“We don’t need a new angle-we need to take the Word of God to heart.” Agreed, and well spoken brother. We have an embarrassingly wide array of modern translations available to us. Many of them are quite good, but. What matters is that we get into His Word, and let it get into us.
I’m from the “camp” that should love TPT. But I’ve had to throw it across the room a number of times because it literally changes what the original text says to suit its doctrinal stance. I appreciate The Message for the reason Eugene wrote it but definitely can’t use it as a “Bible”. More of a Eugene Commentary. GREAT video Tim, thanks again!
Surprised you included the LSB but I understand how Yahweh being used so often in the OT bucks the traditional use of LORD [& it doesn't sound right since we've read Lord all our lives] but it is more accurate because Lord is not a name but a title. It's ironic that for you, its use makes it one of your least favorite Bibles, but for many, its use makes it one of our most favorite Bibles.
@megalyon I had a man in my men's group years ago emphasize how he was taking a class on the old testament & how his professor emphasized that God has a name & that we should know it [Yahweh] & God made that stick strongly with me according to what is written in Exodus 3:15 "And God furthermore said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name from generation to generation."
@@anickelsworthbiblereviewsHave they claimed to literally have the divine name correct? Even if, isn’t it at least safe to say that it is “more correct” than substituting a title that isn’t even just limited to God? (I don’t think using all caps in text really changes the generic nature of using that title.) Although my gut is that it’s a bit more than a preference, I will admit, as odd as it feels to read and say it, I prefer it. The impact is greater with “Yahweh” than it is “Lord.” (As for my suggestion that is is a bit more than preference, if God inspired biblical authors to use his name, why would we…even considering historical Jewish preference…not use it? Can we make a sola scriptura argument for that?) It’s hard for me to choose a “favorite” translation. The LSB is my go to Bible right now, but I still have a fondness for the ESV and the NIV (which I also came to Christ studying)…and other translations like the KJV, NiRV, NASB, and so on…depending on use. Thanks for you videos. TH-cam only recently started recommending them, but I have enjoyed what I’ve seen. Final comment: I also think we have more English translations than we need. I would also suggest that anytime a denomination or affiliation comes out with a translation, it should be suspect. That is why, at first, I wasn’t appreciative of the LSB. Then a pastor, who had similar initial reservations, spoke well of it I took a harder look. Assuming it’s at least faithful to the manuscripts, what is the best Bible translation? The one we will read. :-) God bless you brother.
I agree with all except for the LSB, I am glad the LSB is around because it will preserve things if they decide to discontinue the NASB 95. I was sad when they removed the verses in the 2020 from the text in brackets, that made switching between KJV & NKJV and NASB seamless. So i'm glad LSB is around to preserve that old style and I think it reads really smooth. The hebrew term Yahweh for the divine name doesn't bug me. And I agree with you on the NIV, some of the translation choices change the meanings wayyy beyond the KJV/NKJV that i'm used to. Agree with you on new translations and updates, it's very overwhelming.
Amen! 🙏🏼 this was very interesting, the ‘84 NIV is what I used for over 20 years. I was never comfortable with the new 2011 NIV. Glad to have more information about the NRSV update. Thank you!
Thanks for this. I had never actually heard of the LSB (i.e., Legacy Study Bible) until I watched this video. I'm a big fan of the NASB (from which I learned that it is derived). In addition, my wife and I start each day reading through the Bible cover-to-cover (i.e., Genesis through Revelation). I read it aloud and she follows along with me. We often will discuss things before, during or after it too. Each day, we listen to different Bible teaching podcasts (e.g., Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Skip Heitzig, Chuck Smith, John MacArthur, etc.). It's been a fantastic foundation for our marriage! We don't have children (yet); however, if we are so blessed we want to continue this daily reading with them too. After our sixth complete read-through of the Bible, I decided to use the Name of God in place of the "LORD" in the Old Testament. I was very concerned about doing this incorrectly. The Rabbis began refraining from doing this because of potentially using the Name in vain. However, the Name was used throughout the Old Testament -- by prophets, kings and others (even foreigners). So, I am confident that this was not a tradition held before the captivities of Assyria or Judah. I'm more inclined to believe that it became a practice around the creation of the Septuagint -- as this was a translation for a Greek king. I suspect that the "Seventy" would have preferred not to use the Name as it would be read by a pagan king (and it would have been virtually impossible to translate from proto-Hebrew into Hellenistic Greek anyway. Any phonetic translation would have been viewed as potential "altering" the Name too -- as the Name is just four Hebrew letters. Still, I feel that the most accepted pronunciation is accurate (i.e., "Yah-Weh"). The first syllable is the one that is most-accepted by scholars. This is because it appears in the NEW Testament -- phonetically -- in the inclusion of the word "Hallelujah" in the book of Revelation. Moreover, there are names of Old Testament individuals whose final syllables, in the Greek form, retained a "Yah" (or a "Yuh") pronunciation (e.g., Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.). The same is true of individuals like "Zechariah" (the father of John the Baptist). The added vowel is the Kamatz pronounced "ah." There is scholarly debate over the use of the "u" at the end of some names (i.e., "Elijah" as "Eli-yahu"). Yet, those names also appear as "Eli-yah" too. I'm inclined to think that the "u" is indicative of a prepositional linkage ("of Yah," "to Yah" or something similar) so that "Elijah" can be rendered either "eli-yah" or "eli-yah-u" with the latter noting a relation of the named human person. With all of this in mind, I do believe that the importance of the Name is lost when it is replaced with either "LORD" or "Kyrios." The Name is not "Lord," "Adonai" or "Kyrios." It's not just a proper name; It is THE proper Name. Although I understand the history behind the changes in the Hebrew and Greek forms, I do think that the Name is otherwise worth noting. I see the subsequent renditions (in spelling or pronunciation) as traditions from the Babylonian captivity (at the earliest) or, more likely, the creation of the Septuagint during Greek rule. Consequently, over the last several read-throughs of the Bible, I have pronounced the Name as "Yahweh" each and every time that I find it in the Old Testament. It's not anything that I want to be dogmatic about. Rather, I just feel that the proper emphasis of the Name itself is lost when it is simply pronounced as "LORD," "Adonai" or "Kyrios." When we read that "my people who are called by my Name" is read, we know that they are not called by a word used for other things. The Name is singular and cannot be substituted for any other word. It really does help convey that meaning (particularly when I read the Old Testament aloud with my wife following along). That said: I agree with your view on Bible translations not really needing "updates" (which are often vernacular "overhauls"). I like the NASB (1995), ESV, NIV (particularly the 1978/1984 edition) and KJV. It's interesting that the NASB and NIV that I prefer are the original forms rather than the updates. At the same time, there are a few issues that I have with the ESV too -- particularly with a few questionable renderings or words and phrases. In our Bible read-throughs, we have used the ESV, NASB, NASB 1995, NIV, NIV 1984 and KJV. Most of the time as we read, I often open up Bible Gateway, BlueLetterBible and other sources on my phone and read how certain "confusing" verses are worded elsewhere or in the Masoretic, Receptus, DSS and Septuagint texts.
@@KeithGarrett-w1t - Hi Keith! Thanks for the response! First off, I should point out that the KJV isn't really a "word-for-word" translation. It's a very faithful translation (one of the best in my opinion); but, it still relies upon some dynamic equivalence because of the variances in language between Hebrew, Greek and English. The NKJV (i.e., "New King James Version") is largely the same text as the KJV but set in a more modern English language. If you're looking for a faithful version taken from the same sources, then I really like the NASB (i.e., "New American Standard Bible"). It's a remarkably good translation. The ESV (English Standard Version) is also fairly good -- although I disagree with some renderings. Personally, I feel that the NIV (i.e., "New International Version") is the most readable modern academic translation. It uses more source texts that weren't available at the time the KJV was translated. In most cases, it conveys the same meaning as the KJV and similar texts; however, there are some differences. In instances where there is a question about the most appropriate wording, the NIV considers the source texts found in the Septuagint (Greek New Testament more than a thousand years older than the KJV's Masoretic Hebrew text), the Dead Sea Scrolls (again, a thousand years older than the Masoretic) and other ancient sources. They compare and often use older New Testament texts than the TR (i.e., "Textus Receptus") that were used for the New Testament too. Best of all, the NIV includes footnotes when there are variances in the source texts. One great resource is BibleGateway. It allows you to use and compare multiple texts -- to see how each translation committee worded particular verses, phrases and words. Let me know if this is what you were asking about. Otherwise, I can try again. The Lord bless you!
@@ccchhhrrriiisss100 thank you so much. You've been very helpful. One more ? I have Open, Keyword, Scofield, Thompson Chain, Rhyrie study Bibles and a Criswell on the way. The Open recently reread is great for newer converts. I've been saved and am fairly well read. I think I remember u mentioning the Life Application. Do u think that would be helpful, or is it similar to the Open which I love BTW. Thank you so much
I agree 100% about too many Bible translations. It's kind of getting out of hand. I love the KJV AND NKJV. NKJV is my number 1 used and read Bible. I own other versions but the NKJV I love so much and I believe it doesn't need an update. Thanks for your videos!
I agree, those are also my top 2 translations and I like the NKJV just as it is. If Thomas Nelson gets on the endless Update train with the NKJV I’ll be disappointed. I find having to look up what year / edition my Bible is and having it not match with older editions a bit annoying. I love that all our NKJV & KJV Bibles say the same thing 👍🏾
Wonderful video Pastor Tim. 😊Love this new stuff you’re doing. I agree with you on everything you said especially that the Bible speaks truth to culture and should not be amended to bow to trends in that culture. Kudos for the courage you showed re the NRSV UE as I’ve seen other reviewers buckle and say it’s ok. I’m holding tight to my NASB 95 and 77 and my NIV 84. And my NKJV. Would you consider doing some videos on why we have all these updates in the Anglosphere? English translations of the Bible are multiplying and I’m not sure why. Thanks again.
Thanks for your clarification of the word/title Jehovah, been hearing different things. Agree with you on too many new translations, think it's all marketing. Been getting some older Bibles, and feel more drawn to them.Thanks for your honest reviews and insights, we really enjoy your channel. Kudos, too, to your camera woman!
I have the ASV translation on my phone. I like to try different ones from time to time, as long as they're not too far "out there" if you know what I mean. I like the Douay Rheims translation, though it does have some weird spelling, like it spells Nebuchadnezzar "Nobochodanozzar" or something like that, and it calls the Book of Revelation "Apocalypse".
As a LCMS Lutheran, I haven't agreed with a Pentecostal more than this list. lol. I guess I would switch the NIV and the LSB, but other than that, the list is perfect. I really dislike the NIV 2011 translation of Mattew 15:27, along with the gender stuff too. I actually like that we have so many translations. They just need to be faithful. I want to try the BSB. My favorite translations right now are KJV, NKJV, ESV, EHV, and NLT.
What about the NKJV specifically by the publisher of Thomas Nelson? I have the KJV and NKJV together as study bibles because the commentary helps as a new christian. Is this okay or should I do something else? Id like to study correctly
If I were to attempt to compile a list of my five least-favorite Bible translations, I would have to determine how popular, how serious, and how "orthodox" a translation has to be in order to be worthy of consideration. Would I even get around to The Passion Translation and The Message--two translations I certainly do not like--or would I be too busy dealing with ones that make them look like an interlinear by comparison? And on the other end of the spectrum, should I include the painfully pedantic Robert Young translation and other such excessively literal versions? When someone says, "What's the worst translation not made by heretics?", my gut reaction is to say the 1978 NIV, but I also know that it's not really the correct answer despite being the one that comes to mind. Is it really all that worse than Zondervan's previous offering, the Berkeley Version? Doesn't The Living Bible pose just as many interpretive problems, if not more? Does it just bother me that the original NIV (and its slight 1984 update) became the most successful modern translation rather than ones that were far more deserving?
I am with you 90%..The Living Bible is the one that got me reading the Bible daily in 1977 when I was 17. i got baptized in 74 at 14 using the KJV, but the Living Bible really opened the Word up. NLT is now my favorite, and for study NKJV and ESV....standby NASV95. Thanks for sharing
Can’t argue with that list. Oddly, the late David Pawson-a Bible teacher for whom I have enormous respect-often recommended The Living Bible. I think the Good News Bible, which has rather fallen off the radar (outside of the UK and the Commonwealth at any rate) bridges the gap between paraphrase and translation far better. The American Bible Society renamed it the Good News Translation to try to counter the misapprehension that it’s closer to the former than the latter.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean in your comments about the NIV. The Bible isn't a style manual with the aim of imposing a certain set of language conventions on the culture. Rather, the translation should accurately reflect the way the language is used in order to be understood properly. In modern English masculine language is not naturally understood to be inclusive or generic (pick your preferred term). I don't think anyone needs to infer a certain motive in the translators for trying to find a way to deal with that fact. Rather, I have no doubt they were acting in good faith and with integrity to produce an accurate translation. I think that some people (not necessarily you, Tim) are reading backwards into the NIV concerns that were not really current when work on it began back in 2009. Our current cultural struggles over contorting language in incomprehensible ways wasn't the issue back then that it is now. I think there are people who don't see how fast things have changed and that what the NIV and other translations did (the CSB also uses so-called gender neutral language) was very different from what activists are doing now. I'm not going to blame Bible translators because of what has happened since the NIV was published. As much as some may wish for it I see no hope for trying to convince the general public that masculine language is anything but masculine. I'm older than you but when I read "brothers" I think "men". If I were to tell you that two of my brothers are women you'd think I was nuts.😄 I'm not sure what's gained by trying to impose unnatural meanings on words.
I agree about too many english updates!! I remember when the HCSB updated their original version to using YAWEH for Lord. It didn’t go over too well and then( I think ) was replaced by the CSB.
A "thumbs up" especially for your closing statement! I am sure I you've said all of this again and again, but I think that if the Word of God isn't changing us, translation becomes a non-issue.
Coming from a mainline, but more traditional mainline, perspective, I agree with what you’ve said. I’m so disappointed in the NRSVue, though I could see it coming a mile away. I haven’t read much from the LSB yet, though I have a copy. The Divine Name issue is what’s keeping me from it. I tried to use a passage from the OT in an adult Sunday School class I taught, and folks didn’t care for it. As for the NIV, as much as I love it and as large as it looms in my faith journey, I wonder if it’s heading down the NRSV/ue route too. Thank you for your comments at the end. We must be in the Word and let the Word change us!
I’m not going kjvo but I have decided to challenge myself with reading and learning the KJV. I just want to stick to one translation for memorizing and think that or NKJV would bee my best bet. I still love other translations like ESV or nasb95 or even CSB.
Yep KJV is definitely a challenge, I challenged myself to read it cover to cover, so that’s what I’m doing now, my first time! I wanted to read a classic the OG before I explore all other translations. I think it will give me a good foundation. I use both KJV & NKJV the most and I’m really pleased with that combo.
You might consider reading it from the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, a 2005 edition of the KJV with updated spelling and punctuation. Since Cambridge is the official rights-holder to the KJV, this isn't just some half-hearted effort: it was produced by a scholar who carefully studied the KJV translators' work to make sure that this edition was a reliable representation of their intent. It even contains the 1611 preface and marginal notes, which are too often missing from modern printings. If you don't have access to the NCPB, the second-best option would be Bible Gateway. The site includes two editions of the KJV, and you would want to go with the one called "Authorized King James Version," as that's the one licensed from Cambridge. It still uses spelling and punctuation from 1769, but the text is presented in paragraph format, and the Cambridge text is generally considered to be the most reliable.
@@MAMoreno honestly I’d just prefer sticking to original Kjv for memorization reasons and I think it will go well with old church, father content .Plus I just ordered the Allan 53spc.
@@bk24708 The Longprimer uses the 1950s Oxford text, which I don't like as much as the Cambridge text, but it's not a bad edition. You're still doing better than some random American printing.
I like it, but it's definitely not shy about slipping into paraphrase. (Thankfully, it's nowhere near as bad on that front as The Message.) Here's Romans 3.1-10a, which is a fair representation of Paul's meaning, if a rather chatty take on it: Is there any advantage then in being one of the chosen people? Does circumcision mean anything? Yes, of course, a great deal in every way. You have only to think of one thing to begin with-it was the Jews to whom God’s messages were entrusted. Some of them were undoubtedly faithless, but what then? Can you imagine that their faithlessness could disturb the faithfulness of God? Of course not! Let us think of God as true, even if every living man be proved a liar. Remember the scripture? ‘That you may be justified in your words, and may overcome when you are judged’. But if our wickedness advertises the goodness of God, do we feel that God is being unfair to punish us in return? (I’m using a human tit-for-tat argument.) Not a bit of it! What sort of a person would God be then to judge the world? It is like saying that if my lying throws into sharp relief the truth of God and, so to speak, enhances his reputation, then why should he repay me by judging me a sinner? Similarly, why not do evil that good may be, by contrast all the more conspicuous and valuable? (As a matter of fact, I am reported as urging this very thing, by some slanderously and others quite seriously! But, of course, such an argument is quite properly condemned.) Are we Jews then a march ahead of other men? By no means. For I have shown above that all men from Jews to Greeks are under the condemnation of sin. The scriptures endorse this fact plainly enough.
I really appreciate your statement regarding updating versions too often to fit culture rather than having Scripture influencing the direction of culture. Also it can get mind boggling at keeping up with the various translations popping up all the time, especially when new awesome Bibles come out but not available in older awesome versions like the NASB. I am encouraged the KJV is still going strong and am trying to make friends with the ESV as my beloved NASB is being somewhat ignored. Also, I must continue to complain slightly that the newer study Bibles neglect sometimes both NASB and more compact formats being offered even if they don’t have a mass following. I have concluded that if a believer finds that perfect blend of version, format and size Bible, make certain to buy two as when the first copy wears out, getting another may be impossible. Just another gripe. Bibles always use to come standard with nice leather covers that wear great for years. Whoever created the idea of bonded leather? It is not leather at all. I would rather have soft touch covers. The flexibility feels better than bonded leather which even when cared for cracks. As a kid, Bibles were always leather with gilded edges and elaborate presentation page as the Word of God was seen as holy and special. I love study Bibles as much as anyone but just maybe we have lost some of our reverence for the Bible and treat it more like a textbook that the direct Word of God to be revered.
I say amen to having too many updates and too many translations. I do have a few translations, but it is really getting out of hand. Also I say amen to let the word transform us. Great video 😇😇😇😇
Absolutely agree on needing the old angle. We’ll put Tim! We just have to many translations. How wonderful would it be if there were only a small handful. After awhile each new translation or study Bible that comes out just seems like a money 💰 grab. I have to admit I even think that of the esv since all crossway did was get the rights to the rsv and revised it. It wasn’t even a thing until they made the study Bible.
God covered the “need for a new angle.” Jeremiah 6:16 (KJV) Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk [therein].
I got used to Yahweh (and Adonai, and Elohim) from reading my old Jerusalem Bible (1966). But I would find "Jehovah" really jarring, not to mention inaccurate. I think I remember reading that the Jehovah's Witnesses used to use the ASV, I assume for the usage of Jehovah, until they came up with their own New World Translation.
I heard a seminar speaker say " The Passion" wasn't a translation because it didn't credit a text. Is this true? I know from a very OLD Living Bible that there was a committee and Taylor was the editor. That part has vanished from the intro part. But I totally agree there are way too many new translations and some don't last long. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own!!!
Jefferson didn't actually write his own. He took a knife and cut out the parts he didn't like. Primarily the miracles, while keeping the ethical teachings.
@@kirbysmith4135 MY husband bought a copy at a NY auction and we read through it. You are right about the cutting but the one we got also had what I called adding. We bought in the 70's and after husband passed I put Jefferson, Moffat, Franklin and a Russian translation up for auction. Now I wish I still had them. My children don't but then.......
@wbt46 The adding is interesting. Can't say as I'm surprised though. Yes, I suppose we all have thrown out things we wish we hadn't. My condolences on your husband.
@@kirbysmith4135 I didn't throw them out. That's what my children would have done. I auctioned them off live in England while there. I have a Cambridge Wide Margin from the 90's slip jacket and all that I needed a tiny repair on. I planned with the auction in mind. I don't have a great fondness for USPS so I generally carry my WORD where it needs to go. Well just my 'personal notes' one.
Love ur stuff Tim, but why does everyone love the NLT and have negative vibes toward the niv? Both gender neutral in places but the niv doesn’t over interpret imo. Love my niv especially with all the great editions- niv study Bible, biblical theology, life application just to name a few
For me, the NIV, as I mentioned, is a fine translation. It’s just preference. The NLT, I believe, meets a real need. All translations are just that. Translations. Know what they are, why they exist, etc is important. I just don’t enjoy the NIV, and I don’t like the direction it is headed.
Can you please investigate and comment on “Common English Bible “ Its new and I heard its good. I am looking for something easier to read for children. Thank you!
If we were to reject a translation because we disagree here and there with a particular choice of words, and/or of a particular word throughout, there would be very few, if any translations that we would be using!
bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. Colossians 3:13 NKJV LSB adds the adverb "graciouly." It is true, but not in the greek. bearing with one another, and graciously forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone, just as the Lord graciously forgave you, so also should you. Colossians 3:13 LSB
I also had a similar issue with the really popular spanish translation the Reina Valera 1960 using “Jehová” throughout the entirety of the old testament. I did eventually stop minding this but I do think that the translation reads beautifully.
Also about the divine name of our Father. I say Yahweh but my mother says Jehovah and she stands by saying it that way because she probably was taught that. Is she in danger or something, is our LORD upset that she is saying it that way or is it semantics? Or is this a personal thing between her and God Himself? I doubt she'll listen to me if i say "just say Yahweh instead its the accurate version of His name" as most parents would to their children.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I ended up buying it but am wondering should I have bought the’95 version instead. I also own KJV,ESV,CSB,NLT and the 1560 Geneva Bible
But hang onto the ASV , that bible cover looks great. I’m with you on the LSB, it reads a bit like the NASB 1971. The NASB 1971 was a breath of fresh air after being raised with the KJV. But I settled on the nkjv in 1985 after a recommendation from my pastor on what he thought was an accurate translation.
I have a couple that you will really hate. The Pirate's Bible and the Queen James version. I'm surptised the 'authors' didn't get struck down by lightning.
Love ya brother, but he literally gave us his name to use; not to hide. It was meant to be shared, enjoyed, loved. Israel did almost everything wrong with Yahweh; why do we think ancient Israel suddenly did the right thing with his name in elevating it above words? Jesus shows up and basically says "Everything you thought, you thought wrong." Me thinks that likely applies to his name as well..... 22 Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 23 “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘Thus you shall bless the sons of Israel. You shall say to them: 24 Yahweh bless you, and keep you; 25 Yahweh make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you; 26 Yahweh lift up His face on you, And give you peace.’ 27 So THEY SHALL INVOKE MY NAME!!!!!!! on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them.”
If you could pick any, let's say five, translations to keep and the rest would just vanish. What would those five be? They have to be five different translations and study bibles are okay.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Just watched it. Very nice. KJV is always a must have on any list. It may not be the best, scholarship wise, but its impact is truly undeniable.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews One question: Isn't Erasmus' Textus Receptus kinda outdated? Basically, comparatively speaking it's not that good of a Greek Text anymore?
I’m no Greek scholar, but I’d say that’s misguided thinking at best. I think all the manuscripts represent amazing preservation and overwhelming agreement.
I agree that the Passion is not a translation and should be titled as a paraphrase. With that said, I prefer it over other paraphrases like The Message. But no paraphrase should be used as a main translation, IMO. And I agree that the LSB is unnecessary as it is pretty much the NASB but changing His Name. I respectfully disagree with the 2011 NIV. While it's not the best translation, I find it easy to read and memorize.
He DOESN'T like the LSB!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!! Buckle up; them's fighting words! 😆 I'd push back a little to saying it's not necessary. Yes the '95 is still in print, but will the '95 remain in print? Is the '84 NIV still in print? Eventually they'll phase that out. Better to get the successor ready and out now than to wait to begin work until the '95 is actually OOP. Totally agree, too many translations. KJV/NKJV all the way.
The NIV 1984 was updated to the 2011. The NASB 2020 is not an update. It’s a completely new translation. Lockman is still making premium editions of the 95. Not to mention other publishers. It’s not an apples to apples comparison with the NIV.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews the 2020 NASB is NOT an update of the 95 NASB? First time hearing that. What is it then? Did they start from scratch? Either way, I'll bet the 95 will be oop within a decade, if we're even still around. Love ya, brother!
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews The Evangelical Bible website states that "even though this is a substantial revision of the NASB 1995, the NASB 2020 version retains 94% of the NASB 1995 text." Similarly, the Biblica website notes "that about 95% of the text of the updated NIV is exactly the same as the 1984 text it replaces." It's very much an apples-to-apples comparison. (To offer a bit of contrast, I'll note the findings of Alex Basurto, who used Logos Bible Software to compare the 1971 edition of the RSV to its immediate revisions. He found the 1989 NRSV to be only around 85% identical to the RSV, while the 2016 ESV was about 92% similar to the RSV. So the jump from the RSV to the ESV arguably offers another "apples to apples" comparison to the NASB and NIV updates. Also, the 2021 NRSV is itself about 97% similar to the 1989 edition, so it truly was a minor update!)
@MAMoreno When I interviewed the publisher at Lockman, he told me it was not just an update but more was needed, so they decided to make a separate translation. He also told me that they have made a commitment to the 1995 as its own translation. It is not the same. It is not apples to apples. The 2011 replaced the 84. The 2020 did not replace the 95.
I'd have the same list, but the NIV would move much further up the list. It alters the Scripture for theological ends. I haven't read the update, but, for instance in the old one, its translating σάρξ as "sinful nature" is a deliberate theological alteration. I don't think these sorts of things would have gotten through if it had a broader range of traditions looking at it, so I consider it as sectarian as the Douay-Rheims or the Orthodox Study Bible.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Yes. The word means "flesh." It never means "sinful nature," not in a single Greek text. There are Christians (mainly Calvinists and modified Calvinists) who read it this way, but they are replacing what the word means with what they think it symbolizes. The NIV can be loosey-goosey like that, and it's billed as a non-sectarian literal translation, and it's neither.
Yes, the older NIV was probably the most sectarian of the popular evangelical versions, unless you count The Living Bible. The 2011 edition makes a more sincere effort to represent what the Biblical authors actually said, not what the translators wish they had said. It's still biased, but much as the New Living Translation tried to distort the text far less than its predecessor had, so does the TNIV . . . er, I mean the updated NIV, which is totally not just the TNIV with a few tweaks and a rebranding.
Fun fact: the NRSV ( at least the original version) is the only translation of the Bible that is declared to be unfit for personal study, devotion or liturgical worship in the Orthodox Church of America because of just how bad the NRSV as a translation is.
Get ready because you know the LSB defenders will be coming for you. But I agree that the NASB 95 is good enough and didn’t need any updates. Good video but know they are coming. 😂😂
I totally agree about the 2011 NIV. I don't care for the direction it seems to be heading in. I do like the 1984 NIV. I will not use the Passion translation in any form. Overall I agree with this review z!
Thanks brother for the video! I agree with you with the LSB. I think that the way they handle the divine name is too much, especially for new believers or for doing evangelism. Some people may think that we are cultish. Also, the word slave. I think that it is not necessary. HOWEVER, I believe that including the LSB in that list was a little “harsh” :) but again I respect your views and I honestly love your channel and your work. It has been a blessing to me. God bless you!
3:00 - Your explanation seems inconsistent to me. If someone were to come along a publish a Bible that "out of respect" removes "Jesus" (replacing it with "Lord") would you instead advocate on behalf of the Name Jesus? If the Tetragrammaton is the actual Name of the Godhead (the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit), how is obscuring it a sign of respect. Afterall, it was God Himself who revealed it to man, and inspired it to be documented for generations to come.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Ah, you don't seem too bothered by it. Do you deny that "YHWH" (in Hebrew letters) is in the Bible? According to a quick Google search, it's in the Bible 6,828 times. You would know better than me, are any other personal names in the Bible that many times? You don't know the vowels (though, for all you do know the ones inserted thoughtfully by scholars could actually, and/or coincidentally be the correct vowels), but you could read His Divine Name as "Yodh He Waw He" if it mattered to you. It doesn't matter to you... God made it a point to put it in His Holy Bible 6,828 times, but it doesn't matter to you...
@@crumbsforthelittledogs2416 Take your nasty, disrespectful nonsense elsewhere. YOU don't know how to pronounce it either. I bet you're one of those name cultists, right? The ones who think they, alone, know "God's true name." Be gone with your filth.
Removing the Divine Name from His own Holy Bible is not respectful. Imagine removing the Precious Name of Jesus. Our hair would catch on fire! As far as how the Divine Name is rendered, that's something I have trouble understanding. I don't know enough about linguistics, and why someone's name would be pronounced differently from one language to another. But, I also do refer to God's Son as "Jesus", and not "Yeshua". So, I do pronounce the Divine Name "Jehovah", and not "Yahweh", because both are the westernized vs the ancient Hebrew.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews But we do know the Tetragrammaton (the 4 letters that spell out the Divine Name) is present, and that it is God's Holy Name. Pronouncing it Yahweh is appropriate. Afterall, no one pronounced the Son's name "Jesus" (GEE-zus) in his own language. But you pronounce it that way without any concern that you're getting it wrong. Why the inconsistency?
I find it strange that you don't like the NIV 2011 due to gender neutral language but you like the NLT. The NIV 2011 is way more accurate and suitable for exegesis. I disagree with you on the ASV. The handling of the divine name is the least of its worries. It is so lazily formally equivalent that it makes the NASB look like the NIV. I don't know why you would even mention paraphrases when they aren't translations. The Living Bible's problems go far beyond the fact that it's a paraphrase. The NRSVue is one of the most accurate translations. It is the best for trying to get to the true meaning of what the author intended without the evangelical theological bias. That being said, it is impossible for a translation to not have theological bias.
Well, l dont like some of the translations you recommend, yet l love the Passion translation/paraphrase and so does a pastor l know and respect. l also respect Brian Simmons and what Jesus asked him to do. l have 35 years of reading the KJV bible.
Your friendly neighborhood 12er Shi'ite Muslim here. I like your videos and I have read the Bible daily for decades. I agree with you on the NRSVue and I never was a fan of paraphrases. On the matter of not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, that was something developed by Rabbinical Talmudic Jews. Karaite Jews, who do not believe the Talmud is binding at all, believe the Tetragrammaton ought to be pronounced. There might not even be 50,000 Karaite Jews left in the world. However, just prior to the First Crusade, Rabbinical Jews say 40% of all Jews were Karaite. Karaites claim a full 50% of Jews at that time. What happened? In the First Crusade, Jerusalem was captured. The Muslims and the Jews were massacred in a bloodbath. The Muslim governor of Jerusalem had sent the Orthodox Christians away for fear they would support the Crusaders. Although there were small communities of Karaites in Egypt and Constantinople, the vast majority lived in Jerusalem. I certainly would not go out of my way to offend Rabbinical Jews, but I don't personally have a problem with using the Tetragrammaton instead of LORD. Karaite Jews boldly use it. My favorite modern bible translations have always been the NKJV and the NASB 77, though I use the ESV and the RSVCE and RSV2CE. Of course, I love the KJV, and the Coverdale Psalter. Since none of my favorite translations normally use the Tetragrammaton, its not a big deal to me either way. I personally believe God wanted the ancient Israelites to call Him by those 4 letters.Since the Name is holy, I can understand why they decided to protect the name. I did not use the Divine Name in this comment because I did not want to offend any Jews who might be watching your video. God bless you and yours!
Wow, a bible reviewer who doesn't like the lsb is honestly a shocker...needless to say I agree with you on it just being a waste of time (and arrogance)
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I read an extensive analysis of the NKJV by an English and linguistics professor years ago, and she said it’s a Frankenstein English that doesn’t exist outside the NKJV because it attempts to merge old and modern English
@@Travis-lk1fh But that's what makes it stand out in the crowd. ;) Seriously though, I wasn't excited about reading the NKJV, but when I finally dug into it, I found myself really appreciating it, even with it's occasionally quirky wording.
I gotta disagree completely about the NRSVue for several reasons: 1)It takes advantage of roughly 30 years of scholarship, to include new manuscript evidence, since the NRSV. 2) Some of the gender neutral language changes that you and others seem to object to better reflect how the use of English has changed in recent decades and in fact better reflect the original languages. 3) The changes in translation of passages traditionally understood to condemn homosexuality better reflect the sociohistorical context and in fact actually seem to broaden the condemnation of sexual immorality in general. All these are important because as you pointed out yourself, one should not allow one's theology or interpretation of the text dictate it's translation.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews That is a really bad argument; there are plenty of things that were supposedly clear for centuries that new knowledge and thinking came along and changed. Women not being allowed to vote or own property. Geocentricism. Slavery. Shall I continue? Faith rests on a tripod of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Anything that fails any one of those tests must be discarded. Reason includes textual criticism and scholarship.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I have. I appreciate that you were evenhanded and thoughtful in the criticisms you had and still willing to find value in it rather than bring out the lighter fluid. I still disagree on several points. For example, the word "almah" is mistranslated as "virgin" in the Septuagint. The Oxford Bible Commentary clearly states that it means simply "young woman." The JPS Tanakah translates "almah" this way as well, as does The Complete Jewish Bible. Also, a broadly ecumenical translation committee to include theologicaly liberal, conservative as well as Jewish and secular members kinda rules out the translation being infected with a certain theological bias.
Give the Revised ASV and the Updated ASV a read. They are attempts to make the ASV more modern and user friendly. They are single person works but not horrible.
“We don’t need a new angle-we need to take the Word of God to heart.” Agreed, and well spoken brother. We have an embarrassingly wide array of modern translations available to us. Many of them are quite good, but. What matters is that we get into His Word, and let it get into us.
New to your channel…I like your reviews of both Protestant and Catholic bibles…you don’t make fun of them…Thanks!
I agree, same here! I'm not even Catholic and I watch all of his Catholic Bible reviews anyway :-)
Always enjoy your videos. They help me so much in choosing what bibles to buy. Thank you my friend.
I’m from the “camp” that should love TPT. But I’ve had to throw it across the room a number of times because it literally changes what the original text says to suit its doctrinal stance.
I appreciate The Message for the reason Eugene wrote it but definitely can’t use it as a “Bible”. More of a Eugene Commentary.
GREAT video Tim, thanks again!
At least Eugene was honest about what The Message was. Brian Simmons can't even do that.
I still have my NIV 1984, and I am never getting rid of it. It was my primary bible for many years, and I still use it once in a while.
Same with me! It has all my notes/highlights from when I first got saved. It's one of those "grab in a fire" items.
Surprised you included the LSB but I understand how Yahweh being used so often in the OT bucks the traditional use of LORD [& it doesn't sound right since we've read Lord all our lives] but it is more accurate because Lord is not a name but a title. It's ironic that for you, its use makes it one of your least favorite Bibles, but for many, its use makes it one of our most favorite Bibles.
I like the LSB a lot and the use of Yahweh feels personal so I guess it's a matter of preference, the LSB is one of my favorite translations
I just believe to claim to have the divine name correct is misleading.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I see
@megalyon I had a man in my men's group years ago emphasize how he was taking a class on the old testament & how his professor emphasized that God has a name & that we should know it [Yahweh] & God made that stick strongly with me according to what is written in Exodus 3:15 "And God furthermore said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name from generation to generation."
@@anickelsworthbiblereviewsHave they claimed to literally have the divine name correct? Even if, isn’t it at least safe to say that it is “more correct” than substituting a title that isn’t even just limited to God? (I don’t think using all caps in text really changes the generic nature of using that title.)
Although my gut is that it’s a bit more than a preference, I will admit, as odd as it feels to read and say it, I prefer it. The impact is greater with “Yahweh” than it is “Lord.”
(As for my suggestion that is is a bit more than preference, if God inspired biblical authors to use his name, why would we…even considering historical Jewish preference…not use it? Can we make a sola scriptura argument for that?)
It’s hard for me to choose a “favorite” translation. The LSB is my go to Bible right now, but I still have a fondness for the ESV and the NIV (which I also came to Christ studying)…and other translations like the KJV, NiRV, NASB, and so on…depending on use.
Thanks for you videos. TH-cam only recently started recommending them, but I have enjoyed what I’ve seen.
Final comment: I also think we have more English translations than we need. I would also suggest that anytime a denomination or affiliation comes out with a translation, it should be suspect. That is why, at first, I wasn’t appreciative of the LSB. Then a pastor, who had similar initial reservations, spoke well of it I took a harder look.
Assuming it’s at least faithful to the manuscripts, what is the best Bible translation? The one we will read. :-)
God bless you brother.
I agree with all except for the LSB, I am glad the LSB is around because it will preserve things if they decide to discontinue the NASB 95. I was sad when they removed the verses in the 2020 from the text in brackets, that made switching between KJV & NKJV and NASB seamless. So i'm glad LSB is around to preserve that old style and I think it reads really smooth. The hebrew term Yahweh for the divine name doesn't bug me. And I agree with you on the NIV, some of the translation choices change the meanings wayyy beyond the KJV/NKJV that i'm used to. Agree with you on new translations and updates, it's very overwhelming.
I agree with you, megalyon on the LSB. I disagree with his opinion on the LSB. The NASB2020 is really unnecessary.
@jdc1264 I would agree the 2020 was also unnecessary.
@@jdc1264 Yep agreed, overall we have sooo many translations and updates. I’m trying to stick with the classics.
I read somewhere that Schuyler doesn’t plan to print NASB 95 for now. Is that true?
@armandocastro4548 ‘tis indeed a tragic truth.
Amen! 🙏🏼 this was very interesting, the ‘84 NIV is what I used for over 20 years. I was never comfortable with the new 2011 NIV. Glad to have more information about the NRSV update. Thank you!
Thanks for this. I had never actually heard of the LSB (i.e., Legacy Study Bible) until I watched this video. I'm a big fan of the NASB (from which I learned that it is derived). In addition, my wife and I start each day reading through the Bible cover-to-cover (i.e., Genesis through Revelation). I read it aloud and she follows along with me. We often will discuss things before, during or after it too. Each day, we listen to different Bible teaching podcasts (e.g., Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Skip Heitzig, Chuck Smith, John MacArthur, etc.). It's been a fantastic foundation for our marriage! We don't have children (yet); however, if we are so blessed we want to continue this daily reading with them too.
After our sixth complete read-through of the Bible, I decided to use the Name of God in place of the "LORD" in the Old Testament. I was very concerned about doing this incorrectly. The Rabbis began refraining from doing this because of potentially using the Name in vain. However, the Name was used throughout the Old Testament -- by prophets, kings and others (even foreigners). So, I am confident that this was not a tradition held before the captivities of Assyria or Judah.
I'm more inclined to believe that it became a practice around the creation of the Septuagint -- as this was a translation for a Greek king. I suspect that the "Seventy" would have preferred not to use the Name as it would be read by a pagan king (and it would have been virtually impossible to translate from proto-Hebrew into Hellenistic Greek anyway. Any phonetic translation would have been viewed as potential "altering" the Name too -- as the Name is just four Hebrew letters.
Still, I feel that the most accepted pronunciation is accurate (i.e., "Yah-Weh"). The first syllable is the one that is most-accepted by scholars. This is because it appears in the NEW Testament -- phonetically -- in the inclusion of the word "Hallelujah" in the book of Revelation. Moreover, there are names of Old Testament individuals whose final syllables, in the Greek form, retained a "Yah" (or a "Yuh") pronunciation (e.g., Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.). The same is true of individuals like "Zechariah" (the father of John the Baptist). The added vowel is the Kamatz pronounced "ah."
There is scholarly debate over the use of the "u" at the end of some names (i.e., "Elijah" as "Eli-yahu"). Yet, those names also appear as "Eli-yah" too. I'm inclined to think that the "u" is indicative of a prepositional linkage ("of Yah," "to Yah" or something similar) so that "Elijah" can be rendered either "eli-yah" or "eli-yah-u" with the latter noting a relation of the named human person.
With all of this in mind, I do believe that the importance of the Name is lost when it is replaced with either "LORD" or "Kyrios." The Name is not "Lord," "Adonai" or "Kyrios." It's not just a proper name; It is THE proper Name. Although I understand the history behind the changes in the Hebrew and Greek forms, I do think that the Name is otherwise worth noting. I see the subsequent renditions (in spelling or pronunciation) as traditions from the Babylonian captivity (at the earliest) or, more likely, the creation of the Septuagint during Greek rule.
Consequently, over the last several read-throughs of the Bible, I have pronounced the Name as "Yahweh" each and every time that I find it in the Old Testament. It's not anything that I want to be dogmatic about. Rather, I just feel that the proper emphasis of the Name itself is lost when it is simply pronounced as "LORD," "Adonai" or "Kyrios." When we read that "my people who are called by my Name" is read, we know that they are not called by a word used for other things. The Name is singular and cannot be substituted for any other word. It really does help convey that meaning (particularly when I read the Old Testament aloud with my wife following along).
That said: I agree with your view on Bible translations not really needing "updates" (which are often vernacular "overhauls"). I like the NASB (1995), ESV, NIV (particularly the 1978/1984 edition) and KJV. It's interesting that the NASB and NIV that I prefer are the original forms rather than the updates. At the same time, there are a few issues that I have with the ESV too -- particularly with a few questionable renderings or words and phrases.
In our Bible read-throughs, we have used the ESV, NASB, NASB 1995, NIV, NIV 1984 and KJV. Most of the time as we read, I often open up Bible Gateway, BlueLetterBible and other sources on my phone and read how certain "confusing" verses are worded elsewhere or in the Masoretic, Receptus, DSS and Septuagint texts.
I've always been KJV. What word for word other than KJV do you recommend? What's the best Dynamic translation?
@@KeithGarrett-w1t - Hi Keith! Thanks for the response! First off, I should point out that the KJV isn't really a "word-for-word" translation. It's a very faithful translation (one of the best in my opinion); but, it still relies upon some dynamic equivalence because of the variances in language between Hebrew, Greek and English. The NKJV (i.e., "New King James Version") is largely the same text as the KJV but set in a more modern English language. If you're looking for a faithful version taken from the same sources, then I really like the NASB (i.e., "New American Standard Bible"). It's a remarkably good translation. The ESV (English Standard Version) is also fairly good -- although I disagree with some renderings.
Personally, I feel that the NIV (i.e., "New International Version") is the most readable modern academic translation. It uses more source texts that weren't available at the time the KJV was translated. In most cases, it conveys the same meaning as the KJV and similar texts; however, there are some differences. In instances where there is a question about the most appropriate wording, the NIV considers the source texts found in the Septuagint (Greek New Testament more than a thousand years older than the KJV's Masoretic Hebrew text), the Dead Sea Scrolls (again, a thousand years older than the Masoretic) and other ancient sources. They compare and often use older New Testament texts than the TR (i.e., "Textus Receptus") that were used for the New Testament too. Best of all, the NIV includes footnotes when there are variances in the source texts.
One great resource is BibleGateway. It allows you to use and compare multiple texts -- to see how each translation committee worded particular verses, phrases and words. Let me know if this is what you were asking about. Otherwise, I can try again. The Lord bless you!
@@ccchhhrrriiisss100 thank you so much. You've been very helpful. One more ? I have Open, Keyword, Scofield, Thompson Chain, Rhyrie study Bibles and a Criswell on the way. The Open recently reread is great for newer converts. I've been saved and am fairly well read. I think I remember u mentioning the Life Application. Do u think that would be helpful, or is it similar to the Open which I love BTW. Thank you so much
I agree 100% about too many Bible translations. It's kind of getting out of hand. I love the KJV AND NKJV. NKJV is my number 1 used and read Bible. I own other versions but the NKJV I love so much and I believe it doesn't need an update. Thanks for your videos!
I agree, those are also my top 2 translations and I like the NKJV just as it is. If Thomas Nelson gets on the endless Update train with the NKJV I’ll be disappointed. I find having to look up what year / edition my Bible is and having it not match with older editions a bit annoying. I love that all our NKJV & KJV Bibles say the same thing 👍🏾
@@megalyon I agree. I would be highly disappointed as well. It's nice to know I'm not alone on this.
Wonderful video Pastor Tim. 😊Love this new stuff you’re doing. I agree with you on everything you said especially that the Bible speaks truth to culture and should not be amended to bow to trends in that culture. Kudos for the courage you showed re the NRSV UE as I’ve seen other reviewers buckle and say it’s ok. I’m holding tight to my NASB 95 and 77 and my NIV 84. And my NKJV. Would you consider doing some videos on why we have all these updates in the Anglosphere? English translations of the Bible are multiplying and I’m not sure why. Thanks again.
Thanks for your clarification of the word/title Jehovah, been hearing different things. Agree with you on too many new translations, think it's all marketing. Been getting some older Bibles, and feel more drawn to them.Thanks for your honest reviews and insights, we really enjoy your channel. Kudos, too, to your camera woman!
I love how the lsb reads. It’s an upgrade to the nasb. 95.
I just got one. It is great. It 'replaced' my NASB which I loved.
I have the ASV translation on my phone. I like to try different ones from time to time, as long as they're not too far "out there" if you know what I mean. I like the Douay Rheims translation, though it does have some weird spelling, like it spells Nebuchadnezzar "Nobochodanozzar" or something like that, and it calls the Book of Revelation "Apocalypse".
I see a lot of online Calvinists and Calvinistic Baptists who promote the LSB. Is there a particular reason for this?
It is from Master’s Seminary which is from John MacArthur.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews That makes sense. Thank you!
As a LCMS Lutheran, I haven't agreed with a Pentecostal more than this list. lol. I guess I would switch the NIV and the LSB, but other than that, the list is perfect. I really dislike the NIV 2011 translation of Mattew 15:27, along with the gender stuff too.
I actually like that we have so many translations. They just need to be faithful. I want to try the BSB.
My favorite translations right now are KJV, NKJV, ESV, EHV, and NLT.
What about the NKJV specifically by the publisher of Thomas Nelson? I have the KJV and NKJV together as study bibles because the commentary helps as a new christian. Is this okay or should I do something else? Id like to study correctly
That’s fine!
If I were to attempt to compile a list of my five least-favorite Bible translations, I would have to determine how popular, how serious, and how "orthodox" a translation has to be in order to be worthy of consideration. Would I even get around to The Passion Translation and The Message--two translations I certainly do not like--or would I be too busy dealing with ones that make them look like an interlinear by comparison? And on the other end of the spectrum, should I include the painfully pedantic Robert Young translation and other such excessively literal versions?
When someone says, "What's the worst translation not made by heretics?", my gut reaction is to say the 1978 NIV, but I also know that it's not really the correct answer despite being the one that comes to mind. Is it really all that worse than Zondervan's previous offering, the Berkeley Version? Doesn't The Living Bible pose just as many interpretive problems, if not more? Does it just bother me that the original NIV (and its slight 1984 update) became the most successful modern translation rather than ones that were far more deserving?
Your opinion is welcome.
I am with you 90%..The Living Bible is the one that got me reading the Bible daily in 1977 when I was 17. i got baptized in 74 at 14 using the KJV, but the Living Bible really opened the Word up. NLT is now my favorite, and for study NKJV and ESV....standby NASV95. Thanks for sharing
Can’t argue with that list. Oddly, the late David Pawson-a Bible teacher for whom I have enormous respect-often recommended The Living Bible. I think the Good News Bible, which has rather fallen off the radar (outside of the UK and the Commonwealth at any rate) bridges the gap between paraphrase and translation far better. The American Bible Society renamed it the Good News Translation to try to counter the misapprehension that it’s closer to the former than the latter.
I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of the LSB!
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean in your comments about the NIV. The Bible isn't a style manual with the aim of imposing a certain set of language conventions on the culture. Rather, the translation should accurately reflect the way the language is used in order to be understood properly. In modern English masculine language is not naturally understood to be inclusive or generic (pick your preferred term). I don't think anyone needs to infer a certain motive in the translators for trying to find a way to deal with that fact. Rather, I have no doubt they were acting in good faith and with integrity to produce an accurate translation.
I think that some people (not necessarily you, Tim) are reading backwards into the NIV concerns that were not really current when work on it began back in 2009. Our current cultural struggles over contorting language in incomprehensible ways wasn't the issue back then that it is now. I think there are people who don't see how fast things have changed and that what the NIV and other translations did (the CSB also uses so-called gender neutral language) was very different from what activists are doing now. I'm not going to blame Bible translators because of what has happened since the NIV was published.
As much as some may wish for it I see no hope for trying to convince the general public that masculine language is anything but masculine. I'm older than you but when I read "brothers" I think "men". If I were to tell you that two of my brothers are women you'd think I was nuts.😄 I'm not sure what's gained by trying to impose unnatural meanings on words.
I agree about too many english updates!! I remember when the HCSB updated their original version to using YAWEH for Lord. It didn’t go over too well and then( I think ) was replaced by the CSB.
A "thumbs up" especially for your closing statement! I am sure I you've said all of this again and again, but I think that if the Word of God isn't changing us, translation becomes a non-issue.
I always liked how the HCSB left "Yahweh" instead of using "LORD." That makes a lot of sense to me.
It only did it in certain places. To me it made it even more confusing.
What are your thoughts on the Amplified Version (Classic and Updated)?
I don’t love either, but I like the updated better than the classic.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I prefer the Classic to the Updated. Keep up the good work!
Coming from a mainline, but more traditional mainline, perspective, I agree with what you’ve said. I’m so disappointed in the NRSVue, though I could see it coming a mile away. I haven’t read much from the LSB yet, though I have a copy. The Divine Name issue is what’s keeping me from it. I tried to use a passage from the OT in an adult Sunday School class I taught, and folks didn’t care for it.
As for the NIV, as much as I love it and as large as it looms in my faith journey, I wonder if it’s heading down the NRSV/ue route too.
Thank you for your comments at the end. We must be in the Word and let the Word change us!
I really enjoy the LSB. My personal favorite is the ESV.
Completely agree with that final statement.
I’m not going kjvo but I have decided to challenge myself with reading and learning the KJV. I just want to stick to one translation for memorizing and think that or NKJV would bee my best bet. I still love other translations like ESV or nasb95 or even CSB.
Yep KJV is definitely a challenge, I challenged myself to read it cover to cover, so that’s what I’m doing now, my first time! I wanted to read a classic the OG before I explore all other translations. I think it will give me a good foundation. I use both KJV & NKJV the most and I’m really pleased with that combo.
You might consider reading it from the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, a 2005 edition of the KJV with updated spelling and punctuation. Since Cambridge is the official rights-holder to the KJV, this isn't just some half-hearted effort: it was produced by a scholar who carefully studied the KJV translators' work to make sure that this edition was a reliable representation of their intent. It even contains the 1611 preface and marginal notes, which are too often missing from modern printings.
If you don't have access to the NCPB, the second-best option would be Bible Gateway. The site includes two editions of the KJV, and you would want to go with the one called "Authorized King James Version," as that's the one licensed from Cambridge. It still uses spelling and punctuation from 1769, but the text is presented in paragraph format, and the Cambridge text is generally considered to be the most reliable.
@@MAMoreno honestly I’d just prefer sticking to original Kjv for memorization reasons and I think it will go well with old church, father content .Plus I just ordered the Allan 53spc.
@@bk24708 The Longprimer uses the 1950s Oxford text, which I don't like as much as the Cambridge text, but it's not a bad edition. You're still doing better than some random American printing.
@@MAMoreno it’s a personal preference. I did look at Cambridge turquoise but still went with Allan 53. I don’t like thin bible paper.
So if you don't mind sharing what's your opinion on the JB Phillips New testament in modern English that was put out in the late '50s?
I know nothing about that one.
I like it, but it's definitely not shy about slipping into paraphrase. (Thankfully, it's nowhere near as bad on that front as The Message.) Here's Romans 3.1-10a, which is a fair representation of Paul's meaning, if a rather chatty take on it:
Is there any advantage then in being one of the chosen people? Does circumcision mean anything? Yes, of course, a great deal in every way. You have only to think of one thing to begin with-it was the Jews to whom God’s messages were entrusted. Some of them were undoubtedly faithless, but what then? Can you imagine that their faithlessness could disturb the faithfulness of God? Of course not! Let us think of God as true, even if every living man be proved a liar. Remember the scripture? ‘That you may be justified in your words, and may overcome when you are judged’.
But if our wickedness advertises the goodness of God, do we feel that God is being unfair to punish us in return? (I’m using a human tit-for-tat argument.) Not a bit of it! What sort of a person would God be then to judge the world? It is like saying that if my lying throws into sharp relief the truth of God and, so to speak, enhances his reputation, then why should he repay me by judging me a sinner? Similarly, why not do evil that good may be, by contrast all the more conspicuous and valuable? (As a matter of fact, I am reported as urging this very thing, by some slanderously and others quite seriously! But, of course, such an argument is quite properly condemned.)
Are we Jews then a march ahead of other men? By no means. For I have shown above that all men from Jews to Greeks are under the condemnation of sin. The scriptures endorse this fact plainly enough.
Growing up in the mid '60s, my pastor used it often. Very understandable.
I really appreciate your statement regarding updating versions too often to fit culture rather than having Scripture influencing the direction of culture. Also it can get mind boggling at keeping up with the various translations popping up all the time, especially when new awesome Bibles come out but not available in older awesome versions like the NASB. I am encouraged the KJV is still going strong and am trying to make friends with the ESV as my beloved NASB is being somewhat ignored. Also, I must continue to complain slightly that the newer study Bibles neglect sometimes both NASB and more compact formats being offered even if they don’t have a mass following. I have concluded that if a believer finds that perfect blend of version, format and size Bible, make certain to buy two as when the first copy wears out, getting another may be impossible. Just another gripe. Bibles always use to come standard with nice leather covers that wear great for years. Whoever created the idea of bonded leather? It is not leather at all. I would rather have soft touch covers. The flexibility feels better than bonded leather which even when cared for cracks. As a kid, Bibles were always leather with gilded edges and elaborate presentation page as the Word of God was seen as holy and special. I love study Bibles as much as anyone but just maybe we have lost some of our reverence for the Bible and treat it more like a textbook that the direct Word of God to be revered.
I say amen to having too many updates and too many translations. I do have a few translations, but it is really getting out of hand. Also I say amen to let the word transform us. Great video 😇😇😇😇
Thank you, Brother Tim 🌹⭐🌹
Very helpful Tim!
What are your thoughts on the NRSV and the RSV?
I’ve made videos on both of those translations.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews In a word?
@@DrGero15 not my favorite.
Absolutely agree on needing the old angle. We’ll put Tim!
We just have to many translations. How wonderful would it be if there were only a small handful. After awhile each new translation or study Bible that comes out just seems like a money 💰 grab. I have to admit I even think that of the esv since all crossway did was get the rights to the rsv and revised it. It wasn’t even a thing until they made the study Bible.
I don’t know that it’s a money grab, but it is certainly overkill.
I love the NLT, went through Bible college with it but I was already very familiar with a very literal translation.
👍🏻👍🏻 Another good one. Thanks for sharing!
God covered the “need for a new angle.”
Jeremiah 6:16 (KJV) Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where [is] the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk [therein].
I appreciate your closing statements, truth. I'd not learned about the "adonai" "jehovah" connection before. Thanks!
I got used to Yahweh (and Adonai, and Elohim) from reading my old Jerusalem Bible (1966). But I would find "Jehovah" really jarring, not to mention inaccurate. I think I remember reading that the Jehovah's Witnesses used to use the ASV, I assume for the usage of Jehovah, until they came up with their own New World Translation.
I heard a seminar speaker say " The Passion" wasn't a translation because it didn't credit a text. Is this true? I know from a very OLD Living Bible that there was a committee and Taylor was the editor. That part has vanished from the intro part. But I totally agree there are way too many new translations and some don't last long. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own!!!
The Passion isn’t a translation because it’s a very bad paraphrase.
Jefferson didn't actually write his own. He took a knife and cut out the parts he didn't like. Primarily the miracles, while keeping the ethical teachings.
@@kirbysmith4135 MY husband bought a copy at a NY auction and we read through it. You are right about the cutting but the one we got also had what I called adding. We bought in the 70's and after husband passed I put Jefferson, Moffat, Franklin and a Russian translation up for auction. Now I wish I still had them. My children don't but then.......
@wbt46 The adding is interesting. Can't say as I'm surprised though.
Yes, I suppose we all have thrown out things we wish we hadn't. My condolences on your husband.
@@kirbysmith4135 I didn't throw them out. That's what my children would have done. I auctioned them off live in England while there. I have a Cambridge Wide Margin from the 90's slip jacket and all that I needed a tiny repair on. I planned with the auction in mind. I don't have a great fondness for USPS so I generally carry my WORD where it needs to go. Well just my 'personal notes' one.
Love your last comment about letting the Word transform us
Very well done video!
Well said, all fair points.
5 translations that I dislike: 1. the Message "Bible", 2. the "Voice" New Testament, 3. the NIV ( '84 & 2011), 4. WEB, 5. Weymouth's. N.T.
15 translations that I like: -1. NKJV -2. Williams N.T. -3. NET -4. NET -5. N.Ev.T. N.T. -6. NLT -7. Wuest N.T. -8. Holman -9. Recovery N.T. -10. KJV -11. Anderson N.T. 12. Berean 13. Darby 14. NASB-95 15. YLT
Besides its similarities to the NASB, I have noticed that the LSB detects more acrostics and OT references than other translations.
Love ur stuff Tim, but why does everyone love the NLT and have negative vibes toward the niv? Both gender neutral in places but the niv doesn’t over interpret imo. Love my niv especially with all the great editions- niv study Bible, biblical theology, life application just to name a few
For me, the NIV, as I mentioned, is a fine translation. It’s just preference. The NLT, I believe, meets a real need. All translations are just that. Translations. Know what they are, why they exist, etc is important. I just don’t enjoy the NIV, and I don’t like the direction it is headed.
2:22 i think English translations need to move in the way of stopping
There are too many and too many updates for sure.
Can you please investigate and comment on “Common English Bible “
Its new and I heard its good.
I am looking for something easier to read for children.
Thank you!
If we were to reject a translation because we disagree here and there with a particular choice of words, and/or of a particular word throughout, there would be very few, if any translations that we would be using!
Notice I never rejected any of these translations. That was another video.
@@alex-qe8qn in the case of the depicting of God’s name, it’s hardly a minor quibble over word choice.
bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. Colossians 3:13 NKJV
LSB adds the adverb "graciouly." It is true, but not in the greek.
bearing with one another, and graciously forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone, just as the Lord graciously forgave you, so also should you.
Colossians 3:13 LSB
I also had a similar issue with the really popular spanish translation the Reina Valera 1960 using “Jehová” throughout the entirety of the old testament. I did eventually stop minding this but I do think that the translation reads beautifully.
Also about the divine name of our Father. I say Yahweh but my mother says Jehovah and she stands by saying it that way because she probably was taught that. Is she in danger or something, is our LORD upset that she is saying it that way or is it semantics? Or is this a personal thing between her and God Himself? I doubt she'll listen to me if i say "just say Yahweh instead its the accurate version of His name" as most parents would to their children.
What do you think of the 2020 NASB?
I’ve actually done a video on that one too. I like it, but not my favorite.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I ended up buying it but am wondering should I have bought the’95 version instead. I also own KJV,ESV,CSB,NLT and the 1560 Geneva Bible
Can u review Hallelujah scriptures for us .
I appreciate the suggestion. It’s unlikely for now.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews thank you your feedback God bless you more
Ill stick to the CSB and NASB. Great video!
But hang onto the ASV , that bible cover looks great. I’m with you on the LSB, it reads a bit like the NASB 1971. The NASB 1971 was a breath of fresh air after being raised with the KJV. But I settled on the nkjv in 1985 after a recommendation from my pastor on what he thought was an accurate translation.
I love the '70s NASBs.
I get the love for the '95, but it's not as good as the earlier ones.
I agree with you for the most part. Not familiar enough with ASV to have an opinion. Fyi the Darby translation,as I recall, also uses Jehovah.
Isn't the ASV the basis of the RSV & NRSV
Yes.
I have a couple that you will really hate. The Pirate's Bible and the Queen James version. I'm surptised the 'authors' didn't get struck down by lightning.
Those can’t even be taken seriously.
Love ya brother, but he literally gave us his name to use; not to hide. It was meant to be shared, enjoyed, loved. Israel did almost everything wrong with Yahweh; why do we think ancient Israel suddenly did the right thing with his name in elevating it above words? Jesus shows up and basically says "Everything you thought, you thought wrong." Me thinks that likely applies to his name as well.....
22
Then Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
23
“Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘Thus you shall bless the sons of Israel. You shall say to them:
24
Yahweh bless you, and keep you;
25
Yahweh make His face shine on you,
And be gracious to you;
26
Yahweh lift up His face on you,
And give you peace.’
27
So THEY SHALL INVOKE MY NAME!!!!!!! on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them.”
We have no clear evidence on how to pronounce the second syllable. The name we use today is Yeshua, Jesus.
If you could pick any, let's say five, translations to keep and the rest would just vanish. What would those five be?
They have to be five different translations and study bibles are okay.
I put my top five translations on the endscreen. It would be those.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Just watched it. Very nice. KJV is always a must have on any list. It may not be the best, scholarship wise, but its impact is truly undeniable.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews One question: Isn't Erasmus' Textus Receptus kinda outdated? Basically, comparatively speaking it's not that good of a Greek Text anymore?
I’m no Greek scholar, but I’d say that’s misguided thinking at best. I think all the manuscripts represent amazing preservation and overwhelming agreement.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Ok. Thank you very much. Godspeed.
Tim, you're a brave man going after the MacArthur bros again and their beloved LSB haha 😜
To be fair, I mentioned it was a good translation, just don’t love the handling of the divine name.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews the divine use was WHY I could not get onto it .
I agree that the Passion is not a translation and should be titled as a paraphrase. With that said, I prefer it over other paraphrases like The Message. But no paraphrase should be used as a main translation, IMO.
And I agree that the LSB is unnecessary as it is pretty much the NASB but changing His Name.
I respectfully disagree with the 2011 NIV. While it's not the best translation, I find it easy to read and memorize.
To be clear, I mentioned it was preferential for me. So there’s room for disagreement.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews all good 😊
He DOESN'T like the LSB!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!! Buckle up; them's fighting words! 😆
I'd push back a little to saying it's not necessary. Yes the '95 is still in print, but will the '95 remain in print? Is the '84 NIV still in print? Eventually they'll phase that out. Better to get the successor ready and out now than to wait to begin work until the '95 is actually OOP.
Totally agree, too many translations. KJV/NKJV all the way.
The NIV 1984 was updated to the 2011. The NASB 2020 is not an update. It’s a completely new translation. Lockman is still making premium editions of the 95. Not to mention other publishers. It’s not an apples to apples comparison with the NIV.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews the 2020 NASB is NOT an update of the 95 NASB? First time hearing that. What is it then? Did they start from scratch? Either way, I'll bet the 95 will be oop within a decade, if we're even still around. Love ya, brother!
@LetsGetBiblical it is not an update. It is considered its own translation. Even the NASB 77 is in print through AMG.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews The Evangelical Bible website states that "even though this is a substantial revision of the NASB 1995, the NASB 2020 version retains 94% of the NASB 1995 text." Similarly, the Biblica website notes "that about 95% of the text of the updated NIV is exactly the same as the 1984 text it replaces." It's very much an apples-to-apples comparison.
(To offer a bit of contrast, I'll note the findings of Alex Basurto, who used Logos Bible Software to compare the 1971 edition of the RSV to its immediate revisions. He found the 1989 NRSV to be only around 85% identical to the RSV, while the 2016 ESV was about 92% similar to the RSV. So the jump from the RSV to the ESV arguably offers another "apples to apples" comparison to the NASB and NIV updates. Also, the 2021 NRSV is itself about 97% similar to the 1989 edition, so it truly was a minor update!)
@MAMoreno When I interviewed the publisher at Lockman, he told me it was not just an update but more was needed, so they decided to make a separate translation. He also told me that they have made a commitment to the 1995 as its own translation. It is not the same. It is not apples to apples. The 2011 replaced the 84. The 2020 did not replace the 95.
I'd have the same list, but the NIV would move much further up the list. It alters the Scripture for theological ends. I haven't read the update, but, for instance in the old one, its translating σάρξ as "sinful nature" is a deliberate theological alteration. I don't think these sorts of things would have gotten through if it had a broader range of traditions looking at it, so I consider it as sectarian as the Douay-Rheims or the Orthodox Study Bible.
Sinful nature vs the flesh?
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Yes. The word means "flesh." It never means "sinful nature," not in a single Greek text. There are Christians (mainly Calvinists and modified Calvinists) who read it this way, but they are replacing what the word means with what they think it symbolizes. The NIV can be loosey-goosey like that, and it's billed as a non-sectarian literal translation, and it's neither.
Yes, the older NIV was probably the most sectarian of the popular evangelical versions, unless you count The Living Bible. The 2011 edition makes a more sincere effort to represent what the Biblical authors actually said, not what the translators wish they had said. It's still biased, but much as the New Living Translation tried to distort the text far less than its predecessor had, so does the TNIV . . . er, I mean the updated NIV, which is totally not just the TNIV with a few tweaks and a rebranding.
@@MAMoreno That's good to hear. It's a step in the right direction.
Fun fact: the NRSV ( at least the original version) is the only translation of the Bible that is declared to be unfit for personal study, devotion or liturgical worship in the Orthodox Church of America because of just how bad the NRSV as a translation is.
Not a huge fan of the NRSV either.
LSB is my favorite translation, but I get that not everyone likes the use of Yahweh.
I will stay with the name Jesus God also said in John chapter 14 verse 6 , Philippians chapter 2 verse 9
❤ Jesus is Lord ❤
Get ready because you know the LSB defenders will be coming for you. But I agree that the NASB 95 is good enough and didn’t need any updates. Good video but know they are coming. 😂😂
I know! Ha ha. To be clear, I said it was good, just not for me.
I totally agree about the 2011 NIV. I don't care for the direction it seems to be heading in. I do like the 1984 NIV.
I will not use the Passion translation in any form.
Overall I agree with this review z!
I agree on not translating the Divine name to Yahweh or Jehovah. It’s better to be safe than sorry.
As far as legitimate translations go, my least favorites are:
NRSVue
NASB 2020
NIV 2011
MEV
KJV
ASV made the list 😢
Thanks brother for the video! I agree with you with the LSB. I think that the way they handle the divine name is too much, especially for new believers or for doing evangelism. Some people may think that we are cultish. Also, the word slave. I think that it is not necessary. HOWEVER, I believe that including the LSB in that list was a little “harsh” :) but again I respect your views and I honestly love your channel and your work. It has been a blessing to me. God bless you!
Thanks. I’m sure you could tell, I could have stopped at two. Ha ha.
3:00 - Your explanation seems inconsistent to me. If someone were to come along a publish a Bible that "out of respect" removes "Jesus" (replacing it with "Lord") would you instead advocate on behalf of the Name Jesus?
If the Tetragrammaton is the actual Name of the Godhead (the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit), how is obscuring it a sign of respect. Afterall, it was God Himself who revealed it to man, and inspired it to be documented for generations to come.
I would agree if it was known how to say it.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Ah, you don't seem too bothered by it.
Do you deny that "YHWH" (in Hebrew letters) is in the Bible? According to a quick Google search, it's in the Bible 6,828 times.
You would know better than me, are any other personal names in the Bible that many times?
You don't know the vowels (though, for all you do know the ones inserted thoughtfully by scholars could actually, and/or coincidentally be the correct vowels), but you could read His Divine Name as "Yodh He Waw He" if it mattered to you.
It doesn't matter to you...
God made it a point to put it in His Holy Bible 6,828 times, but it doesn't matter to you...
@@crumbsforthelittledogs2416 Take your nasty, disrespectful nonsense elsewhere. YOU don't know how to pronounce it either. I bet you're one of those name cultists, right? The ones who think they, alone, know "God's true name." Be gone with your filth.
Removing the Divine Name from His own Holy Bible is not respectful. Imagine removing the Precious Name of Jesus. Our hair would catch on fire!
As far as how the Divine Name is rendered, that's something I have trouble understanding. I don't know enough about linguistics, and why someone's name would be pronounced differently from one language to another.
But, I also do refer to God's Son as "Jesus", and not "Yeshua". So, I do pronounce the Divine Name "Jehovah", and not "Yahweh", because both are the westernized vs the ancient Hebrew.
It was never removed. We just don’t know how to say it.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews But we do know the Tetragrammaton (the 4 letters that spell out the Divine Name) is present, and that it is God's Holy Name.
Pronouncing it Yahweh is appropriate. Afterall, no one pronounced the Son's name "Jesus" (GEE-zus) in his own language. But you pronounce it that way without any concern that you're getting it wrong.
Why the inconsistency?
Your honorable mention given to the NIV was neither necessary or accurate. Bruh… I’ll keep reading the NIV v2011.
OK. We don’t both have to like it for you to enjoy it
It’s not that big of a deal brother, I like the LSB a lot it’s one of my favorites and Tim put it on his list.
Tim have you heard of Virginia Molenkott. She was a consultant for the NIV84. She removed the word sodomites from the NIV84.
The Passion “translation” is not a translation but an “interpretation.”
I said that.
I agree that YHWH should be LORD
I find it strange that you don't like the NIV 2011 due to gender neutral language but you like the NLT. The NIV 2011 is way more accurate and suitable for exegesis. I disagree with you on the ASV. The handling of the divine name is the least of its worries. It is so lazily formally equivalent that it makes the NASB look like the NIV. I don't know why you would even mention paraphrases when they aren't translations. The Living Bible's problems go far beyond the fact that it's a paraphrase. The NRSVue is one of the most accurate translations. It is the best for trying to get to the true meaning of what the author intended without the evangelical theological bias. That being said, it is impossible for a translation to not have theological bias.
The Passion calls itself a translation. The others, it’s often important to make sure people realize they are not. Appreciate the comment!
I'm definitely not a fan of the NRSV/ NIV.
I still like the NIV, hence why it was only an honorable mention.
"We certainly know it's not Jehovah". Yeah, okay.
And I am right. Yeah. Okay.
Sure you are..
Well, l dont like some of the translations you recommend, yet l love the Passion translation/paraphrase and so does a pastor l know and respect. l also respect Brian Simmons and what Jesus asked him to do. l have 35 years of reading the KJV bible.
I did a separate video on the Passion Translation. It is wild.
Your friendly neighborhood 12er Shi'ite Muslim here. I like your videos and I have read the Bible daily for decades.
I agree with you on the NRSVue and I never was a fan of paraphrases.
On the matter of not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton, that was something developed by Rabbinical Talmudic Jews.
Karaite Jews, who do not believe the Talmud is binding at all, believe the Tetragrammaton ought to be pronounced. There might not even be 50,000 Karaite Jews left in the world. However, just prior to the First Crusade, Rabbinical Jews say 40% of all Jews were Karaite. Karaites claim a full 50% of Jews at that time. What happened?
In the First Crusade, Jerusalem was captured. The Muslims and the Jews were massacred in a bloodbath. The Muslim governor of Jerusalem had sent the Orthodox Christians away for fear they would support the Crusaders. Although there were small communities of Karaites in Egypt and Constantinople, the vast majority lived in Jerusalem.
I certainly would not go out of my way to offend Rabbinical Jews, but I don't personally have a problem with using the Tetragrammaton instead of LORD. Karaite Jews boldly use it.
My favorite modern bible translations have always been the NKJV and the NASB 77, though I use the ESV and the RSVCE and RSV2CE. Of course, I love the KJV, and the Coverdale Psalter.
Since none of my favorite translations normally use the Tetragrammaton, its not a big deal to me either way. I personally believe God wanted the ancient Israelites to call Him by those 4 letters.Since the Name is holy, I can understand why they decided to protect the name. I did not use the Divine Name in this comment because I did not want to offend any Jews who might be watching your video. God bless you and yours!
Thanks for the comment. I’d be interested in knowing how the divine name is said by the Karaites. I’ll have to look it up!
Wow, a bible reviewer who doesn't like the lsb is honestly a shocker...needless to say I agree with you on it just being a waste of time (and arrogance)
I wouldn’t take it that far, but it’s not among my favorites.
Every one after 1611. They're all based on alternate manuscripts with verses missing and alternate thought.
So you read from the 1611 AV and that alone? Right?
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Nope. I also read from Tynedale, Coverdale, Matthews Geneva
How do you feel about the NKJV, since it uses the same manuscript basis as the KJV.
The Passion translation is a joke. The guy who "translated" it is a con artist trying to make a quick buck.
My top five least fav: LSB, NASB, HCSB, NKJV, and MSG
That NKJV inclusion hurt my soul…
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I read an extensive analysis of the NKJV by an English and linguistics professor years ago, and she said it’s a Frankenstein English that doesn’t exist outside the NKJV because it attempts to merge old and modern English
@@Travis-lk1fh But that's what makes it stand out in the crowd. ;)
Seriously though, I wasn't excited about reading the NKJV, but when I finally dug into it, I found myself really appreciating it, even with it's occasionally quirky wording.
I strongly disliked the LSB. Got rid of the one I had.
I don’t mind it for comparison, but I prefer the 1995.
Glad I wasn’t the only one. I used the app for a while and just didn’t like it much
I gotta disagree completely about the NRSVue for several reasons:
1)It takes advantage of roughly 30 years of scholarship, to include new manuscript evidence, since the NRSV.
2) Some of the gender neutral language changes that you and others seem to object to better reflect how the use of English has changed in recent decades and in fact better reflect the original languages.
3) The changes in translation of passages traditionally understood to condemn homosexuality better reflect the sociohistorical context and in fact actually seem to broaden the condemnation of sexual immorality in general.
All these are important because as you pointed out yourself, one should not allow one's theology or interpretation of the text dictate it's translation.
One should not also say a meaning is unclear when it has been clear for hundreds and hundreds of years.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews That is a really bad argument; there are plenty of things that were supposedly clear for centuries that new knowledge and thinking came along and changed. Women not being allowed to vote or own property. Geocentricism. Slavery. Shall I continue?
Faith rests on a tripod of Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Anything that fails any one of those tests must be discarded. Reason includes textual criticism and scholarship.
@@byrondickens I’ve made a video on the NRSVue you should check it out.
@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I have. I appreciate that you were evenhanded and thoughtful in the criticisms you had and still willing to find value in it rather than bring out the lighter fluid. I still disagree on several points.
For example, the word "almah" is mistranslated as "virgin" in the Septuagint. The Oxford Bible Commentary clearly states that it means simply "young woman." The JPS Tanakah translates "almah" this way as well, as does The Complete Jewish Bible.
Also, a broadly ecumenical translation committee to include theologicaly liberal, conservative as well as Jewish and secular members kinda rules out the translation being infected with a certain theological bias.
Give the Revised ASV and the Updated ASV a read. They are attempts to make the ASV more modern and user friendly. They are single person works but not horrible.
I completely disagree with you on the NRSV and NRSVue. I have been using the NRSV for over 30 years and see the update as a good thing.
OK. Fair enough. We certainly disagree.