It almost looks my 2002 ESV Premium thinline Cordovan Calfskin Bible. I have the 2002/Cordovan and 2002 thinline Black Cowhide Never changed from those. They have stood the test of time.
Nice! I have an heirloom thinline but it is "too nice" to use. I like to beat up a bible a bit. I dont want to be afraid to really put it through some use. I love that rugged look! I'm happy to see more affordable options coming out that are this nice. Thanks for the video.
I wish crossway would get rid of paper liners except on their value bibles and go to vinyl. They already offer a lifetime warranty, so that would make the bible hold up better and reduce any warranty claims from the paper tearing. I also wish they did more top grain options.
Very cool! I love the leather. I wonder how long this paste down liner will last? I have a feeling if I used this as hard as my 4 year old heirloom I would end up with a really nice piece of leather in one hand and a text block in the other.
I have two versions of this text block. One is a 2011 text the other is a 2016 text. Exact same page format for both Bibles one is around 2012, and the other ones 2019 as far as I can tell this one has the same tax block so the cover is the only thing different about it.
paste down paper a presume then. Some mfg will use synthetic for a paste down. Preventing the paper from ripping the the spine. Similar to how lockman does the nasb leathertex
Rather buy old bible like 1775 one, in it they shows that sunday was/is the 1st day of week and the year starts around march, not january. We have to DIG for the truth. Go back in time to the original
@@vigilantezack what do you mean by updated? The bible does not change. I need to have verse Matthew 17,21 . Some trabslations do not have it 'Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. ' that verse is a 1st check if a translation is trustworthy. Then, is the question about the name of the lord. Is just 'Lord' written or the real names like jehova. You can get a Christian with every bible, but most of the newer versions are sadly not the real truth anymore.. 😥
@@ralfmeier6460if you can’t read Greek and Hebrew then you need to have a translation thats majority. Its already been proven that though the the critical text is 94% identical to the majority, the 6% will is VERY important. The Westcott and Hort influenced Bibles contain the verses they once omitted in footnotes. Nothing is exactly missing but nothing is right either. If you’re going to take the time to footnote the verse you might as well include it where it was DIVINELY INSPIRED to be. The verses that they claim are not in the earliest manuscripts, them Alexandrian ones, get annihilated by the early church fathers!!! Every last verse they omitted like the adulterous for example was quoted by early church fathers almost 150 years BEFORE the W&H manuscripts were created. You see they tried to silence the Majority text with “Oldest” manuscripts one the basis that there wasn’t anything older… but the dummies forgot they recorded the words of the church fathers!!! Get yourself a good Ruckman Reference of a Common Mans Bible! Jump into one of them. You can read the W&H stuff but do it as a means to add to your OWN interpretation. Good Luck Brothers and Sisters. Ruckman Reference! He’ll steer you the right way.
@@ralfmeier6460 Yes, the bible changes to update the language. How do you think it's translated into all the languages of the world? Do you know what translators have to do to make sure phrases and sentences are carried between languages so that the meaning isn't lost on them? You know how hard it is to translate cultural "sayings" that other languages don't have? If an American says "I'm parched", there might not be perfect word-for-word translations in every language and even if there is, it might not mean the same thing to the other people. It might translate "I'm dry dirt" which is not going to get the meaning across unless the translators do a good job adopting these into the language, especially the language doesn't have both the equivalent words, and equivalent "saying". That said, when publishers update scripture, they are doing so to fix translation issues, make less clear language more clear in modern English, update archaic language that nobody uses any more, make smoother sentence structures, become more accurate according to scholarship and reviewing of more manuscripts, or even just to fix printing errors, misspellings. The problem with your kind of thinking is you assume conspiracy about everything instead of realizing that language changes over time and it's ok to update translations of books. Matthew 17:21 was not "removed" from bibles, it isn't there because by all accounts it's not original, it was added to scripture most likely. The translator notes on the NET say this: --- "Many important MSS (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W ƒ1, 13 M lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations." --- There is no grand conspiracy to destroy the blessed KJV. It's just that the verse likely was never there in the first place. The theological concept of 17:21 is not lost, as the idea is still shown in Mark 9:29. This isn't some conspiracy to destroy a core doctrine or something. KJV is a fine old translation that served the English church for a good while. But it was not based on a vast survey of available manuscripts. It was based almost entirely on the word of one man Erasmus. Well guess what, we can do a lot better than Erasmus now.
I prefer a Bible that doesn't have extra stuff that was clearly added to address the current days of issues of that time. KJVO'ism is not rooted in earnest study or research but in pride. The oh-so-common belief of "the other Christians have it wrong," but we're the "real" Christians.
It almost looks my 2002 ESV Premium thinline Cordovan Calfskin Bible. I have the 2002/Cordovan and 2002 thinline Black Cowhide Never changed from those. They have stood the test of time.
Nice! I have an heirloom thinline but it is "too nice" to use. I like to beat up a bible a bit. I dont want to be afraid to really put it through some use. I love that rugged look! I'm happy to see more affordable options coming out that are this nice. Thanks for the video.
I wish crossway would get rid of paper liners except on their value bibles and go to vinyl. They already offer a lifetime warranty, so that would make the bible hold up better and reduce any warranty claims from the paper tearing. I also wish they did more top grain options.
Very cool! I love the leather. I wonder how long this paste down liner will last? I have a feeling if I used this as hard as my 4 year old heirloom I would end up with a really nice piece of leather in one hand and a text block in the other.
Good question, I don’t think it will hold up. Mine starting peeling after a few days which was pretty dissapointing and I had to return it
I have two versions of this text block. One is a 2011 text the other is a 2016 text. Exact same page format for both Bibles one is around 2012, and the other ones 2019 as far as I can tell this one has the same tax block so the cover is the only thing different about it.
Nice thoughtful review. How is the paper in it? You mentioned it’s heavier weight than the heirloom.
The paper is okay, its the same paper in every thinline printed in China. Its a 30gsm rougher feel.
I love your channel and I have a question for you can you shoot me an email? nathanielginsterblum@gmail.com
Do you get to keep all these Bibles or do you just do reviews of them?
This Bible I purchased on my own!
Is that paste down liner paper or synthetic?
It’s a paste down!
paste down paper a presume then. Some mfg will use synthetic for a paste down. Preventing the paper from ripping the the spine. Similar to how lockman does the nasb leathertex
Just when I thought I was done buying new bibles 😭
Don’t buy it if you don’t need it lol.
Rather buy old bible like 1775 one, in it they shows that sunday was/is the 1st day of week and the year starts around march, not january.
We have to DIG for the truth. Go back in time to the original
I do hardly trust any bible newer then 1950.
They tell you exactly what is updated.
@@vigilantezack what do you mean by updated? The bible does not change. I need to have verse Matthew 17,21 . Some trabslations do not have it 'Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. ' that verse is a 1st check if a translation is trustworthy. Then, is the question about the name of the lord. Is just 'Lord' written or the real names like jehova.
You can get a Christian with every bible, but most of the newer versions are sadly not the real truth anymore.. 😥
@@ralfmeier6460if you can’t read Greek and Hebrew then you need to have a translation thats majority. Its already been proven that though the the critical text is 94% identical to the majority, the 6% will is VERY important. The Westcott and Hort influenced Bibles contain the verses they once omitted in footnotes. Nothing is exactly missing but nothing is right either. If you’re going to take the time to footnote the verse you might as well include it where it was DIVINELY INSPIRED to be.
The verses that they claim are not in the earliest manuscripts, them Alexandrian ones, get annihilated by the early church fathers!!! Every last verse they omitted like the adulterous for example was quoted by early church fathers almost 150 years BEFORE the W&H manuscripts were created.
You see they tried to silence the Majority text with “Oldest” manuscripts one the basis that there wasn’t anything older… but the dummies forgot they recorded the words of the church fathers!!!
Get yourself a good Ruckman Reference of a Common Mans Bible! Jump into one of them. You can read the W&H stuff but do it as a means to add to your OWN interpretation.
Good Luck Brothers and Sisters. Ruckman Reference! He’ll steer you the right way.
@@ralfmeier6460 Yes, the bible changes to update the language. How do you think it's translated into all the languages of the world? Do you know what translators have to do to make sure phrases and sentences are carried between languages so that the meaning isn't lost on them? You know how hard it is to translate cultural "sayings" that other languages don't have? If an American says "I'm parched", there might not be perfect word-for-word translations in every language and even if there is, it might not mean the same thing to the other people. It might translate "I'm dry dirt" which is not going to get the meaning across unless the translators do a good job adopting these into the language, especially the language doesn't have both the equivalent words, and equivalent "saying".
That said, when publishers update scripture, they are doing so to fix translation issues, make less clear language more clear in modern English, update archaic language that nobody uses any more, make smoother sentence structures, become more accurate according to scholarship and reviewing of more manuscripts, or even just to fix printing errors, misspellings.
The problem with your kind of thinking is you assume conspiracy about everything instead of realizing that language changes over time and it's ok to update translations of books.
Matthew 17:21 was not "removed" from bibles, it isn't there because by all accounts it's not original, it was added to scripture most likely. The translator notes on the NET say this:
---
"Many important MSS (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W ƒ1, 13 M lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations."
---
There is no grand conspiracy to destroy the blessed KJV. It's just that the verse likely was never there in the first place. The theological concept of 17:21 is not lost, as the idea is still shown in Mark 9:29. This isn't some conspiracy to destroy a core doctrine or something.
KJV is a fine old translation that served the English church for a good while. But it was not based on a vast survey of available manuscripts. It was based almost entirely on the word of one man Erasmus. Well guess what, we can do a lot better than Erasmus now.
I prefer a Bible that doesn't have extra stuff that was clearly added to address the current days of issues of that time. KJVO'ism is not rooted in earnest study or research but in pride. The oh-so-common belief of "the other Christians have it wrong," but we're the "real" Christians.