There is always something really pleasing and calming about these videos. With how much I love the Bible reviews I need to start reading the Bible again lol
Not related to the review, but an observation: Oxford Catholic Study Bible, NABRE and RNJB translations and Jerome Biblical Commentary are somewhere between liberal-critical HarperCollins/Oxford and conservative-evangelical ESV/Ignatius Study Bibles. They are a mix of both conservative and critical notes.
Hi jonas, I'm brazilian, I see you're specializing bibles (such greek and hebrew), which septuagint lxx is good bretons or Lexham? (Ps: I have AV1611, not for kjvonly theology but poetry for english olds times...)
Hello sir, slightly unrelated but I was hoping you could help with a pronoun question I had please. In more literal translations I see that the gender neutral "he" is used when referring to an individual of unknown gender. I was wondering if there is a way of knowing when the text is using "he" in a neutral way, compared to when it is using it in a specifically male way? For example in John 6:44 the "he" is clearly referring to both a man or a woman, but from what I can tell it would be written the exact same way if it was just referring to a man. Thank you
Thanks for the comment and question, Bert. I assume that 'he' is used in a gender neutral way unless the context requires me to conclude it refers to a male. The gender neutral 'he' often occurs in 'If anyone ... he ...' or 'If someone ... he ...' type constructions, as in 'If anyone wants to lose weight, he should exercise and watch his calorie intake.' But it also is found when a preceding noun may refer to a male or female. 'The murderer broke in through the window, but we don't know what his motive was.' 'An astronomer must be able to get his sleep during daylight hours.' Murderers and astronomers can be male or female, so 'his' is gender inclusive. If something in the context of John 6.44 indicated that the Lord had only males in mind, I would conclude that him/αὐτὸν refers to males only. But I see nothing in the context to limit his scope to males.
@RGrantJones I see that's a great help thanks, assuming he is neutral unless the context makes it more specific clears it up. I assume that rule also applies to other male pronouns like men/man too. Thanks kindly
I have the NKJV version of this, also made in India but with the Leathersoft cover. The cover smells... well, awful. Very industrial. It's dissipated some, but not entirely. It seems the leather is worth it in this case.
Why bother including the epistle dedicatory but not the Translators to the Reader? James is long since dead, so no one is benefiting from the translators' thank you letter. But the preface is actually useful, especially the ending section about the committee's methodology. Even if Thomas Nelson doesn't want to print all the stuff about the history of Bible translations (and the cold reception they tend to get) or the bickering with Catholics over the notion of making yet another English version, surely the publisher can include the last two sections, which give the reasons for the marginal notes and the lack of strict concordance in translation.
Thanks for commenting, M.A. Moreno. I agree. I wish it were routinely included in KJVs, but it isn't present in any of the three Bibles I showed in this video.
Owning the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible KJV, which includes the Translators to the Reader, I find it curious too. After all, the Translators to the Reader is much more important for understanding the minds of the translators and the context of the translation. I do see how KJVOs might take issue with the contents of the Translators to the Reader, though I'm pretty sure KJVO publishers typically include it nevertheless.
This comment came to mind this morning as I'm reading "God's Secretaries" by Adam Nicolson. He notes that in the Epistle Dedicatory "James is given far more prominence than anything to do with God" but then speaks much more positively about the "long and beautiful" Preface to the translation which exudes "all that is best about Jacobean England, the hopes for this translation and the beliefs in the power and value of the work which was now so nearly complete." It is a shame it is so rarely included today.
There is always something really pleasing and calming about these videos. With how much I love the Bible reviews I need to start reading the Bible again lol
Thanks for the kind comment, Arkangilos.
The best Bibles in depth review channel.A pleasure to educate myself through your channel. Thanks R. Grant Jones.
Thank you for that kind comment!
@@RGrantJones
@@RGrantJones
Not related to the review, but an observation: Oxford Catholic Study Bible, NABRE and RNJB translations and Jerome Biblical Commentary are somewhere between liberal-critical HarperCollins/Oxford and conservative-evangelical ESV/Ignatius Study Bibles. They are a mix of both conservative and critical notes.
Thank you for this Mr Jones - IM catching up on your recent updates as not had time ) always a joy to listen to your in-depth reviews ++
Thank you. I have been curious about this edition.
It is very nice. It may become more flexible with use.
Thanks for commenting, Rachel!
I love the trim size and features of this Bible. A lot like my Personal Concord. Pretty much the perfect size Bible for me.
Neat little Bible. Thanks for sharing!
You're welcome, kree935. Thanks for commenting!
I like the cross references under the headings through out the chapters.
I do too. Thanks for commenting!
Lovely review! Thank you, Grant.
Thank you for the encouragement, Tony!
What do think of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with Apocrypha?
I don't have a copy and I haven't examined that edition, so I don't have and opinion. Thanks for the question!
Hi jonas, I'm brazilian, I see you're specializing bibles (such greek and hebrew), which septuagint lxx is good bretons or Lexham? (Ps: I have AV1611, not for kjvonly theology but poetry for english olds times...)
Thanks for the question! Both are good, but the English is more modern and more easily understood in the Lexham.
This would be a perfect candidate for TN to turn into a four-sided wide margin Bible.
I agree. Thanks for commenting!
I have a 1990’s Zondervon classic KJV reference bible, the concordance is from Cruden’s concordance.
Interesting. Thanks for commenting!
Hello sir, slightly unrelated but I was hoping you could help with a pronoun question I had please. In more literal translations I see that the gender neutral "he" is used when referring to an individual of unknown gender. I was wondering if there is a way of knowing when the text is using "he" in a neutral way, compared to when it is using it in a specifically male way?
For example in John 6:44 the "he" is clearly referring to both a man or a woman, but from what I can tell it would be written the exact same way if it was just referring to a man.
Thank you
Thanks for the comment and question, Bert. I assume that 'he' is used in a gender neutral way unless the context requires me to conclude it refers to a male. The gender neutral 'he' often occurs in 'If anyone ... he ...' or 'If someone ... he ...' type constructions, as in 'If anyone wants to lose weight, he should exercise and watch his calorie intake.' But it also is found when a preceding noun may refer to a male or female. 'The murderer broke in through the window, but we don't know what his motive was.' 'An astronomer must be able to get his sleep during daylight hours.' Murderers and astronomers can be male or female, so 'his' is gender inclusive.
If something in the context of John 6.44 indicated that the Lord had only males in mind, I would conclude that him/αὐτὸν refers to males only. But I see nothing in the context to limit his scope to males.
@RGrantJones I see that's a great help thanks, assuming he is neutral unless the context makes it more specific clears it up. I assume that rule also applies to other male pronouns like men/man too.
Thanks kindly
It looks like the word by word spacing is excellent. However, even with excellent vision, generally the red letters(words) are awful to read.
I have the NKJV version of this, also made in India but with the Leathersoft cover. The cover smells... well, awful. Very industrial. It's dissipated some, but not entirely. It seems the leather is worth it in this case.
Thanks for commenting! The leather on this one has a pleasant smell, not at all strong.
Why bother including the epistle dedicatory but not the Translators to the Reader? James is long since dead, so no one is benefiting from the translators' thank you letter. But the preface is actually useful, especially the ending section about the committee's methodology. Even if Thomas Nelson doesn't want to print all the stuff about the history of Bible translations (and the cold reception they tend to get) or the bickering with Catholics over the notion of making yet another English version, surely the publisher can include the last two sections, which give the reasons for the marginal notes and the lack of strict concordance in translation.
Thanks for commenting, M.A. Moreno. I agree. I wish it were routinely included in KJVs, but it isn't present in any of the three Bibles I showed in this video.
I've wondered the same thing as well.
Owning the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible KJV, which includes the Translators to the Reader, I find it curious too. After all, the Translators to the Reader is much more important for understanding the minds of the translators and the context of the translation. I do see how KJVOs might take issue with the contents of the Translators to the Reader, though I'm pretty sure KJVO publishers typically include it nevertheless.
This comment came to mind this morning as I'm reading "God's Secretaries" by Adam Nicolson. He notes that in the Epistle Dedicatory "James is given far more prominence than anything to do with God" but then speaks much more positively about the "long and beautiful" Preface to the translation which exudes "all that is best about Jacobean England, the hopes for this translation and the beliefs in the power and value of the work which was now so nearly complete." It is a shame it is so rarely included today.
It seems to be some kind of tradition that it not be published in these compact bibles…obviously a tradition that should be done away with