a good update.
Where does chronological Bible put books like Esther and Job. Does it assume them to be historical or does it try to place them when they are estimated to have been written. Likewise with prophets that were written after the period they purport to record. A chronological Bible in order of incorporation seems like an interesting project that might reveal evolution of religious thought, especially for Hebrew Bible.
I a Jewish. The translation I tend to use is the JPS Tanakh. It renders the bit from Genesis 2:19 as "And the LORD God formed out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky". For the translation they got people from the three main forms of Judaism in the US; Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. That was done to help avoid ideological bias creeping in. If Genesis 2:19 is anything to go by, they seem to have done a good job. I would encourage everyone to pick up a copy of the JPS Tanakh to compare with the Christian old testament. While you are at it, pick up the JPS Tanakh Gender Sensitive Edition. In that one they removed gendered references as much as possible. So instead of referring to G*d as Lord, they refer to G*d as The Eternal. As a trans person I really appreciate how trans accepting Judaism in the US is.
"Believe with all your HEART?" Unless I'm mistaken, the brain is the source of thought and belief. The word he was looking for, but was afraid to admit, was "faith." Careless or hasty thinking leads to errant beleifs.
@@billcook4768 It's not though, it does what it says on the tin. It's the NRSV, but with updates. You can't get much more clarity on what it is than that. Like, they're not gonna call it NRSV 2. That would cause all sorts of confusion.
I'm nowhere near as qualified, but I'll answer in case he does not... The verses are effectively meta-commentary themselves. There is no authoritative correct answer on them, only common consensus. You'll see folks go nuts on "missing" verses due to numbering disagreements. They were added for convenience and clarity, never in original Greek or Hebrew.
@perilousrange well, I had heard actually that the tanakh was versified about a century before the NT. I'm not asking about missing verses, I'm asking why for example psalm 92 verse 12 is actually psalm 92 verse 13 in a Jewish bible (etc). Maybe when the christians versified the "old testament", they didn't reference the versification used by the Jews? But if so, why do so many other chapter and verse numbers agree between the two traditions?
@integrationalpolytheism Your question is really interesting and above my current level of knowledge. Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't aware of the prior work and inconsistency.
If only there was hope for the Universal Translator in handling this primitive creation story and recommending a good general science and anthropology book for further more accurate reference. Dan does such a wonderful job answering these biblical charlatans.
Re Chronological Bibles: reminded of a visitor to our Bible Study who used the Scofield Bible and relied on Scofield’s dates at the top of each page to wipe away our question about the 2nd Goliath story at the end of 2 Samuel, seemingly tacked on after the book’s original ending
Aren't *some* of the Psalms attributed to David? When I took a biblical wisdom literature class (which I don't take for gospel) her said scholars attribute about 40 to David.
As it happens Ac 8.37 is rare among the 16 verses in question, in that it is NOT a reading common among even the majority of extant manuscripts, which are later. You won't even find it in Robinson-Pierpont.
People who don't know Hebrew calling any English translation "word for word" makes me laugh. Even "word for word" translations have to swap things around to fit with English syntax. And I can just imagine them saying "what do you mean God has a long nose??"
I like how he's like, "I use these for x reasons" and they're like, paperback bibles that look pristine, like he's never actually opened them. Mind you, his filter softens everything and adds a green tinge, which is a confusing choice (is that a Matrix reference? That's a *choice* for a Christian), so maybe I just can't see things like creases and dog-eared corners, but they sure look new to me - like he's just gone to the Amazon locker to pick them up in the Amazon box on the seat next to him.
Personally I try to keep my books in pristine condition. I have paperbacks that look a week old but i've read 10 times (at least) and had for 10+ years. For example I've never even dreamed of dogearing a page. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
You would also have to decide the order the stories were told versus the order they were written down (or at least the the evidence we have for when they were first written down)
Does it make sense to talk about 'accuracy' with regard to translation? 'Accuracy' necessarily implies that there is some 'target' to get close to in the L2 you are translating the source text into - but language is slippery, and especially if you are translating poetry or metaphor, there are equivalent decisions the translator can make that can lead to very different final texts (which are then interpreted by the reader, and the reader may interpret the final texts very differently). Oh - and that reminds me - I have been meaning to ask about which critical texts of the Hebrew and Greek bibles might be good for an enthusiastic amateur who is working to learn Greek (koine) and Biblical Hebrew? I am sure you have some opinion! Also - how do scholars use critical editions?
It's unfortunate that when someone describes Bible translations as "awesome " and "cool", they immediately disqualified themselves from serious consideration.
You can't do a "word for word" translation. Ancient languages don't line up 1 for 1 in terms of words and in meanings of words. That is just a lazy and dishonest apologetic.
I find I can usually go sentence by sentence when going from French to English, but I usually need paragraph by paragraph when going from Chinese to English. It's hard to explain why to unilinguists, but there are a lot of cultural conventions on how to write as well as differences in grammar. There's also the problem that a lot of ideas exist more as a spectrum than as specific points, and different languages choose slightly different points on those spectra to define with words.
FWIW, the reviews I've seen of the printed NRSVue translations of the Bible (not digital) recommend the Westminster version over the SBL.The SBL's NRSVue translation had several complaints about print quality.
Dan mentioned in a previous video that the main difference between the two is that the SBL is a little more scholarly while the Westminster is a little more theology, IIRC.
I'm just wondering about why this is being filmed in his car. Certainly he has a home where he usually keeps these bibles. I imagine he wouldn't have so many if he lived in his car. did he lug the box of fifteen bibles out to car for this video, and then return them to his bookshelves? does he take every translation to church with him every week?
Bro, if I saw a channel called “Taco Talks” and this guy’s nonsense was the content instead of hero shots of carne asada birria, then I’d be way bummed.
The crazy part is there are churches and sects of Christianity that hold to one bible being a perfectly preserved text ironically not realizing they're simply creating an idol.
Dan, a question that came to mind and that you almost touched on when mentioning Irenaeus: What is your take on people using 2nd and 3rd century Patristic Quotations as proof that certain textual variants (like the “comma” in 1 John 5:7) should be regarded as original? The logic behind their view is something like this: the quotes are older than Vaticanus or Sinaitucus, therefore the quotes should be regarded as original. What would be your response to that type of thinking?
What in the heck do you think he's referring to when he says "the codex". Does he mean Sinaiticus? or Lenigradensis? I haven't the slightest clue what Critical Edition he could possibly be referring to (or if he's referring to any crit ed at all).
The greek septuagint is from the hasmonean period; (3rd century bc) The masoretic text is from the 11th century AD; The new testament _written in greek_ quotes the septuagint, East orthodoxy has the full original bible; _Including 4 maccabees that eastern orthodoxy itself likes to ignore_ The dead sea scrolls correspond that the masoretic text changed sections kept intact by the septuagint, Some deutercanon books left out by protestants for having no hebrew copy at the time have since been corresponded by newer discoveries of Hebrew apochryphal fragments/scrolls
@6:20; I am sure that he means main dialects, not creoles or pidgins, I am not sure how many bibles were translated from Hebrew or Greek to a pidgin or creole. You are probably technically correct, but you are also smart enough to know that people mostly aren't talking about pidgins or creoles (languages that evolve from a dominant language that includes healthy amounts of a minor language such that regular commerce and interpersonal business can be shared between speakers of different main languages) when they say 'languages'.
5:29 I noticed that both scholars were in agreement in their dislike of the NIV Bible. @maklelan even stating that he most likely had different reasons. So I’m curious about both perspectives. Is the NIV just a bad Bible? Unfortunately I don’t know the other scholars name so as to tag him. Thank you ❤️🔥 5:29
From Reddt: Theological conservatives dislike it because it's a modern translation that uses modern textual criticism (often it's criticisms are 'it doesn't agree with the King James'); some balk at gender-neutral language in the later versions. Academic scholars tend to look down on it because it makes translation decisions that are theologically based either for evangelical protestantism or to harmonize away biblical contradictions.
One of the strengths of the NIV is its readability, but unfortunately much of it is so poorly translated it's unreliable. When I was going to a Greek church (in Australia, so many were bilingual) they complained about its inaccuracy in the NT. Iain Provan's commentary on Ecc/Song also pointed out a lot of issues with rendering of Hebrew. I myself went through 1&2Pe and made so many amendments I ran out of space in the margins. 1Jn was not too bad though.
What's so irritating is that this guy tells his viewers that Bible translations are varied and complex, but it doesn't really matter that much which one they read as long as it's "legitimate". Like bro, why waste your time talking about the minute differences between translations if you don't think they matter. Why spend absolutely no time on what distinguishes a legitimate and illegitimate translation in your view? Could it be because those distinctions are not so straightforward as you pretend they are?
If it has the “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” then it is legitimate - that is, free from theological error. It will not lead you astray in matters of faith and morals. It might not be the best translation, but it is safe to read it. The official translation of the Latin Rite of the Western Church is the “New Vulgate”. However, the Clementine Vulgate and St. Jerome’s original translation are still approved as being free from theological error. As for English translations from the Vulgate, that of Monsignor Knox is by far the best - his full three volume edition, with notes, is excellent.
8:20 Starting here this content creator sounds like he is just sloppily regurgitating lies pastors told him and his ignorance is astoundingly sad. Snickered at his box of bibles only to remember the two I own along with a Nag Hammadi codex, two Dead Sea Scrolls translations, a Talmud, and two more books plus a CD-ROM of pseudepigrapha material left out of every modern Bible.
I must be the only person watching this video that just casually listens to guarani every day (I don't understand a single word of it). Wasn't expecting it to be mentioned by Dan
@4:25 An All powerful and ALL future knowing deity, who wanted _ALL_ abilities and levels of mankind to receive salvation was *too weak* to prevent the misunderstandings, misinterpreting verses, and the confusion about what passages are literally truthful, versus those " only being metaphorical " There's more versions of Christianity than in Hinduism... It seems that this is human inspired belief.....
The Legacy Standard Bible was put out by Calvinist John Macarthur as a cash grab. Most new translations of the Bible into English are done for the money. Bible publishers don't want to pay royalties to whoever owns the copyright of one translation (or adaption, whatever) and so have their own created so any royalties from it come to them.
the more that the original hebrew bible is translated the more conflictions we find. since i was a kid in church and then left i have found more discrepancies in the bible than the 15 years i was in church!!!!
It helps their perception of being busy which may be just a personal presentation brand. Similar to why many also hold a mic in their hand when they have no meaningful reason to do so.
I have a question for you. I'm a Christian. I don't really care for apologetics or scholarship. I like to say that I believe in a God who I can't see and no one else has ever seen based on a book that a lot of people argue about and we don't have the originals for anyways. If the smartest scholars in the world can't agree, then I have no shot at figuring the scholarship out. I believe simply on faith. I know people call that ignorant or stupid. A lot of people won't like that. But I believe in God and the Bible. I guess I'm just curious. I've seen your channel a few times and it seems like you really provide a lot of evidence for why someone wouldn't be a Christian. But I think I've heard that you are a Christian. So I guess why are you in the face of everything you do? This is not meant as hate or anything like that. It's not a loaded question. I'm genuinely just curious.
He's a Mormon, but he's a progressive Mormon, and does not dogmatically accept all the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon church. He also doesn't fly in the face of everything he believes -- he just doesn't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and he isn't a conservative Old Testament fire and brimstone Christian -- he's much more in tune with the Beatitudes than with the Ten Commandments. How about you? Do you believe we should turn the other cheek instead of demanding an eye for an eye? Do you believe we should love our enemies and our neighbors. Do you believe that if a stranger asks you for help, we should do double what they ask? Which of these commandments of Jesus do you practice your life?
What a relatively uneducated Greek individual meant to say 2000 years ago has been proven irrelevant in 2025. To further discuss this ancient text that has been disproven by modern simple 4th grade science is bordering on insanity. Cheers!
If anyone says a translation from Hebrew to English is word-for-word they're probably clueless. Actual word-for-word translation from Hebrew will end you up with a lot of "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra".
If word for word translations were any good, we would have automatic translation software for virtually any language. Spoiler alert, we do not.
SHAKA WHEN THE WALLS FELL
"A vineyard was made to my beloved in horn the son of oil" case in point
@@fnjesusfreakthis sounds like nonsense
Here we go, Genesis 1:1-1:5
1. Inside beginning, created Elohim, (object marker) the dual-heavens and (object marker) the earth.
2/ And the earth, (she) was confused and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the breath of Elohim, (she) hovered on the face of the water.
3/ And said Elohim, light will be and light will be.
4/ And saw Elohim (object marker) the light, as good. And divided Elohim, between the light and between the dark.
5/ And will call Elohim to the light day, and called Elohim to the darkness night. And will be evening and will be morning, day one.
--------
So some mentions. The exact same verb form is used twice in verse 3 and twice in verse five. I translated יְהִי the same way each time. Elohim seems to be functioning as a masculine name in the singular in this passage due to being followed by masculine singular verbs.
The fact that popular Christian influencers nowadays are just "some guy reading a Conservapedia article in his car while carrying a Christian bookstore in his backseat" really doesn't do much to show the legitimacy and validity, and certainly not the life-changing efficacy, of Christianity.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with this one. Doesn't this boy have any real-world problems to deal with?
Holy crap is Conservapedia still a thing?
@@oltedders It looks like he's living in his car with bibles so...he either has absolutely zero problems or way more than any of us could ever possibly imagine.
@inwyrdn3691
I'm guessing that it's the latter.
@@inwyrdn3691 Well this sent me down a rabbit hole of Conserapedia articles on Bible translation. Did you know that the NIV was questionable because one of the translators was gay? You never hear Dan talk about that.
Dan: If somebody handed you a brand new translation with no translators’ notes and you knew nothing about the translators… what are the first 4-5 verses/passages you would look at to get a feel for what sort of translation it is?
That's a good question.
Hope he answers.
Im gonna guess the 2nd creation account verb tense and the johannine comma.
And the Isaiah prophecy ("young woman" or "virgin")
This IS a good question. Maybe we can add some weight to attention. The end of Matthew, maybe?
The most important one. Deuteronomy 32 8-9 Where Yahweh is seen as the son of El Elyon in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Good question. Yes, something in Genesis 1-2 or Deuteronomy 32 or 43 and Psalm 82 and something in Gospel of Mark or John, like John 1:1 or John 1:18
Ooh! You should get on when he's doing his livestream and ask this question!
It's like a "Bible Haul" video. Admittedly it would be an interesting hobby if they were older bibles like "here's my 19th century bible once owned by a civil war soldier"
I can barely manage effectively using one language for my entire life. The history of these languages is fascinating and awe inspiring.
I love that every time I watch a video of yours I come away feeling a little bit smarter and better educated. I also appreciate that even when you are vehemently disagreeing with someone, you go out of your way to discourage your followers from going after or being hateful towards that person or creator. Thank you for all the hard work you do to create transparency and give clarity.
The lightning in that video looks like the guy is vlogging from Fallout 3's Super Duper Mart parking lot
I think you mean lighting.
Lightning is what happens before thunder
Either way the guy in the car doesn't come off as very bright.
Lol, I was thinking he was coming form inside the Matrix but the Super Duper Mart def fits 😂
i don't understand the appeal of filming in your car
I suspect they don't have a better place to record
Relatively neutral background. Plus, if you’re locked inside your car less people hear you talking loudly and it might be less embarrassing.
Nowadays its not a great look though
No furnace and water heater noise like mom's basement.
Sound isolation and natural light.
They're trying to nudge up their car-rizz-ma 😉
I totally agree with you Dan. For years I always thought it was funny when my Christian friends would tell me that they understand what the Bible says, because they have the holy Spirit within them, when in reality they only understand it because some Bible scholar hopefully translated into English correctly. And even then the casual reader doesn't really understand the bible fully, because many don't understand the ancient culture surrounding the Bible to get its context correctly.
I've gone through most of my life feeling proud to consider my intellect to be reasonably competent. Then Dr. McClellan comes along and gives a presentation and I start to feel like a doofus. Fortunately, I don't mind. I'll take knowledge over ignorance any day of the week! 😉
I just recently bought a copy of the SBL Study Bible since Dan recommended it. I really like it. I'd been using NRSV bible for years.
I actually enjoyed the enthusiasm of the original creator and I'm sure he believed the information he was sharing was correct and was conveying it in good faith. It was refreshing that he didn't take a KJV-onlyist stance and didn't really invalidate or talk down about different translations or translation approaches - instead just sharing his preference. Now let's see if he stops, listens and learns something from Dan's response, or whether he digs his heels in like we've seen so many times before.
He won't. If you saw the first video from this creator that Dan responded to, it was very, very intellectually lazy.
Gee, that remnds me of my time studing medieval manuscripts of Guilhme de Cabestanh's poetry. There were numerous versions for each poem. Comparing the language etc etc. Fascinating, I loved it...And in the end, you learn so much more abaout the scribes/copists/editors and their environment, than about the poem/bible itself, and where I am concerned, being an atheist, this is he main reason for studying these various versions.
Much obliged for your recommendations.
Updated, new, revised, standard... What qualifiers are they planning on adding next? 🤔
And at the 14:10 mark, the content creator totally skips over the difference in translation ("I truly believe Jesus is the son of God." v. "I truly believe Jesus is God,") from earlier. Doesn't even blink.
And we're back to podcasting from the driver's seat of mom's car.
I think that is called a “Cartheist”. 😅
You'd think the perfect, all-knowing creator of literally everything wouldn't need all these translations but here we are.
We don't. That's why we were given the Vulgate.
@@cpnlsn88
You don't need a translation because you have a translation?
Your God has some skill issues.
@Israphel776 It is one translation gifted to the Church
@@cpnlsn88
A translation, written by a person, of some other books, written by other people.
So much for omnipotence.
@Israphel776 St Jerome
I had a prof who used to call the NIV the “New Inaccurate Version.” 😅
I use to refer to it as "Nearly Inspired Version."
Dan's responses in this video were surprisingly tame compared to some of his other videos.
The original creator isn't really making any horrible conclusions such as "Women must be silent under their men" based on bad translations like some Christfluencers do. He's just wrong on a lot of accounts.
For me, I think translations of the Bible hit home when in an undergraduate diachronic analysis course we used dictionaries created by Jesuit priest missionaries from Spanish colonial America (c.1611) to reconstruct cultural insights from phonemic analysis of moribund Native American languages. The challenges these priest had in word for word and thought for thought translations of the Bible are indescribable and they produced the most interesting versions of the Bible.
Centuries later Dan Everett (b.1951) would consider translating the Bible into the language of the Pirahã People of Brazil. In part, he abandoned the project because the Pirahã people’s worldview is deeply rooted in the present and in personal experience. They show little interest in historical accounts or narratives about events they have not directly witnessed, which posed a significant barrier to translating and communicating Biblical stories.
The Piraha People of Brazil seem to have higher standards for truth and trustworthiness than most who might try to convert them today. They are most definitely more evolved than the US electorate.
FWIW, I looked into buying a SBL study bible and saw quite a few comments about how hard it is to read b/c of print bleeding thru the pages. So I am glad to hear that the New Oxford Annotated Bible is expected to be out soon.
The pages are very thin. I didn't find it particularly hard to read even with the bleed through myself (at least for the bit I read before simply losing interest), but turning the pages could be a pain because of how thin they were.
I'm with the other commenter. Reading is less the issue than flipping pages is... which consequently makes it annoying to read. Rare is the book where I've accidentally grabbed 4 pages and not noticed the problem.
Get the digital version for the notes and if you absolutely must have a hard copy of the text you can get a non-study edition on nicer paper for a reasonable price.
@@robertmiller4847 They may have had the ink flow settings turned up too high for part of the run.
Thank you so much Dan for your educated and therefore valuable insight.
I want a "chronological" Bible that's in scholarly consensus dated order...nothing would be where it's assumed to be by the advocates of inerrancy and half the scholars reviewing it would be arguing that something is in the wrong order, but it would be so much cooler and would be helpful for seeing how the theology develops.
My go-to is the Jerusalem Bible Study Edition - very detailed notes. I agree: you do need to have some understanding of translation methodologies and the cultural world of the original texts to begin to appreciate the Bible. So much of it is alien to our ways of thinking.
I agree. While the Jerusalem Bible is very English and very Catholic, the 1966 edition, with full translator’s notes, renders it as useful as any translation in arriving at an accurate understanding of what the original text says. Where the translators have ‘interpreted’ a text, they explain why and also set out what a literal translation would be. It reads well and was used, from 1970, to December 2024, for the English Lectionary. It has now been replaced by the ESV, which complies better with the norms for Scriptural scholarship set out by Pope Pius XII in 1943 (a direct, literal, word for word translation from the best original text).
@Mark3ABE As a constant reference I have the Jerusalem Bible Study Edition. I think the notes are superb - as good as you get in one volume - although for more detailed reading, I'll go to a good Commentary.
Interesting discussion, although i am automatically wary of cartheists.
We need cartheist to become a common word.
@@billcook4768 Truthfully, I had to look up carthiest. Awesome!
What are the updates in the NRSVUE? How different is it from the NRSV?
I think it has more gender inclusive language.
Over 12,000 edits to the English and updates from the newest editions of critical texts in both the Hebrew and NT Greek. Only the Bible nerds will notice them though, but it's a good update.
Please tell us about counsel of nacea
At 14:05 the young man says "Let's open this girl up", referring to the NIV . !!??
Yeah that set me back too
I googled and I cannot find when the 6th edition comes out except someone had this year 2025 but not the full date.
Gotta love a takedown using only clarifying fact in respectful tone that somehow still brings clapback energy. I learn so much here.
Its just wild to have the green tint
Best use of the word pontificate, Dan!
Where does chronological Bible put books like Esther and Job. Does it assume them to be historical or does it try to place them when they are estimated to have been written. Likewise with prophets that were written after the period they purport to record.
A chronological Bible in order of incorporation seems like an interesting project that might reveal evolution of religious thought, especially for Hebrew Bible.
I a Jewish. The translation I tend to use is the JPS Tanakh. It renders the bit from Genesis 2:19 as "And the LORD God formed out of the earth all the wild beasts and all the birds of the sky". For the translation they got people from the three main forms of Judaism in the US; Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. That was done to help avoid ideological bias creeping in. If Genesis 2:19 is anything to go by, they seem to have done a good job.
I would encourage everyone to pick up a copy of the JPS Tanakh to compare with the Christian old testament. While you are at it, pick up the JPS Tanakh Gender Sensitive Edition. In that one they removed gendered references as much as possible. So instead of referring to G*d as Lord, they refer to G*d as The Eternal. As a trans person I really appreciate how trans accepting Judaism in the US is.
"Believe with all your HEART?"
Unless I'm mistaken, the brain is the source of thought and belief. The word he was looking for, but was afraid to admit, was "faith." Careless or hasty thinking leads to errant beleifs.
Thank you.
This is the difference between a thoughtful expert and an enthusiastic amateur... something that many Americans have rejected....
Homie doesn’t have a Kindle I guess
That Metzger commentary is a great resource.
❤❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!!
Back in catholic secondary school in the 70s in the UK we were told to use the RSV. I assume UE is a newer edition.
Yep! It stands for "Updated Edition"
New Revised Standard Updated Edition is the kind of name Nintendo would come up with. I’m no scholar to judge the text, but that name is ridiculous.
@@billcook4768 It's not though, it does what it says on the tin. It's the NRSV, but with updates.
You can't get much more clarity on what it is than that. Like, they're not gonna call it NRSV 2. That would cause all sorts of confusion.
Sort of. RSV is still around. The NRSV came out in the 80's and the NRSVUE is an update on that.
4:20 Can Dr Dan tell us why the verse numbers don't always agree between English and Hebrew bibles (eg in many of the psalms)?
I'm nowhere near as qualified, but I'll answer in case he does not... The verses are effectively meta-commentary themselves. There is no authoritative correct answer on them, only common consensus. You'll see folks go nuts on "missing" verses due to numbering disagreements. They were added for convenience and clarity, never in original Greek or Hebrew.
@perilousrange well, I had heard actually that the tanakh was versified about a century before the NT.
I'm not asking about missing verses, I'm asking why for example psalm 92 verse 12 is actually psalm 92 verse 13 in a Jewish bible (etc). Maybe when the christians versified the "old testament", they didn't reference the versification used by the Jews? But if so, why do so many other chapter and verse numbers agree between the two traditions?
@integrationalpolytheism Your question is really interesting and above my current level of knowledge. Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't aware of the prior work and inconsistency.
@@perilousrange many people aren't. I do think it would be a good subject for Dan to do a short video on, so I hope he sees this and decides to do so.
I love these long videos. More Dan
Ever notice the recurring pattern of younger people who spent minimal time researching the topic they want to share.
If only there was hope for the Universal Translator in handling this primitive creation story and recommending a good general science and anthropology book for further more accurate reference. Dan does such a wonderful job answering these biblical charlatans.
Does any of this suggest that what is written in the bibles is true?
Re Chronological Bibles: reminded of a visitor to our Bible Study who used the Scofield Bible and relied on Scofield’s dates at the top of each page to wipe away our question about the 2nd Goliath story at the end of 2 Samuel, seemingly tacked on after the book’s original ending
Where can I find that t-shirt? Got to have one!
Yeah, I was confused about what he meant by "the codex." Modern translations aren't based on just a single codex or manuscript.
Aren't *some* of the Psalms attributed to David? When I took a biblical wisdom literature class (which I don't take for gospel) her said scholars attribute about 40 to David.
Thanks Dan.😊
As it happens Ac 8.37 is rare among the 16 verses in question, in that it is NOT a reading common among even the majority of extant manuscripts, which are later. You won't even find it in Robinson-Pierpont.
Did you read the David Bentley Hart translation of the NT, and if yes, what do you think of it?
People who don't know Hebrew calling any English translation "word for word" makes me laugh. Even "word for word" translations have to swap things around to fit with English syntax. And I can just imagine them saying "what do you mean God has a long nose??"
Hey Dan, is there a scholarly accurate Chronological Bible out there?
I like how he's like, "I use these for x reasons" and they're like, paperback bibles that look pristine, like he's never actually opened them. Mind you, his filter softens everything and adds a green tinge, which is a confusing choice (is that a Matrix reference? That's a *choice* for a Christian), so maybe I just can't see things like creases and dog-eared corners, but they sure look new to me - like he's just gone to the Amazon locker to pick them up in the Amazon box on the seat next to him.
Personally I try to keep my books in pristine condition. I have paperbacks that look a week old but i've read 10 times (at least) and had for 10+ years.
For example I've never even dreamed of dogearing a page. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
How do you know it’s the most accurate translation? Do you understand the languages it was translated from?
Best fit yet. 😄
A chronological order would be nice, but no one knows what the chronological order would be.
You would also have to decide the order the stories were told versus the order they were written down (or at least the the evidence we have for when they were first written down)
🎤 drop by Dan once again! 👏👏👏👏👏
Presenting from the front seat of your car says it all…..
Is a translation of The Bhagavad Gita true?
Does it make sense to talk about 'accuracy' with regard to translation? 'Accuracy' necessarily implies that there is some 'target' to get close to in the L2 you are translating the source text into - but language is slippery, and especially if you are translating poetry or metaphor, there are equivalent decisions the translator can make that can lead to very different final texts (which are then interpreted by the reader, and the reader may interpret the final texts very differently).
Oh - and that reminds me - I have been meaning to ask about which critical texts of the Hebrew and Greek bibles might be good for an enthusiastic amateur who is working to learn Greek (koine) and Biblical Hebrew? I am sure you have some opinion!
Also - how do scholars use critical editions?
It's unfortunate that when someone describes Bible translations as "awesome " and "cool", they immediately disqualified themselves from serious consideration.
That's actually a good thing. They out themselves as being frauds
You can't do a "word for word" translation. Ancient languages don't line up 1 for 1 in terms of words and in meanings of words. That is just a lazy and dishonest apologetic.
Modern languages don't really either. So, yeah.
I find I can usually go sentence by sentence when going from French to English, but I usually need paragraph by paragraph when going from Chinese to English. It's hard to explain why to unilinguists, but there are a lot of cultural conventions on how to write as well as differences in grammar. There's also the problem that a lot of ideas exist more as a spectrum than as specific points, and different languages choose slightly different points on those spectra to define with words.
FWIW, the reviews I've seen of the printed NRSVue translations of the Bible (not digital) recommend the Westminster version over the SBL.The SBL's NRSVue translation had several complaints about print quality.
Dan mentioned in a previous video that the main difference between the two is that the SBL is a little more scholarly while the Westminster is a little more theology, IIRC.
I'm just wondering about why this is being filmed in his car. Certainly he has a home where he usually keeps these bibles. I imagine he wouldn't have so many if he lived in his car. did he lug the box of fifteen bibles out to car for this video, and then return them to his bookshelves? does he take every translation to church with him every week?
His account is called "Taco Talks" because he films all his videos in his Toyota Tacoma. It's just part of his brand.
@@maklelan His home probably looks more like hell than a paradise.
Bro, if I saw a channel called “Taco Talks” and this guy’s nonsense was the content instead of hero shots of carne asada birria, then I’d be way bummed.
Acoustics.
❤❤❤❤❤YES!!!!@@Kingdho
He literally read the footnote that said "some later mms include" and then completely misunderstood and misrepresented what that meant. Sigh...
The crazy part is there are churches and sects of Christianity that hold to one bible being a perfectly preserved text ironically not realizing they're simply creating an idol.
Dan, a question that came to mind and that you almost touched on when mentioning Irenaeus:
What is your take on people using 2nd and 3rd century Patristic Quotations as proof that certain textual variants (like the “comma” in 1 John 5:7) should be regarded as original?
The logic behind their view is something like this: the quotes are older than Vaticanus or Sinaitucus, therefore the quotes should be regarded as original. What would be your response to that type of thinking?
Huh, the Tindale come 100 or so years after the words eyren and eyermonnger fell out of use. (Eggs and egg seller respectively).
I've always been fond of the Amplified Bible.
Is an accurate translation of the Quran true?
What in the heck do you think he's referring to when he says "the codex". Does he mean Sinaiticus? or Lenigradensis? I haven't the slightest clue what Critical Edition he could possibly be referring to (or if he's referring to any crit ed at all).
Dan, what's your view on _The Torah: A Modern Commentary_ Second Edition, Plaut, et al, URJ Press?
The greek septuagint is from the hasmonean period; (3rd century bc)
The masoretic text is from the 11th century AD;
The new testament _written in greek_ quotes the septuagint,
East orthodoxy has the full original bible;
_Including 4 maccabees that eastern orthodoxy itself likes to ignore_
The dead sea scrolls correspond that the masoretic text changed sections kept intact by the septuagint,
Some deutercanon books left out by protestants for having no hebrew copy at the time have since been corresponded by newer discoveries of Hebrew apochryphal fragments/scrolls
Hey, hey - don't cast no shade on HE-HE! 😤 *_walks off edge of boat_* _*spit back into boat by ocean *_ 🤭🤪
I wonder what is the best translation of the Bible into Spanish
@6:20; I am sure that he means main dialects, not creoles or pidgins, I am not sure how many bibles were translated from Hebrew or Greek to a pidgin or creole. You are probably technically correct, but you are also smart enough to know that people mostly aren't talking about pidgins or creoles (languages that evolve from a dominant language that includes healthy amounts of a minor language such that regular commerce and interpersonal business can be shared between speakers of different main languages) when they say 'languages'.
5:29 I noticed that both scholars were in agreement in their dislike of the NIV Bible. @maklelan even stating that he most likely had different reasons. So I’m curious about both perspectives. Is the NIV just a bad Bible? Unfortunately I don’t know the other scholars name so as to tag him. Thank you ❤️🔥 5:29
From Reddt: Theological conservatives dislike it because it's a modern translation that uses modern textual criticism (often it's criticisms are 'it doesn't agree with the King James'); some balk at gender-neutral language in the later versions.
Academic scholars tend to look down on it because it makes translation decisions that are theologically based either for evangelical protestantism or to harmonize away biblical contradictions.
I have not wanted a specific shirt this bad in a long time.
One of the strengths of the NIV is its readability, but unfortunately much of it is so poorly translated it's unreliable. When I was going to a Greek church (in Australia, so many were bilingual) they complained about its inaccuracy in the NT. Iain Provan's commentary on Ecc/Song also pointed out a lot of issues with rendering of Hebrew. I myself went through 1&2Pe and made so many amendments I ran out of space in the margins. 1Jn was not too bad though.
What's so irritating is that this guy tells his viewers that Bible translations are varied and complex, but it doesn't really matter that much which one they read as long as it's "legitimate". Like bro, why waste your time talking about the minute differences between translations if you don't think they matter. Why spend absolutely no time on what distinguishes a legitimate and illegitimate translation in your view? Could it be because those distinctions are not so straightforward as you pretend they are?
If it has the “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” then it is legitimate - that is, free from theological error. It will not lead you astray in matters of faith and morals. It might not be the best translation, but it is safe to read it. The official translation of the Latin Rite of the Western Church is the “New Vulgate”. However, the Clementine Vulgate and St. Jerome’s original translation are still approved as being free from theological error. As for English translations from the Vulgate, that of Monsignor Knox is by far the best - his full three volume edition, with notes, is excellent.
8:20 Starting here this content creator sounds like he is just sloppily regurgitating lies pastors told him and his ignorance is astoundingly sad.
Snickered at his box of bibles only to remember the two I own along with a Nag Hammadi codex, two Dead Sea Scrolls translations, a Talmud, and two more books plus a CD-ROM of pseudepigrapha material left out of every modern Bible.
I like the guy! Seems very pleasant frankly
I must be the only person watching this video that just casually listens to guarani every day (I don't understand a single word of it). Wasn't expecting it to be mentioned by Dan
@4:25 An All powerful and ALL future knowing deity, who wanted _ALL_ abilities and levels of mankind to receive salvation was *too weak* to prevent the misunderstandings, misinterpreting verses, and the confusion about what passages are literally truthful, versus those " only being metaphorical "
There's more versions of Christianity than in Hinduism...
It seems that this is human inspired belief.....
The Legacy Standard Bible was put out by Calvinist John Macarthur as a cash grab. Most new translations of the Bible into English are done for the money. Bible publishers don't want to pay royalties to whoever owns the copyright of one translation (or adaption, whatever) and so have their own created so any royalties from it come to them.
the more that the original hebrew bible is translated the more conflictions we find. since i was a kid in church and then left i have found more discrepancies in the bible than the 15 years i was in church!!!!
Hey, Dan, have you ever considered making a video in your car?
He's done it a couple of times, typically when he's responding to someone who tries to "correct" him while doing the video in *their* car.
The car is a powerful drug for the apologists.
Why do youtubers record in their cars? Don't they have an apartment or something?
It helps their perception of being busy which may be just a personal presentation brand.
Similar to why many also hold a mic in their hand when they have no meaningful reason to do so.
That is a hilarious shirt!
With over 700 english translations it's easy to find one that serves your purposes.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_Bible_(series)#/media/File%3AMangaMessiah.jpg
I have a question for you. I'm a Christian. I don't really care for apologetics or scholarship. I like to say that I believe in a God who I can't see and no one else has ever seen based on a book that a lot of people argue about and we don't have the originals for anyways. If the smartest scholars in the world can't agree, then I have no shot at figuring the scholarship out.
I believe simply on faith. I know people call that ignorant or stupid. A lot of people won't like that. But I believe in God and the Bible.
I guess I'm just curious. I've seen your channel a few times and it seems like you really provide a lot of evidence for why someone wouldn't be a Christian. But I think I've heard that you are a Christian. So I guess why are you in the face of everything you do?
This is not meant as hate or anything like that. It's not a loaded question. I'm genuinely just curious.
He's a Mormon, but he's a progressive Mormon, and does not dogmatically accept all the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon church. He also doesn't fly in the face of everything he believes -- he just doesn't believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God and he isn't a conservative Old Testament fire and brimstone Christian -- he's much more in tune with the Beatitudes than with the Ten Commandments.
How about you? Do you believe we should turn the other cheek instead of demanding an eye for an eye? Do you believe we should love our enemies and our neighbors. Do you believe that if a stranger asks you for help, we should do double what they ask? Which of these commandments of Jesus do you practice your life?
What a relatively uneducated Greek individual meant to say 2000 years ago has been proven irrelevant in 2025. To further discuss this ancient text that has been disproven by modern simple 4th grade science is bordering on insanity. Cheers!
I have an internal suspicion of folks who espouse expertise about a complex subject whilst recording in their car.
No, Nag Hammadi for my guy?
There is an irony that in order to keep the Bible innerent translators have to view and translate the only biblical manuscripts we have as errant.