Dan Wallace's TOP 5 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ส.ค. 2020
- Dan Wallace and Mike Licona discuss the BEST ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATIONS, the WORST ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATIONS, and how each translation differs from the others. Dan also tells us of his TOP 5 Bible Translations. There is a lot of information in this video most do not know.
Daniel ("Dan") Wallace is Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. His book Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament is a standard intermediate Greek grammar. High resolution photographs of hundreds of Greek New Testament manuscripts may be viewed at www.csntm.org.
Mike Licona is associate professor of theology at Houston Baptist University and president of Risen Jesus, Inc. HBU offers a fully accredited Master of Arts degree in apologetics that may be completed entirely online or on the HBU campus in Houston. For more information, visit bit.ly/2Wlej6Z.
WEBSITE: www.risenjesus.com
FACEBOOK: / michael.r.licona
TWITTER: / drmikelicona
Buy "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus": amzn.to/38vTfNU
Buy "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach": amzn.to/2NOOZkT
Buy "Paul Meets Muhammad": amzn.to/2RdEFoB
Buy "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?": amzn.to/36dzc5C
If you like Mike's work, become a patron by visiting his new Patreon page at / risenjesus
#bibletranslation
0:00 Categories
3:04 What makes an Accurate Bible
5:30 What Type is the ESV?
8:06 NIV vs. NLT
9:05 The NET as a Study Bible
11:02 Thoughts on the CSB
12:25 Which is Best for Beauty? Accuracy? Readability?
16:13 Dan's TOP 5 PICKS
Study and Accuracy: NET
Readability & Accuracy: NIV
Understated Elegance: ESV
Rich Wording: KJV & REB (1989)
Ecumentical: NRSV
17:00 What Type is the ASV?
18:45 NRSV and Gender Neutrality
22:33 NKJV is the Least Favorite?
24:26 Not a Big Fan of the NASB?
27:38 What is the Favorite Overall Bible?
28:06 Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
34:34 Closure
Thank you!
NRSV is not in accord with LA and is NOT Vatican approved
Fails to acknowledge the bad translation of Tyndall and almost every English Bible that improperly translate genitives. Gal 3:22 … so that the promise from out of Jesus Christ’s faithfulness might be given to the faithful - not: so the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to the believer. Ek is not “by” and the Greek never intends the faith of Jesus Christ but Jesus Christ’s faithfulness, nor does it intend believer rather than faithful
The hero of the comments section 👍
Thank you for this!
According to Dan Wallace in the video:
* He has three criteria in Bible translation: accuracy, readability, elegance.
* For accuracy as "the translator's translation": NET
* For accuracy with readibilty: NIV
* For understated elegance: ESV
* For elegance with "rich words" and that is "literary": KJV and REB
* For ecumenical (not one of his three criteria but Wallace still mentioned it): NRSV
Thanks for summarising this brother 😀
NIV is most controversial and subtly anti-God along with some others. It not a true translation but a corruption of the original. Don't put if pass Satan to be involved in bible translation under the deception of making it it plainer. God is his own intetpreter.
NIV for accuracy? Yikes.
@@properpropaganda9831 I kinda feel you on this one; however, the NIV is fairly accurate to what the Greek was trying to convey, though not always.
Wonder why he doesn't mention the CSB? That's a great bible! Very clearly written.
I'm in love with Dan's bookcases!
It's like the beauty and the beast's library
I know right 😂
Totally awesome
Maybe it's a green screen =)
Truly done right. 👌
One will never listen to Dr. Wallace without learning. I thank God for his life, gifts, and contribution to the church.
Yes you are correct David, I absolutely love listening to this guy, and I always learn something.
Thank you for this. I have learned quite a bit from Dr. Daniel Wallace. It's always a joy to learn about different translations and textual criticism. God bless both of you for all that you do.
"Elegance, accuracy, and readability". Brilliant! Thanks for this.
That is a FABULOUS LIBRARY! I want one just like it. Great discussion as well!
Me too!❤️
I immediately paused the video and went and bought the NET Bible. Couldn't even wait to the end of the video. Looked up a few verses and Shazam. It's wonderful. There still is no replacement for knowing the Greek words but this is good.
Wow, Dan and Mike, this is greatly helpful;' thanks so much!!!
Excellent, Mike and Dan! Thank you!
Two of my very favorite people. I so enjoyed these videos.
I SO appreciate Dan's Expertise. I heard him at a conference in Dallas in my 20's. He's slowly morphing me into an Apologists.😁😊
I LOVE Dan's library!!
I wish I could ask Mr. Dan and Mr. Mike about this new Berean Study Bible. I've been reading from it for about two years now, and I consider it my new favorite.
Thanks for that it gives me a much more detailed understanding of the different versions from a scholarly perspective.
A very enlightening and interesting conversation regarding which translations of the bible follow which procedures for what reasons. Bravo!
CSB, ESV, NIV, KJV are the translations I read and memorize from
In love with the footnotes in the NET Bible. 🧐🧑🎓. Beginning of a NEW era.
Not really
Thank You for this excellent video.
Great interview Mike. Great topic and info. I’m a big fan of Dr Wallace’s work.
We are so blessed to have these brothers. God bless yours ministry. Greetings from Romania.
NET really grows on you the more you read it and investigate the textual notes and reasons for translating certain ways. I love how if there are discussions about a text, it just presents the issues from both sides and the reasons they went a particular way. I must be a nerd, because I find it enlightening and fun!
It doesn't
Net bible: John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
ESV: John1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
KJV: John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
NASB: John1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Trinity? No Trinity? Depends on which text you desire? Best bible translations? No such thing.
You are correct.
This was the most based, practical, non-judgmental examination of the Scriptures I’ve seen. Thanks helping me pick a Bible!
CSB: "It's not a Southern Baptist only translation--there are some decent scholars who worked on it." I'm pretty sure that didn't come out the way Dr. Wallace intended it, but it was still the best laugh I've had in a long time!
Love this man. May his tribe increase.
I would love to know Dr. Wallace’s opinion of the Berean Study Bible (BSB)
Thank you for all the great information. How do you feel about HCSB?
Very good interview! Greetings from Finland!
Very helpful. I learned a ton from his intermediate greek book (and sadly have forgotten most of it!). A little off topic, but I went and hunted down the reference at 15:14 on cultural literacy. I'm pretty sure he's talking about "Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know" by E. D. Hirsch.
I was curious about that too...but he said Alan bloom so perhaps he is referring to " the closing of the American mind"?
Thank you both. I assumed he must be talking about the book David mentioned, but then found the book Jane mentioned when I tried to look up Alan Bloom in connection with cultural literacy: glad to have my assumptions confirmed by others.
I have a three volume set that has 26 different versions/translations of the entire Bible contrasted & compared where there is a significant difference in the translation for any particular verse. It has been interesting to use. My main Bible is the NKJV, called The Open Bible Expanded Edition, 1983, and I have used it since the late 1980's. But...what really started opening my eyes and mind to the wonderful Bible was when I got my first Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and began looking up the Hebrew and Greek words as I read the verses. it has opened up a whole new world of scriptural study for me. I am wondering why using a good Concordance along with whatever translation of the Bible that one chooses to use was not mentioned? I enjoyed the interview...thanks..!!
Most likely due to the fact that just having a Strongs alone doesn't always provide the correct word especially in Greek. You have to parse the word in order to get the correct gender and even the meaning in some instances. I like a Strongs Concordance and it has its value no question but you have to dig more into the word meaning that is provided to get its true value.
@@rhyne9388 Yes, a lexicon is preferable to just Strong's. Also, Strong's has been, and is still being abused by overzealous people that don't understand that context is very important.
The purpose of Strong's was to show the reader the words BEHIND the KJV text. Not an exhaustive explanation of how those original words should be translated.
Read the preface and the explanations at the start of the Original complete Strong's. It is there if people only look.
Like the key Word Study Bible?
Great analysis, and one that every serious Bible student should see!
This was extremely helpful.
These videos are great 👍
I have one of those green Living Bibles from the 70’s!!!! I’m 67, grew up on the RSV through high school years and my catechism class. Moved to the NIV for many years…and now I’m in love with the KJV. I just naturally translate it in my mind as I read it. Just elegant and direct to the point without a bunch of extra words.
This is my story, also. The only difference is that I never had an RSV. I let go of my Living Bible in the late 80's when a friend showed interest in the Bible. It was a sacrifice at the time I remember! I always return to KJV.
same
Wow so much information and thank you!!!!
Loved this video. Thanks.
Thank you Dr. Licona. This was really fun and educational. I didn't know about NET Bible. Also I wonder what Dr. Wallce would say about Common English Bible and N.T. Write's translation. Also I am happy to know about you and your book, The Resurrection of Jesus. I will try to read it sometime. God bless you.
You meant N.T. Wright, who has the "Kingdom New Testament." I have it and it is rather poor. His version of Romans is a mess.
He’s right about the Revised English Bible. It’s beautiful and vastly underrated and under-appreciated. It’s a shame it isn’t more well-known. I wish Cambridge published it in more reader-friendly editions.
What version does Mike hold up first, the NET bible that has the major text and translation verbiage they discuss. Everything I see online doesn't have that amount of notations around the scripture?
Thank you for the excellent video.
I want Dan's library! what a great room!
Coveting is a sin brother....
I want a library of my own that looks just like that guys .😂
I love the NET Bible. I also love to read the CSV and NKJ. I also think it is so important to read different versions.
Great to hear about the work of CSNTM
I’m learning thank you so much
Always clear explanations from Dr. Dan Wallace!
PS I served on the Johannine writings translation group for the New American Bible revised translation, which should come out in a few years. We sought to be consistent in word translations overall, and, when the text was ambiguous in Greek, we left it so in the English rendering. Some really nice diction, I feel.
Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Paul! I wish we would have covered the NAB. Very glad to know you were involved with it and I will be sure to get a copy for my own use!
@@MikeLiconaOfficial thanks so much! And, the Jerusalem Bible is also a fine translation--even for a Quaker, here. (smile) I really loved the NASB in college BECAUSE it was so close to the Greek. I'm also getting Henry Cadbury's works out into a new book--fun hearing him (and a foreword by Bruce Metzger before he passed away) on RSV-project reflections. One essay is on "revision-after-revision".
@@paulanderson2410 That sounds very interesting, Paul!
How does the new NAB treat gender-neutral language (it has been a criticism of previous editions)? Will the new translation use the Grail Psalms or will they use their own translation? Thx
@@MikeLiconaOfficial Catholic here. I hope the new NABRE, whenever it comes out, is an improvement. The existing one is awful. The Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship rejected it for use in the lectionary because of its extreme use of gender-neutral language. The prose also is not very good. (Classics scholar Anthony Esolen has been railing against if for years.) Plus, the study notes are heterodox in many places, and not written from the standpoint of a believer. Personally, in the US, I wish either the RSV2CE or the ESVCE was adopted for the lectionary. (Of course, the Douay-Rheims is the gold standard IMO. When it was used, people actually attended Mass.)
Excellent information. How do you respond to Truth in Translation by Jason David BeDuhn, that states the New World Translation is the best? (that is how JW's understand that book) I am no longer a JW but my husband still is and he points to this book.
Great video! What do you think about the Amplified Bible?
Its trash read the Holy King James Bible
@@hudsontd7778ouch
Dr. Licona, can you make subtitles available on all your video, please🙏?
Go to settings and turn on English auto generated captions. This a feature of You Tube.
I can watch Daniel Wallace bible videos all day.
Hi Mike, I'm planning to make a video in my Channel about the controversial St. Paul Filipino Translation of the Bible. Can I use some parts of this video to help me? Thank you
I'm looking now for a good Net Bible as I have a KJV, ESV, NIV, is the Net Bible by Thomas Nelson a good Net bible one to buy? Or what NET bible exactly do you recommend? as there is a few different Net bibles I have found now.
Peace and Grace to you, Abram, from God Almighty and Ho=is Son Lord Jesus Christ. Please allow me to share truth with you as you are inquiring as to bible tranlations to aquire. May I suggest sticking to the KHV or NKJV NT and using the OT text the Church has preserved? I use this English translation: www.amazon.com/Septuagint-Apocrypha-Greek-Testament-English/dp/1635488990/ref=sr_1_6?crid=2DZNJNYCYYIG9&dchild=1&keywords=septuagint+bible&qid=1598586452&sprefix=septua%2Caps%2C271&sr=8-6
It's the Brenton English translation un-KJV Englishized/upgraded from Middle E to Modern E. And only costs $18.77.
I find it good in tandem with the ABP for checking it's faithfulness and literalness.
ABP is free online : www.apostolicbible.com/text.htm
As with any interlinear the glosses are not always the best or precise.
My next choice would be : www.amazon.com/Lexham-English-Septuagint-New-Translation/dp/1683593448/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2DZNJNYCYYIG9&dchild=1&keywords=septuagint+bible&qid=1598586614&sprefix=septua%2Caps%2C271&sr=8-3
The NETS is a fraud.
The OSB althouu having a NT ( and the NKJV NT) it's on typical now too thin paper showing words throuu from other side) and it's missing the 2nd half of Is, 22:22 and has the MT rendetion uv Cain getting to the field to slay Able; it should've been better if the produce of 2 priests over 20 years in the making.
I have Thompson's )corrupted 1950 repreinting :The Septuagint Bible." I don't recommend it.
I had the Researchers Library version; attractive in that the type size is good but iit lacks B's footnotes plus too many typos.
You can buy the thinline NET bible
This was an excellent summary of things to consider and Dan's opinion is very worthwhile. Clearly he has a lot of knowledge on the topic.
I'd love to hear from other top Greek and Hebrew scholars on this issue.
I like that he affirmed the ESV as a good translation as I have come to the same conclusion, but without the depth and specificity of knowledge that Dan gives.
I'll have to spend more time including NET in my studies.
The thing about the KJV is that it is THE titan of English literature. Even Richard Dawkins has said "any native English speaker who doesn't know a word of the King James is verging on the barbaric." It may not be the most accurate, but it is the definitive volume of the English language and culture for nearly half a millennium. Everyone with English as a first language regardless of faith should own one.
It is the most accurate your problem is that it doesn't use the corrupt critical text
The KJV is a bad transition of the original Hebrew. It’s an English translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew. It’s a copy of a copy of a copy.
Digitized library of Greek New Testament manuscripts --- that is extremely exciting !!
I "saw" some facsimiles of famous Greek and Hebrew bible manuscripts, back in 80's when I was a university student (it was founded by a Catholic missionary, Societas Verbum Divini). Now I hope I can see similar images on my PC after almost half a century later.
I got a NET after watching this and I have learned so much from it! Thank you!
This is a Great discussion. I'd like to hear also Bill Mounce on this topic.
@Hdjd Udjsjwb Well Bill Mounce has been involved in two, both the ESV and the NIV. Two translations with different philosophies so he can have much to say.
@Hdjd Udjsjwb Certainly. But Dan Wallace was also involved in the NET. It's just good to hear and learn more from different perspectives.
your bible interpreted so many times..become not book of God after interpretation
@@BB-bs7hmYou have no clue what you're talking about. All of the newer translations are translated from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It's not as if newer translations are being created by using older translations until the original meaning is lost. The original manuscripts are used to create a new translation. The main reason there are so many translations is because of copyright issues.
I primarily used the NASV for study. I've since moved to ESV. I'm VERY happy with it.
Yeah, the ESV is second best to being the most literal albeit's NT is lacking over 6,200 words and it has the MT OT like the KJV, etc.- all English Bibles; not the OT text the Church has preserved.
St. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) (Dialogue with Trypho, 71-73) and St. Irenaeus (AD 130-210) (Against Heresies, 3.21.1) stated that the scribes deliberately removed, altered or distorted the Messianic verses in their Scripture.
The New Testament has approximately 250 direct quotations of Old Testament verses. Ninety percent of the quotations agree with the Septuagint but the majority disagree with the Masoretic Text.
“Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of the Holy Scriptures, of the Old Testament a true and perfect version, of the New the divine original itself.” - the “Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs” (AD 1848), a reply to the epistle of Pope Pius IX, "To the Easterns"
English Bibles's Masoretic Text OT text : it's not the text the (Orthodox) Church has preserved: actually it's a falsified and mutilated revised Hebrew text named "Masoretic" [ from "Masoret" meaning "bond, collar" ]. Decent English translations of the Greek Old Testament / Septuagint ~ Seventy exist ; but the NETS translation of the Greek Old Testament is a fraud : it's based on the NRSV Masoretic Text hidden in Septuagint relatively superfluous words.
To save time in seeing all i say is true you may see verses for comparison: 1) on archive.org - there search-bar : " mt vs lxx" ( i made it; contact me and I will send you the latest and improved version as PDF.) 2) And there's two charts online - one uv 25 NT quotes and their OT verses for comparison ; the other uv Proverbs - a 16 page chart - both on ecclesia . org .
God Bless.
Ted Bruckner This is fascinating stuff isn’t it? Most people couldn’t care less but, I think this subject is so interesting.
Ναζωραῖος You got to love textual criticism!
I like those too. I also like the Modern Literal Version. It's not nearly as popular of a translation and it's new testament only.
Ναζωραῖος how about the Biblica Hebraica?
My NET is my favorite Bible, can’t wait for my Full notes edition
I inherited my father’s edition of the Anchor Bible when he died. I had given him 30 some volumes one Christmas after I got my first real job and he purchased the rest. It is the work of around 800 scholars, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Muslim, and secular. It tends to have about 2 lines of text and 2 pages of footnotes. When you get through it, you have a huge sense of accomplishment.
I love this man and his knowledge is phenomenal. But I am having trouble reading one Bible let alone having several translations! Where do these people find the time? Do they not sleep? So impressed. And yes I also covet his library.
Why are you having trouble reading one bible?
@@craigime Because it is a very big book. I am not talking about casual reading but studying and meditating and applying it to life. It takes a whole lifetime so I am told. Thanks for your reply.
@@reksubbn3961 "so I am told" so you never tried it yourself? I study the Bible daily and I've read through it several times. Saying "it's a very big book" is just an excuse. There's no way your that busy that you couldn't have read through the Bible at least one time in your entire life
The Recovery Version with notes by Witness Lee is the most spiritually mourishing and enlightening study Bible translation I have ever seen.
I also like Darby's New Translation and the 1901 American Standard.
Thank You do much Dan and Mike! This is the information I was looking for! Much appreciated!👍
Great coverage, and the taxonomy charts are very helpful. Would like to hear his views on the Darby Bible. Darby was a genius linguist, I've appreciated his translation, and the ASV follows him pretty closely. I do wonder of their connection.
I like what Dr. Wallace says about the NIV at around the 14 minute mark about both readability and accuracy. I used to preach from translations like the NASB and KJV, but I recently changed to the NIV because it is just a terrific blend of both. If I'm preparing a sermon or lesson I'll look at several translations but when I'm actually reading the text publically, I read from the NIV. If there happens to be something about the NIV in the text I'm reading from that I disagree with then I can bring it out and give my reasons why I think another translation is better. Overall, I think the NIV is the best for public reading, not too dynamic but not too wooden either.
The NIV 2011 version is the best and most up to date Bible for study and preaching. I do compare to the actual Greek text when in the NT, and look up key Hebrew words as well.
I don't care for the NIV, but I will say that the 2011 edition removed some of its main problems and generally made it more accurate. No more "the smallest of _your_ seeds" nonsense.
I found this video informative & helpful. Thank you! I enjoy using the NET (& it's notes) for sermon preparation. It's helpful to learn more here about the NET's background. Personally, I prefer the ESV to the NIV. I preached from the NIV for 7 years at the church where I previously served, then switched to the ESV 3 years ago. I prefer it for reading & preaching, one key area being that the ESV picks up imperfect tenses more often. Blessings from Australia.
And how about ESV in comparison to NASB95 or Legacy Bible?
@@MB-gd6be I highly regard the NASB95 & consult it for every sermon I prepare. I also consult the LSB now & then. But in the circles I move in here in Australia, I find very few people who use those translations, so I prefer to preach from the ESV. I only know one person here who uses the LSB. I do like how the LSB (& NKJV) use italics for extra words the translators have put in. That's one advantage they have over the ESV.
Does anyone know the actual title of the Alan Bloom/cultural literacy book that was mentioned?
E. D. Hirsch Cultural Literacy
Excellent interview, but especially enjoyed your George Bailey impersonation.
It should be added that the KJV was also reactionary to the Geneva Bible.
Great talk btw.
I’d be curious about Dr Wallace’s opinion on the differences or changes from the NIV 1984 vs NIV 2011
@David Zant My NIV from 2003 is not gender neutral, where as it seems the latest NIV has gone gender neutral. I'm really glad I have my older version because much is lost from this change and nothing is gained.
He would say they went more feminist/gender neutral .. Angry lesbians and Trans people need bibles too.😏
"Readability and accuracy the NIV is the best... It tries to follow natural english, the work that has done into this translation... the work that is going on to it is by highly rated scholars behind it... it is examined, reexamined and re-reexamined through the decades."
@@brando3342 The 2003 edition is the TNIV.
How about CSB? What is Dr. Daniel Wallace's comments on the CSB?
He said it’s good, not the best. Denomination driven.
Have KJB, NASB 1995, NIV, DOUAY-RHEIMS 1609,
HalleluYah Scriptures, what are your thoughts on the CEPHER? Especial with accuracy of translation
KJV may not be the height of modern scholarship, but it is the best for memorizing verses.
It is better show me one error.
@@mikemaid5350 check our Isaiah 40.3 in Hebrew and then compare that to the KJV. Why does the KJV say “The voice of him that cries in the wilderness…” when voice doesn’t have the definite article and there is no “of him” in the original Hebrew? Also it says that the voice is in the wilderness but the Masorah that the translators used doesn’t say the voice is in the wilderness…
@@mikemaid5350just one?
good stuff. "'word for word' and 'most accurate' are not the same question."
Exactly, "word for word" doesn't mean "same meaning" in the new language the words are translated to. I don't see how people find it hard to understand.
@@thetruthapologetics879 Thats not the problem. Once you introduce this heavy interpretational element in a translation, it becomes difficult to ascertain when a translator is potentially going overboard. All translation is interpretation, but some interpret more than others. A lot more than others.
A better idea would be to use footnotes to either highlight what a word literally means, or to "interpret" it (in the footnotes) what it likely means. This is already done to some extent, but needs to be done more rather than make changes in the text that dont directly reflect in the originals. For instance: in the town and the city example, a two word footnote would have suffices however the text read.
Some idioms just cannot be translated literally, but those are exceptions.
Also, dont forget that some translators actually want to make the gospel more "palatable", and that affects the way they interpret the text. This is why many advocate a more literal translations for study purposes. This does not eliminate the problem but sure does reduce it.
I like the NET because of its apparatus. I would never buy an NET just for reading - but for study - I think its one of the best Bible products out there.
@@jamesmccloud5166 The literal words we need is to understand definitions and deeper meaning and cultural meaning, other than that often the interpretation expresses intended context correctly. Of course exceptions are there...
"This is why many advocate a more literal translations for study purposes. "
The idea of using a word-for-word is not to merely understand what the text says and leave it at that, but rather, to encourage to learn what the phrasing means by doing a more thorough study on it (likely using other resources). If one is only stuck with, say, the NASB and no other resource, the NASB will not be as useful to him as if he used the NASB as a starting point to get deeper in the text. For casual reading - I find the KJV or the ESV second to none. The NASB or the NKJV is probably not the best translation for devotional reading - at least for those not used to it.
Greetings sir. Would this be the same Daniel Wallace I was on the translation Committee of the ESV and stood up for the truth concerning the personal pronouns concerning the comforter and the Holy Spirit mentioned in John 14 and 15? My understanding is the original Greek that the personal pronouns are in the neuter gender and the rest of the translators wanted to translate it in the masculine gender oh, but you objected? Is this a correct story, or if not please straighten me out. You wanted it accurately translated even though it may not have matched your personal theological views?
Apologies. I meant to say that were you the one it was on the translation committee. Sorry. Voice recognition doesn't always work perfectly.
Is there any thought on the ISV (International Standard Version)?
Hmmm never heard of that one
@@born2win259 Thank you.
A lot of the ISV borrowed from the "God's Word" translation.
03:02 (Off-point comment here: “...paraphrastic...” I learned a new adjective today!)
16:30 On-screen Summary of Dan’s top picks.
18:00 Nice little translation tree.
You're a saint.
@@kc8ppo i second that
Thank you!
Despite all they said, I like the NLT, NKJV, KJV, NASB and the Geneva Bible. My top 5. A must with me is readability and accuracy. I am not too concerned with the elegance side. Give it to me straight.
Straight? Try some interlinears… 🙂
I'm really into the Amplified Bible and the ERV(Easy to Read version)lately!
Cool discussion. Like taking an intro class in seminary
Nkjv is my favorite. I do like the esv but it's nearly impossible not to see how translators read their theology into the translation at parts. Hebrews 12 is one instance. Verse 15 when the author says "lest anyone fall short of the grace of God" (nkjv) is a better translation than "see to it no one fails to obtain the grace of God"(esv). If you are just reading through these phrases might sound the same but If you look closer in study they have much different implications.
Nkjv renders a closer meaning based on the context of the passage. Also there is scholarly disagreement on the TR vs NA/UBS texts. The look on the gentleman's face on the left when the TR was mentioned was one of disdain.
That at a false version King James know nothing about it.
@@fransikajohn9005 not understanding your statement. Are you saying that the NKJV is a false translation? Just trying to clarify
King James is attached to the 1611 version because he authorised the translation and choose the scholarly translators of 1611. The NKJV was first published in 1982 with many changes not in agreement with the AKJV. It is a false impression to attach King James to it when it is different from the original. The scriptures cannot be updated like a science text. The AKJV is my choice, I glimpse at some of the others, the majority of them false. Translators do not interpret, they translate only as interpretation belongs to the Spirit. The believers must depend on God to understand his word, he is his own interpreter. There is a devious agenda behind many of the different translations in the Roman racist religion of Christianity eg. the NIV is religiously anti-God.
@@fransikajohn9005
Different languages don't directly translate with literal word for word, interpretation of context and intention is required to prioritize proper meaning for actualizing the accuracy of the delivery.
@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat meaning ought not to change. That's Satan in man interfering with interpretation which belongs to God only.
I absolutely love Robert Alter's Hebrew Bible (AKA Old Testament) translation. It is super faithful to the literary form and repeated words and phrases in the original language. It also has notes l
Indeed indeed. From a Jewish perspective, he made a fresh sense out of the Hebrew idioms, especially in Psalms.
I'm not as fond of Alter's notes as I am of his translation. Alter certainly is a fine literary scholar, but he's largely beholden to a more secular Judaism and his biblical and theological notes often reflect that. However the linguistics portions of his notes are valuable to read. And his Hebrew Bible translation as a whole is pretty good.
For example, I enjoyed his rendering of Ecclesiastes, especially the Hebrew word "hebel" or "hevel" which is so central to understanding the meaning of the book and which many English translations fail to capture. In fairness, it is as elusive as chasing the wind to translate "hebel" into English! In any case, Alter translates "hebel" literally as "mere breath". I think that's probably the best we can do. Or something similar like "vapor" or "mist" would work as well (e.g. Ardel Caneday's article on translating it as "vapor" and Jason DeRouchie's article on translating it as "enigma").
I started with the NIV some 40+ years ago, but have preferred the NAS the last 30 years. I read the RSV in the morning and the NAS at night.
Is the Jerusalem Bible, especially the New Revised version a credible translation?
That Dan doesn't have a better opinion of the CSB disappoints me but not in an angry way. I have invested a tidy sum in several CSB editions over the past year: Life Essentials Study Bible by Gene Getz, Tony Evans Study Bible - both authors of the study materials some of DTS's best, and of course the CSB Study Bible. I love that the CSB fills the sweet spot between the ESV and NIV. I can hand a copy to an 8 year old to an 80 year old and they'd both understand what they read without much difficulty. I think of the readability of CSB as the NLT on the Keto diet - every bit as clear using fewer words to say the same thing. 🙂
I can't argue with his translations choices for their categories. I can't remember why I gave up on the NRSV. When that first arrived in the Life Application Bible, I was pleasantly surprised by how it read. So smooth. Oh well.
KJV, NKJV and NASB are my favorites. (KJV or NKJV only when reading Psalms. The majesty and beauty of olde English is incomparable to newer, wordier, 'more accurate' versions)
the English translation(s) of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) but not one called NETS is crucial to use and not to use the current (and only ) Hebrew text if you want the truth and joy of reading.
I agree. No other version, no matter how good, can compare to reading the Psalms in the KJV and NKJV.
The KJV is not "Olde English "
I would like to hear your view on the Moffitt Bible
I grew up reading from the kjv but stopped reading it when I started taking classes and seminars. I started leaning towards the NKJV in my daily reading. The TLV is one of my favorites today.
This had some great points but (always a but) I noticed the inability to pick an English translation to MEMORIZE from. If I am going to bother to memorize I want to feel confident both in it’s accuracy as well as in its ability to convey what the writers said in a clear way. I have a lot of translations available but I read, study and memorize from the ESV. I trust it and I can recommend it without any hemming and hawing.
ESV is a great translation.
I love Dr Wallace, and his work, but remember, he has a not so small axe that he is sharpening. He invested a lot in the NET. And it shows.
Having read and compared all the translations he talked about, I would NOT put the NET as the "best" in whatever category. Admittedly, that is because I personally enjoy a more literal translation.
What the NET does offer is a wealth of study and textual notes, and for that... It is FANTASTIC. But, as Translation itself, it is too dynamic equivalent for my taste.
At least he acknowledged the ESV, and for serious Bible study, trying to get to the meaning of what is being said, it is probably one of the best currently available.
The ESV, LEB, and CSB for more conservative evangelicals, the NIV and NLT for more devotional reading, and definitely the NET for textual and study notes.
I’d add the NKJV to the list of translations to memorize from
KJV is far and away the easiest for memorization.
@JayMoreau it's not
The NET Bible is unnecessarily paraphrastic...I get the impression that the translators were always striving above all to sound as unlike the Tyndale tradition as possible. The notes are sometimes good, many times tedious and repetitive and state the obvious in several different ways. However in terms of layout the hardcover NET Full Notes edition is a masterpiece.
That said, it's the Cambridge KJV-RV Interlinear, the NKJV and NASB for me, regardless of academic opinion.
Exactly. They go out of their way to not be "traditional "
Niv "faithful to meaning" But who determines that meaning, and how much of their theology goes into that printed meaning? I get the difficulties in 'word for word' translations but meaning for meaning can be quite subjective too
Dr. Wallace has the coolest library!
I wish mine required a ladder!
Love Dan and love listening to his debates and lectures. Laughed out loud in the middle when he said he didn't prefer the NKJV and NASB... the two bibles I have and read from! Doh!
I noticed that as well. I actually like the NASB. I much prefer Deut. 22:28 in NASB over the NIV which I think creates confusion. However, I very much appreciate the notes the NET bible adds to it.
I like the NKJV more than the KJV and Douay-Rheims more too
There’s some political motives behind his comments.
Very interesting stuff
Have you herd of the Artstanach? Its a 6 volume set around 200$ I just ran across it, havnt really looked to deep yet.
I have NET Bible 📖 😁 It is Amazing!
Also NASB, ESV, NKJV, and THE LIVING BIBLE...
I need help for the best Spanish translation. I would love the equivalence of the NET in Spanish. Any help?
Friend, I’m right there with you.
As a CSB user, I think the best Spanish translation RVA2015.
I’ve been reading many (not all) Spanish translations & I honestly believe this might be the best one.
RVA2015 and NBLA for formal versions. NVI is decent for more dynamic translation
>>>>>>Avoid the NVI
@@onemarktwoyou how does NVI do political correctness? You're just making stuff up at this point being that basically all Spanish translations are done by evangelicals.
I think it wise to look at the translators themselves and their philosophies and beliefs to help guide you on your selection of Bible translation. Example: Did the translators believe in the miracles of the Bible?
I really enjoyed this conversation. I read the KJV Bible, I was recently told that I should get the ESV study Bible. What do you think? Thank you so much.
I am surprise he didn’t mention Youngs literal translation I’m talking about Word for Word translations.