I beginning to understand the Hebrew words better as I continue to read this translation. This will be as close as I will ever get to learning Hebrew. The illustrations added are a very nice touch.
I still prefer the CJSB but the TLV is an interesting alternative. What I'd really like is a translation that would use the Masoretic Text as a source for the Hebrew Bible and make sure that every quotation that appears in the Brit 'Hadash has the reference for the quotation in the Hebrew Bible as it is translated in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint rendition in the footnotes.
tlv is more accurate and closer to a translation like the ESV. i like the CJB but sometimes the way out translates certain things kinda gets me. i understand why it translates that way but the CJB is more thought for though whilethe TLV is more word for word
I can already tell this version was prepared from the KJV, but I do love having Hebrew words/names in it. Soon, once God transforms us and our New Earth and Heaven, we will finally have a correctly written Holy Bible, including all missing chapters and books.
No translation was ever from the King James Version if it was done correctly. They would have gone back to all of the source text; Alexandrian, Byzantine, Septuagint, etc. If any texts are "missing," then no, they didn't use the King James source text, they would have used the Alexandrian text.
Sir, do you find it more unusual when it says, "for the removal of your sin." "Removal". While in other bible it says: "forgiveness of sin or remission of sin." I used strong's concordance and it says for "the remission" is release from bondage or imprisonment forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty. Do you think it is okay to preach about the removal of sin or better to preach about the remission of sin?
@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa People need to understand that it is YOUR opinion and people can have different opinions which is totally OK. Every time I read ANY Bible - I get a different meaning for myself. If I had to write an opinion about it, it will depend on how I feel when I read it also. Tomorrow, it may be different again.
Because the chapter markings are different. Verse 21 is moved to the beginning of chapter 5. Some of the messianic translations just change where they break the chapter in some books. It’s the same thing in the CJB
pastor im a kjv bible reader since 1996 in acts 12:4 it says easter instead of passover and ive been confronted about it by many to denounce my kjv how do i respond???
The Kjv is an excellent translation... if you speak Shakespeare’s English! This is my main beef with it. There are many, many words in the KJV which now have totally different meanings. E.g. ‘prevent’ in the KJV means ‘to come before’, not as in modern English. ‘Rereward’ which doesn’t appear in modern English means ‘rearguard’ - but I have heard and seen it interpreted as ‘reward’ which is totally wrong (MEV makes this mistake). It’s a shame, as otherwise I love the KJV. I like the TLV version although it is a shame it is based upon the Nestle Aland Greek text in the NT, which in my humble opinion is wrong (I have studied Greek texts for 40 years). I much prefer textus receptus which is what the KJV and NKJV is based upon. ‘Easter’ in the KJV should read Passover, so is totally wrong. Moreover Easter was originally a pagan festival predating Christianity.
@@malindsell The KJV Easy Reader Sword Bible took care of that. True to the KJV but they removed the old English and updated the archaic words that no longer have the same meaning. It’s so good! I love it.
The older Alexandrian text aren't "shorter". They are not missing any text. Those text were never there. Where the verses are there, are in the volgate and in the newer Byzantine text. Looks like they were added. Thanks for the quick review though, now I know I don't need it.
I love the TLV version, but I am a Messianic Jew so this is right up my alley.
I am not a Messianic Jew but I love it.
I have thoroughly enjoyed your reviews, Brother Steve Waldron.
Glad you like them!
I beginning to understand the Hebrew words better as I continue to read this translation. This will be as close as I will ever get to learning Hebrew. The illustrations added are a very nice touch.
Wonderful!
SAME!!!
I still prefer the CJSB but the TLV is an interesting alternative.
What I'd really like is a translation that would use the Masoretic Text as a source for the Hebrew Bible and make sure that every quotation that appears in the Brit 'Hadash has the reference for the quotation in the Hebrew Bible as it is translated in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint rendition in the footnotes.
Which is better messianic translation: TLV or CJV or others?
Not sure
It depends what you want from your translation
tlv is more accurate and closer to a translation like the ESV. i like the CJB but sometimes the way out translates certain things kinda gets me. i understand why it translates that way but the CJB is more thought for though whilethe TLV is more word for word
How would you say it compares to the CJB?
I probably need to do a video comparison.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa did you ever do one?
@@HerveyShmervy Not yet.
Tree of life Awesome bible!
I can already tell this version was prepared from the KJV, but I do love having Hebrew words/names in it. Soon, once God transforms us and our New Earth and Heaven, we will finally have a correctly written Holy Bible, including all missing chapters and books.
No translation was ever from the King James Version if it was done correctly. They would have gone back to all of the source text; Alexandrian, Byzantine, Septuagint, etc.
If any texts are "missing," then no, they didn't use the King James source text, they would have used the Alexandrian text.
They removed Acts 8:38 and changed repentance to change or go away from your sins. Wrong.. not okay. Not the KJV@@graylad
there is a restored version of the KJV. This TLV also says repent means change of life or away from sin. ti also removes acts 8:38.
Sir, do you find it more unusual when it says, "for the removal of your sin." "Removal". While in other bible it says: "forgiveness of sin or remission of sin."
I used strong's concordance and it says for "the remission" is release from bondage or imprisonment
forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty.
Do you think it is okay to preach about the removal of sin or better to preach about the remission of sin?
A good question. We are forgiven and pardoned, but not acquitted. We still committed the sin, but we are pardoned and go free.
The empty verse for Mark 9:44 has a footnote showing the missing verse.
I go into detail in multiple videos on how that is no substitute for it being in the Text.
@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa People need to understand that it is YOUR opinion and people can have different opinions which is totally OK. Every time I read ANY Bible - I get a different meaning for myself. If I had to write an opinion about it, it will depend on how I feel when I read it also. Tomorrow, it may be different again.
and they took away Acts 8:38
It's not his opinion. The Bible is real and every word is inspired. @@jojomasipa379
@@GodisGracious1031Ministrieswho did? TLv?
the earth is the Lord's and all it contains
So I like the way it reads but why is there huge parts not there at all? For example 1kings 4:21 is not in the TLV.
Thank you.
Because the chapter markings are different. Verse 21 is moved to the beginning of chapter 5. Some of the messianic translations just change where they break the chapter in some books. It’s the same thing in the CJB
@@jobethhillyard8957 yes
@@jobethhillyard8957 Exactly
Removed Acts 8:38, change repentance to the wrong meaning of turn away from sin.
pastor im a kjv bible reader since 1996 in acts 12:4 it says easter instead of passover and ive been confronted about it by many to denounce my kjv how do i respond???
I’ve done a vid or 2 on that.
do some REAL research...
Peace and God bless
The Kjv is an excellent translation... if you speak Shakespeare’s English! This is my main beef with it. There are many, many words in the KJV which now have totally different meanings. E.g. ‘prevent’ in the KJV means ‘to come before’, not as in modern English. ‘Rereward’ which doesn’t appear in modern English means ‘rearguard’ - but I have heard and seen it interpreted as ‘reward’ which is totally wrong (MEV makes this mistake). It’s a shame, as otherwise I love the KJV. I like the TLV version although it is a shame it is based upon the Nestle Aland Greek text in the NT, which in my humble opinion is wrong (I have studied Greek texts for 40 years). I much prefer textus receptus which is what the KJV and NKJV is based upon. ‘Easter’ in the KJV should read Passover, so is totally wrong. Moreover Easter was originally a pagan festival predating Christianity.
@@malindsell The KJV Easy Reader Sword Bible took care of that. True to the KJV but they removed the old English and updated the archaic words that no longer have the same meaning. It’s so good! I love it.
The older Alexandrian text aren't "shorter". They are not missing any text. Those text were never there.
Where the verses are there, are in the volgate and in the newer Byzantine text. Looks like they were added.
Thanks for the quick review though, now I know I don't need it.
Yes, they are. I’ve done multiple videos showing evidence of this fact.
I just will stick with my trusted KJV
theres always one or forty of you
AMEN