Thoughts on the Legacy Standard Bible and CBGM
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Did an unplanned discussion of the Legacy Standard Bible’s reading at Jude 5 and the upcoming ECM volumes (and CBGM data) for Mark that will be available in about three weeks.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio... for more of A&O ministry's content
I can’t tell you what a godsend this video is. I just discovered this week that there was a rendering of Jude 5 that read Jesus. I have to admit that this shook me, as the Bible translation I used all my life did not have this rendering. I clicked on this video because I have fallen in love with the LSB and what I got was an answer to a prayer and a whole new outlook on textual criticism as a bonus. Thank you for this excellent content.
In the 95 NASB the footnote says Jude 5 says 'Two early mss read Jesus'
Jesus is the Greek for Joshua.
so only two and they say there's less variation but that's because there's only 2 and not thousands that say otherwise. And it just reads weird.
Yes, but it's been many years since then. We have found many more manuscripts since 1995.
@@TheSlaveofJesusChrist The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism Should the Byzantine text-type be considered valuable in determining the original text of the New Testament? Does it bear independent witness to ancient readings? Dr. Harry Sturz, in a book published in 1984, maintained that it should be valued and that it could help with finding older readings and thus contribute to our knowledge of and confidence in the text of the Greek New Testament. His position, that the Byzantine text-type should be weighed along with other witnesses to the ancient text, differs from those who dismiss Byzantine manuscripts, which were largely copied later, but also from those who hold that the Byzantine text has priority or even is determinative of what the final reading should be. He uses carefully laid out arguments and numerous specific examples in making his case.
This book is divided into two parts. The first outlines the positions both for relying on the Byzantine text and for largely ignoring it. Part two examines the evidence and outlines an argument that neither side of this debate should win the field, but rather that the Byzantine text should be valued, but not made exclusive.
The meaning doesn't change though, does it? We know that Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, whether we call Him Lord or Jesus in Jude 5, it was Yahweh the God of Israel that delivered His people out of Egypt, and this God of Israel is Jesus Christ. The truth of the text is unaffected: that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.
the point is to hold to what was original, not our subjective feelings amending it. Your conclusion that Jesus saved his people out of egypt is fine, but to say it's original isn't. Distinctions make differences. It would be erroneous to change it to "jesus christ our lord" in future english works, despite it not being wrong. The goal is to go "ad fontes" (to the source).
Jude’s one of my favorite NT Gen. Epistles. I’m excited about any work done in the book!
Love Jude
The Latin Vulgate (and the Douay-Rheims) has Jesus at Jude 5.
When I checked my Bibles last night, I found that Jude 5 says Jesus in four Bibles I own. The NET, CSB, ESV, and now the new Legacy NT. All versions of the NASB use Lord.
I believe the Berean Study Bible (BSB) also says Jesus
The NASB95 adds a footnote stating that Jesus is used in two early manuscripts
I checked a number of Greek, Hebrew, and English versions. 58 Greek and English versions said Lord. 11 Greek and English versions said Jesus. Two English versions said God, and two Hebrew versions said Yahweh/Jehovah.
NLT also says Jesus..
LORD is preferred based on a literal translation
The LSB is a brilliant update of the 1995 NASB. The reason it was done is to make an even more accurate translation update to the 1995 NASB text than the NASB 2020.. If you love the incredible NASB 1995 translation then you will probably appreciate the LSB’s open and transparent improvement. This Bible certainly continues the great legacy of the NASB. It is a welcome addition and, in my opinion, the best modern English translation.
I like NASB 2020 than LSB. NASB20 is more easy to read and understand than LSB.
I Hope the LSB print edition will be printed in Large Print(at least 11 point)
I got one recently. Large print.
The current large print available appears to use white space and page layout well for readability, but the font stops at 10.5.
They now have a 13 point
NASB1995
“Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.”
Jude 1:5 NASB1995
Personally I feel like the reason “Lord” was commonly used in Jude instead of “Jesus” is related to the name Joshua. Since Joshua is closely connected with the story of Exodus, it seems to me that some well-meaning scribes believed “Lord” would clear any confusion and make it obvious that the Lord Jesus is being referred to. Obviously Joshua did not redeem a people or destroy the unbelieving, but I don’t think that translation philosophy is a possibility to rule out entirely.
Dr James White is so valuable to all of these conversations
ESV says Jesus in Jude, too. How come people don't make such a stink over that? Also, I'm commenting some time after this video was posted, but I'm loving my LSB Bible...
It irks me to see anachronisms in the text. Requires special pleading constantly to justify it as "inspired redactors". Convenient. Can always get out from under any pushback by just saying "inspired redactor". Same as with moses writing the penteteuch without sources lol - clearly sources were used or God "verbally plenarily inspired" Moses to use the same words as extant, older, assyrian and babylonian texts. Again, convenient special pleading. Bible can be God's inspired word and infallible etc and still use extant sources - so long as you dont force it to be something it's not - the bible is a product of authors, who lived in a time and place in history and reflect those factors in their writing. NT authors cited sources. No one questions their authourship or inspiration because of that - it ADDS credibility by appealing to multiple disparate streams of truth confirming the realities of history - the bible just gives us the true understanding of the purpose and meaning of those events, and of sin and salvation.
I have the LSB and its fine. BTW Im from Philippines.
thankful for your ministry dr james white!
I like the cowhide leather used in LSB.
The LSB will not be updated for at least 50 years according to the translators. The goal is to be unchanged for generations like the KJV and unlike the other modern translations.
Reason I use NKJV is due to the lack of any major updates. Use other translations only in digital form.
@@BloodBoughtMinistries The NKJV has been updated multiple times. It doesn't seem to be anything major, but they don't advertise when they do and the copyright date stays the same. They seem to like the impression that it doesn't change much but there isn't any transparency for when they do. Anyways, I like the NKJV for the NT, but I do notice changes sometimes, even within the last ten years.
@Ryan Felix Well, that failed! They already updated. Trash money grabbing translation!
@@thomasglass9491 They didn’t update it, they fixed typos and grammar issues.
@@RyGuy8989when did they say that?
JUDE (v. 5.) These manuscripts say "Lord." These manuscripts say "Jesus." I have read that there are a grand total of 2 manuscripts that read "Jesus." Do you know how many manuscripts read "the Lord?"
Most say Lord I think
CDGM is definitely a new one for me. Personally I'd love to see the database.
You should look at gary f zeolla analytical literal translation (alt3) of the bible. You should check out his concordance and companion volumes and also take a look at his "why are these books in the bible and not others 3 volume set and his book differences between bible volumes, lastly take a look at the scripture work book second edition; 2 volumes in 1.
Love Jude!
Ad fontes, ever towards clarity.
amen!!
Believe it or not, the old Douay Rheims Catholic Bible reads the same way. "I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not."- Jude vs. 5. And it's a translation from the Latin Vulgate, which Jerome translated from the Greek manuscripts he had in the fourth century!
Did a quick search after you have this input on the vulgate text (as found online first search hit),
"commonere autem vos volo scientes semel omnia quoniam Iesus populum de terra Aegypti salvans secundo eos qui non crediderunt perdidit"
"Iesus" Is Latin for "Jesus"
Great input.
@@infinitelink I'm pretty sure that the manuscripts that Jerome had access to at that time, were much closer in accuracy to the original autographs than what we have later.
A very useful information.
@@jamestrotter3162 y'all catching up
How is this useful information? It only shows that Jerome perpetuated a certain erroneous reading. One ought not wonder.
The preexistence of Jesus is wishful incompetent reading, and is probably platonic in origin.
Jesus only preexisted on the drawing board, as a plan.
The very idea of existing before existing is an aberration, just as 3=1 is an aberration.
Interesting because in Jude 5 the ESV and NLT agree with LSB.
If you read Luke 9:27,(KJV) it appears that Jesus thought that Jeremiah 31 is the Kingdom of God. Do you get the same impression in the Legacy Bible ?
Seems like we a spliting a hair already split into 1/4's.
Jude 5 is specifically why I use the ESV
So, you cherry pick your translation according to what tickles your ears?
@@ianpaul7895 No, I chose the translation that uses a manuscript I'm convinced it's more original than what's commonly used because of it's high christology, which is consistent with other scripture and early Christian writings
@@ianpaul7895 IMHO, any translation that exalts the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Eternal GOD is the correct one.
So, @@TheBluntNinja , you prefer the NLT and ESV because of their decisions to use the older Dead Sea Scrolls for translating Deuteronomy 32:8?
@@IndianaJoe0321 I don't like the nlt because of the transition philosophy
This CBGM playlist is fascinating
Could we have a new DL about the CBGM stuff Doc??
Romans 4:25 in the NKJV, as well as the Legacy Standard Bible, is a blasphemous reading, and you cannot defend it. Christ was not raised BECAUSE OF / ON ACCOUNT of our justification. He was raised FOR our justification. We are justified BECAUSE of the resurrection.
Is the Lord and Jesus not part of the same God? Am I misunderstanding?
Yes he is
Really helpful ‘Heads-Up”; Thank you! Nice embroidered Trinity symbol on your shirt 👍 It comes to mind that with CBMG, I’m going to have to update my copy of the Parallel Greek Gospels 🤔
Its a pagan symbol, found long before Christianity, You be telling us next the Star of David was only ever a Jewish symbol, even though it's found in the earliest pagan temples.
The NA28 has “Jesus.”
My only question for the LSB is simply, was it necessary? What's the point? Dr. White has commented on this before that we simply have a flood of English translations of the Bible. This just adds to that flood without any real necessity on either a textual basis or a need for a revision. Maybe the NASB needed a revision, which it got with the 2020 edition. So why are we getting two revisions of the same version right next to each other? I wonder what Lockman's point with this was.
Yes producing an even more accurate translation than nasb is needed.
@@TheJpep2424 Why? I assume you equate formal translation with accuracy which isn't always the case, but if so, why weren't the other formal versions good enough? Why not other formal versions like the LEB, who admit because of how literal the translation can be, is not meant for a reading Bible but academic use? ESV, NASB2020, NRSV, etc.? There is no improving on accuracy if many other translations already accomplish the same goal. There was no need for this.
It's very simple: a lot of NASB fans, JMac included, think the 2020 revision of the NASB missed the mark (while MacArthur had to be on the downlow about it for obvious reasons, if you go back and watch his roundtable discussions about the LSB, you can tell that his criticisms of the direction of modern translations, such as "chasing the culture," are subtle jabs at the 2020.)
Whether it be a dumbed down literary style to be more readable and vainly try to compete with the likes of the ESV, CSB, NIV, etc., or its gender inclusivity (i.e. adding "sisters" in italics, to brothers,) many view the NASB2020 as straying far from the original vision of the NASB of being a scholarly level of literalism to a fault, while still being reasonably readable. A lot of people view the upcoming LSB as being the true update to the NASB95 that the 2020 should have been.
of course it is necessary. no need to be mad at the "flood of english translations". that same reasoning is how people stick with the outdated kjv. That team did a lot of work of keeping greek words consistently translated with the same english word.
As an atheist, i appreciate their care for accuracy and consistency
@@SolitaireZeta I feel this revision will be of little blessing to the body since it simply wasn't needed. We are not in any dying need for a new version or revision. They're could also be a financial incentive here for publishing reasons. At the end, why not stay with the 95 revision? It was good for the purpose. Concerning the modern culture comment, that's what the ESV bible was for. Basically, filling a hole where there wasn't one.
That’s using a presumptive theory that Jesus and Yahweh are the same person. Not sure if that’s true because there’s enough evidence in other scriptures that disagree with this ideology. I personally do not believe that they are one and the same.
What are you even talking about? Jesus is Yahweh
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
You just spewed out a bunch of nonsense.. where exactly is the problem?
@@craigime That you don't see the problem. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 Where's the problem?
@@craigime That you refuse to see it. Peace.
6:03... It's socialism.
good call. me neither. Apparently, not everyone is a dead fish swimming with the flow.
I’m looking at the UBS 5th Edition, the Jude 5 rendering is dubious at best.
How is it dubious?
The NWT has Jehovah at Jude 5 👍
No Mac?
NASB says Lord in verse 5
ESV and even the NLT render it Jesus
Patiently waiting for the LSB-Catholic Edition. Only way I’ll buy it.
You'll probably have a long wait.
When all is set and done the Latin Vulgate will be re assembled by the CBGM
Only the new testament
@@craigime Amen
Tell us about matthew 6 verse 13
I’ll stick to my Geneva and KJB...
Best Regards,
Joe Calvin ✌️😎
You do that. It's your choice. Nothing more.
Tell us about daniel 9 verse 26
The studio shot here looks a bit brighter than the more zoomed out perspective, where the top part of the shot is ghostily dark.
Older doesn't necessarily mean better. Anti-Christs had gone into the world, already, when the New Testament writers penned their documents. Moreover, when you have equally weighted manuscript evidence for both “lord” and “Jesus,” you really do not have proof for either one. When you have significantly more manuscript evidence for one or the other, then it makes sense to take the majority reading.
Then you should just use the KJV.
even having "significantly more manus. evidence" for one over another doesn't mean it should be used or is original. KJV suffers from this identity crisis - they were geographically limited in what texts they had to review before translating. KJV contains readings that no early manuscripts had. KJV is especially misleading in the OT since it's reliant upon a medieval unbelieving jewish pointing of the triliteral hebrew words for variant meanings of texts and outright changes that aren't reflected in the LXX or more importantly the DSS. Unlike greek, changing the vowels in hebrew gives entirely different readings. Why would we trust anti-messianic jews to do this? It's all we had then, but no excuses now with DSS and LXX. We have so many more, and earlier manuscripts now,, it's not as if you can just apply some "filter" to any text based on counting how many times it was copied that way or what region it was most widely distributed in. That's just a good way to draw bad conclusions from a limited data set. The totality of what exists and when must be constantly reviewed. The Muslims and KJV have a lot in common here - except Uthman burned the copies with variants - fortunately God preserved his word in such a huge geographical spread that it's precisely because of the variants we can have certainty that God's word persists and hasn't been changed by any one man. KJV is so frought with cultists too that is enough reason to avoid it - it's literally the LAST bible I would ever hand someone to read.
That's a poor argument for the majority text
I agree with James for once. The LSB was not necessary and was only published for $. 😇🙏🏼✝️
Tell us about father Jesuit Stephen f Pisani old testament editor
Proffesional Dreamers under the SUN.
“What had been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new?” It has been already, in the ages past. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to happen among those who will come after.” (Eccl. 1:9-11).
Ok?
Tell us about the only begotten God john 1 verse 18
The modern post Christian church beset with a smorgasbord of English translations. Just what the Church needs to establish what God really meant to say. 😂
Tell us about prophet Jesuit carlo maria martini
Hope it makes millions for the Mac..he surely could use it.
Are you being facetious?
@@SickestDisciple - his other comments on this channel are not exactly charitable
@Willow we sure need more of your ignorant comments.
Who's the Mac?
A new Bible comes out every month
Let's not exaggerate
Enough of these new translations to affirm this-or-that teacher's views. Mr. McArthur has had some terse views and has particularly parsed and strained teachings in respect to the gifts of the Spirit, as well as forcing meanings to prop up a lot of Dispensational nonsense, which, I would suspect, is evident in this translation, so called.
You would guess..... Thanks for that deep insight.
I am very blessed that the Lord saw fit to give me a very simplistic mind and way of thinking. I just like the Bible I was given 11 years ago when I was saved, NKJV. It’s been good and I understand it well and my life is guided by the Word of God and I’m confident in that. I reject the LSB based upon James White’s earlier interview where he said there’s no need for new translations and that, “we have a glut of translations and do not need anymore because they’re only produced to make money.” I agree with those sentiments.
simplistic is the right adjective.
@@bjmurrey and I’m sure “fanboy” would be one to best describe your behavior regarding all things MacArthur.
@@christophercunningham5434 Projection much? LOL I dont follow, listen to, or know anything about MacArthur, so yeah, FAIL! Try again to attack me lol
Lol ok
You should switch to a KJV instead of the NKJV.
Tell us about your codex vaticanus vaticanus and sinaticus Catholics manuscripts 😅
Jude 5 should be YAHWEH.
Based on what?
Where is that title in the New Testament texts?
There is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus.
Don't need, nor do I want Jonny Mac's new for the big bucks version.
What are you even talking about?
I feel like the whole Yaweh thing is just going to feed elitism, and further divide the Church. I don't see how it enhances the Word, I only see its potential to divide people.
I do appreciate the rest of it, for the most part. Admittedly, I haven't gotten too far beyond the Yaweh issue to study it in detail.
Considering “LORD” is a title, and the original Hebrew writings had “יהוה”, it makes sense to translate His name rather than going with a title.
Sure, some people won’t like it, but it’s impossible to have a translation that’ll please everyone.
The LSB isn’t going to replace the NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV, or any other translation. It’s just another addition to select from.
Do you know of anyone that is opposed to using “Yahweh” instead of “LORD”?
You are right. I was filled with skeptic pessimism when I wrote that. I see so much unfounded elitism among people who profess faith while they argue over interpretations, competing with one another about who among them is most righteous, that I lose hope that anyone would be saved. I probably should have not said anything at all about it.
I guess I feel more comfortable with Lord than with Yaweh, because he is my Lord, and I'm quite sure that not using His Covenant name in lieu of 'Lord' isn't a soteriological issue.
I use “Lord” because I speak English. If I spoke Hebrew I would probably say “Yahweh”. Isn’t that the crux of this argument?
@@buzzlightyear5515 some argue that you should only use Yaweh, and anything else is wrong, with people varying on how severe it is, from doctrine error to blasphemy or heresy. These people have always been few, but my fear is that this translation might encourage desire to be divisive about what should be a non issue - I don't see the value in making this effort, all I see is a potential to misuse it.
The Father YHWH saved his people out of Egypt. The same way he delivers us from our sins thru our repentance.
Yes Jesus saved his people out of Egypt
@@craigime Jesus didn't exist during the time of Egyptian slavery.
@@craigime I even I am YHWH (the Father creator of the universe), beside ME there is NO SAVIOR Isaiah 43:11, 45:5-7. You need to read refresh your theology.
"our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1)
"the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13)
You need to read the Bible
@@craigime James 5:20. Obadiah 1:21. You need to learn the difference between the one and only Savior vs a savior. No man is your Savior. My people perish for lack of knowledge. All Sons are divine elohim not the Elohim.
Worship the Father and HIM ONLY shall you serve Matthew 4:10.
1st and greatest commandment.
It seems very 'Presumptuous' to do this. Psalms 19:13 Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins, that they may not have dominion over me; then shall I be faultless, and I shall be clear from GREAT transgression. Psalms 2 Tells us that God(YHVH) anointed his servant not himself. This is from Hebrew manuscripts.
Are you suggesting that Jesus is not God?
Hebrew doesn't have a V.
@@Nick-wn1xw It's my understanding the letter VAV can be a 'W' or a"V"
in the time of the Hebrew scriptures, the way was pronounced as a "w"... it only got a "v" sound afterward... also, how is this presumptuous?
"You can't change the Bible." WOW! Someone needs to tell James White. Oh wait. I'm so glad I can just read the King James and not worry about all this nonsense.
No one is worrying about anything
Whiteheads all agree, when in doubt follow the Roman Catholic Pope approved bible. That is why Roman Catholic Norman Giesler wrote the introduction to White's book the KJV Only Controversy. For refutation to his vomit read the Scholarship Only Controversy by Peter Ruckman.
Peter Ruckman was racist. There are videos of him saying the n-word and other racist things. Make of that what you will.
@@curtthegamer934 "you will know them by their fruits"
And the KJV translators used the Erasmus Greek text. Erasmus. A Catholic priest. Now what?
@Nick-wn1xw yes the manuscript he dedicated to the pope but was banned by the pope and jesuits at the council of Trent under of penalty of death for 500 years.
Peter Ruckman? You mean racist, KJV-only Peter Ruckman? That's the kind of man you associate yourself with?
I don't trust the new versions of the bible. We have the KJV...why on Earth do we need to interpret and interpret and interpret and interpret the bible over and over again? It is not really a "translation", it is an interpretation and that is why I don't trust it. Gee, I hope the people who didn't have whatever it is that you have been waiting to come out, before they died, knew enough to trust God with their salvation and service, rather than a bunch of people who are ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Because the English language has changed in the last 400 years. If you enjoy the time honored KJV than use it. I personally could not handle the archaic language used in that version so I use the NKJV, NLT and NET translations.
Be blessed.
You want to wake up? then watch NEVILLE GODDARDS STANDING ORDER, YOUR A SON OF GOD AND NEVER LITERALLY DIE BECAUSE YOUR SPIRIT ASLEEP IN DARK LIGHT.
The concept is bad, and the result is bad, and all these cbgm dudes should feel bad
based on your authority? lol
Why?
The church needs to discard every manuscript advocating a false trinity or an "existing prior it's existence Jesus" and then take a good look at the remaining manuscripts. Are there any?
Well that would mean you'd have to get rid of the Gospel of John, for one.
@@gaelicreaction1049 there's a comment thread with about 70 comments. Look into it, I talk about what logos really means.
Right. Since there's nothing alarming about just destroying genuine manuscripts of the NT or anything.
@@thapack45 neah. Discard as in stop using them as a basis for Bibles. It's still valuable to have, but as a way of tracking the attempts at corrupting the actual messages.
@@bluellamaslearnbeyondthele2456
Except that is functionally the same thing as just getting rid of them and would mean using your theology to drive the decision to discard the evidence. If you want to claim that every passage which speaks of pre-existence was added then you'd have to have evidence that none of those passages were original-not just say that they're all added because you don't like them.
1st John 5:7 is a great example of where there is actually evidence. I would criticize someone's position of insisting the KJV of this verse were the original because it would go in the face of the evidence. If such a person just insisted the passage to be genuine because he were a committed Trinitarian then I would say that is not reflective of true or sound investigation.
Tell us about luke 11 verse 2