I read all translations since I teach at my church. In case some member has a argument about a translation I can help explain the reason why. My favorite are - NASB77&95 - HCSB - NLT
This is by far the best ‘response’ video I have ever seen. You respected the other person and their opinions and didn’t go on to crush them and and say my opinion is better. You added value to the translations interview with Dan Wallace and I pray God would bless you for that. I grew up on NIV then went on to NKJV. I am using the verse-less ESV Reade’s bible now. I also have the Complete Jewish Bible that helps me understand more of the Jewish traditions behind the stories. I have come to prefer the Jewish book order which ends with 2 Chronicles in the Old Testament to the Christian order that ends with Malachi. The narrative flows more naturally especially if you are reading it through nonstop.
He's 100% right, in my opinion, about language translation and accuracy. I'm American but grew up in the Philippines (my parents actually did translation work for New Tribes Mission which is very similar to Wyclif) and am married to a Korean and have lived in Korea, so translating between language has regularly been a part of my life. There simply is too high a difference between languages to equate word for word translation with accuracy. That doesn't mean more word for word meanings aren't USEFUL or you shouldn't prefer them but does mean they aren't more ACCURATE. Although I personally find the use of italics very helpful, I don't think that the NIV or NLT are showing less respect for the plenary language. Again, some translations may be more or less useful for some readers, but I'd argue that the any translator who has devoted their life to learning the original language and wrestled with the best way to help readers understand these words in their language has given equal respect and any reader who devotes their time to studying God's word is showing equal respect regardless of translation used. Personally, some translations do seem to offer less respect for the original inspired words (ie. Passion Translation) and I'd like to avoid these translations altogether. My standard on this is I want 100% respect for the original language from any translation I read, and I think KJV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, NASB, CSB, and ESV (among others) all offer this. Just my take- as always, I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful consideration of other's points of view as you offer a "Frisch Perspective!"
I have been a Bible reading Christian for about 40 years now. I have enjoyed the excitement of many biblical translations. The Christian Standard Bible translation with the Spurgeon Study Bible included is now my preference. This broadcast has not caused me to rethink my preference, but to constantly reassess my preference as I study. Thank you.
I started using a CSB bible after listening to you, and i really found as u had implied in another video of yours it strikes a good balance between liberality and readability, I’m loving it. I used to use NLT as a companion but now i use CSB Also thanks to you, I have a new found love for nkjv, I’ve been using ESV and kjv up until now Anyways God bless! And thank you 😊
The NASB had been my favorite since 1975. I started with the KJV and still use it with the Strong’s. I have read the NIV and the ESV, but the NASB is the one I like the best. I watched the video you were discussing and I learned a lot. I appreciated your perspective. Good job.
NASB95 is the greatest English translation in my opinion. Been using it for 11 years and haven’t really used any other. When I do use another translation, I always go right back to the NASB. It’s blessed me tremendously. But again, that’s just my opinion. But I think looking into all translations is a good idea. You tend to lean towards one over the others.
Agreed. I just picked up the 2020 and am enjoying it so far. The gender stuff is much milder than I thought. 2020 has got some textual changes which I like a lot that the 95 doesn't.
I greatly appreciate Dr. Wallace’s opinion. So with that in mind , my favorite and meaningful to my Christian growth is the NKJV , the KJV, the NASB, the ESV and for a dynamic translation I appreciate and use the HCSB/ CSB translation .
I listened to Dr. Wallace’s interview a few days ago before your response popped up on my feed (way to go RUclips algorithm). The discussion was very enlightening, although very meandering. I appreciate your concise summary of his take and preferences, and understand where you’re coming from about respecting the original text (as best as we can identify that) as the inspired Word of God. That’s why I like to see supplied words in italics, although I understand they’re necessary for mapping the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek into modern English (which wasn’t even a language yet when the Bible was written a couple thousand or more years ago).
I used to always want a very literal translation of the Bible, until I started learning Spanish at school. The teacher would give us stories and things in Spanish and get us to translate them into English. Now, I started finally seeing that, there was a lot of times when I couldn't translate the Spanish literal at all, even sometimes I would have to change the word entirely just to get it to make sense. So, I now have a respect and even sometimes even prefer something like the CSB and the NIV over something literal like the NASB.
I’m bilingual (English-Spanish) & I can certainly tell you that phrases & sentences don’t usually translate word for word, & rarely do they translate in the same word order. Further, there are words in Spanish that sound like similar words in English but have entirely different meanings.
This is the kind of thing that a person only picks up when it learns another language, my native language is Brazilian Portuguese and while learning English I've found all sorts of jokes and idioms that only make sense in the language they were created, it's so interesting to see the different nuances of each language, like in Portuguese the verb "to be" is sort of split into two verbs, while the verbs lose and miss(like in the sentence "I missed the bus") they both are expressed by one verb in Portuguese, also some words don't have the same "weight"(if that makes any sense) that they have in their native language when they're translated.
I am not a Greek scholar, but I do read the Greek New Testament along with several different English Translations. I use what I term as a scale working from literal to paraphrase. Being NASB to ESV to NET to NLT. I use N/A 27 (N/A 25 - 28, too. I collect old N/A editions), UBS 4, and a majority text. Sometimes I use translations such as Philips and Moffett. I find some of J. P. Green's specific verse translations profitable. I too saw a lot of the issues with the NASB that the Legacy Standard Bible group saw, but I also understand from where Dan Wallace is coming. The Legacy Standard Bible is good for seasoned Christians, but not for new Christians. I believe (my opinion) the NIV 1984 is one of the best for someone who is a new Christian. Not only will it introduce doctrinal words, but it will give them an accurate picture of the Bible. NET Bible is very good too.
Both NIV and NET are great for English Second Language readers, or for foreign cultures. I have NET on my Bibles in Android and Linux apps such as AndBible, Xiphos and BibleTime
Thank you Dr. Tim (joking) The Dr. Wallace video popped up in my suggested videos yesterday but have not had a chance to take a look at it yet. As always appreciate your well balanced response and how you don't try to steer us (your viewers) in any one direction bu you do make us think.
As a Bible teacher, I have used all of the translations that Dr. Wallace mentioned, as well as the Amplified translation. I was surprised that no one mentioned the AMP.
Dr. Wallace has and is a wealth of information in the topic of textual criticism, and I greatly respect his more than educated opinion on the topic at hand. Having said that his bias for the NET still shows through. The NIV, NET, ESV, KJV, along with several others are nothing less than a blessing for the English speaking world. At the end of the day it is the same as has been said many times before, the best version for you is the one you will continue to read and grow closer to Christ in.
One simple good reason to have several translations available is that, if you're reading the Bible as much as you probably should (ok, hardly anyone does, but still . . .) you'll get bored because eventually you just know exactly what it's going to say next. It's so refreshing to spend time reading a translation that surprises you by saying the same thing with different words, and that in turn often makes you consider whether your understanding was accurate or not. I've been really enjoying the NET Bible recently.
I love the Notes in the NET for its explanations of the translators. I don't believe there is a "literal" translation but I suppose you and I may define "literal" in different ways. Bill Mounce makes cogent arguments for the impossibility of a "literal" translation. There are many examples of Greek and Hebrew idioms that just do not translate word-for-word. I'm a DTS alum so also strongly agree with verbal plenary inspiration. (I also have a deep love for the KJV's sheer beautiful renderings of so many verses.) I personally read the NIV but study using Logos Bible Software to access the original languages with a number of translations open on the side. I appreciate your videos and watch you on a fairly regular basis. Keep it up, my brother.
I agree with both you and Dr. Wallace. I think one should use many translations to get as best they can to the truth of scripture. We are blessed that we have so many to choose from.
Hey great video! I really 💯 with the way you see things. I agree with you in a lot of ways. Thanks for posting these videos as I plan to watch probably all of them. God bless and thank you
I have been teaching Hebrew and Greek for decades. Agree very much with your sentiments. Theology plays a big role in translation. So do the ego’s of scholars. Based on accuracy and some other factors, the best translations out there are the NKJV, the ESV and the NASB.
Dr. Wallace is still determined to make the NET a major translation, but I don't ever see it happening. The notes are good, but the text itself is pretty unremarkable. I agree that the ESV and NRSV are solid "essentially literal" translations. I'd favor the CSB for a mediating translation and the REB (which unfortunately doesn't get much love in the States) for a dynamic translation.
Please do a review of the MEV (Modern English Version) , the TLV (Tree of Life Version) and the LSV (Literal Standard Version) Thank you very much sir.
Very nicely explained. I don't completely agree with you but I really appreciate your style of speaking and the way you explain yourself very clearly and calmly, and why you favor the KJV for example and things that you brought up.
Yay for the HCSB! I wish it had continued to be published. It's not my favorite translation, but it is quite good with some unique and valuable features.
I READ MY HINDI N URDU BIBLE AND IN ENGLISH I UNDERSTAND NIV BETTER THAN. KJV N ENLISH KJV NOT GIVE ME AS MY ENGLISH NOT VERY HIGH LITERATURE BUT NIV EASY TO UNDERDTAND LIKE BOOK OF DANIEL CHEPTER NINE VERSE NINE IN ENGLISH N URDU READS NOT STEMP IN MY HEART THAT STRONG BUT IN HINDI IS SO POWERFULLY MEANING FULLY STEMP IN SOUL OF MY HEART THE MEANING GIVE ME WHEN I READ IN HINDI I JUST BOW DOWN N WORSHIP MY LORD I CRY TO WORSHIP MY LORD ALLOHEEM LORD YAHOWAH FATHER SON GOD HOLLYSPIRIT AMEN AMEN TO MY LORD SO NIV ENGLISH GIVE ME UNDERSTANDING REALLY IT IS HOW GOOD LANGUAGE U KNOW THAN U UNDERSTAND. GOD BLESS U SIR FROM HOUSTON TX
Thank you for your video in response to Dr Wallace. I had previously seen Dr Wallace’s video with Mike Licona and found it very interesting. My favourite translation is the NKJV. To me it retains the beauty of the KJV but in a more accessible form. Plus, it capitalises pronouns for Deity which I love as a mark of reverence. I’m not surprised that Dr Wallace would commend the NET bible as he served as senior New Testament editor for the NET Bible. However, I also like the NET bible very much in terms of accuracy and readability.
All of us have leanings and preferences when it comes to Bible versions. Some would not touch 'Critical" manuscripts based, some don't like TR texts. Some wouldn't go near translations that is "Reformed" influence, others would go for "Dispensation" view of versions. That is why there are so many translations out there. I have KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV (been using that for years), NKJV, GNT, and even The Living, and The Message (which I kept in bookself most of the time). I use each one once a year as daily reading, but for serious study I use ESV, NASB, and for comparison NIV. I came to faith through reading GNT 35 or so years ago. Thanks for the video.
On the mission field, the GNT and the NIV are good for English Bible study classes. But the HCSB has a higher level of English vocabulary, so if used, I have their first/main language translation to refer to with their first language, and then easy to read English for their second language learning. It is not a problem, because western languages are better for precise meaning, and the Asian languages are best overall for their first language understanding. That is why they like a western language as well as their first language. Of course, if someone can explain the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, that is welcome too. Most native pastors in our area can do that somewhat. But sometimes there is no native pastor around.
My every day is the ESV. I also use the LSB, NET and NKJV. I have others as well and when I'm curious about something, or stuck, I open up LOGOS and check the Lemmas to get the meanings.
I am beginning to think people have become idiots OR people who talk about translations think we have become idiots. There is a constant emphasis on readability and updating the language which in itself is not a bad thing, but not one single major translation made since the 20th century is difficult to understand. With just a bit of time spent familiarizing oneself with the older language even the KJV become easily understandable. We keep saying “make it more understandable to the modern English speaker” when in fact anyone with a basic education can easily understand the ESV, NASB, CSB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, ….on and on. We do not need language updates every 10 years, we don’t even need them every 25 years. Honestly if we are really just making sure the text is understandable to the reader (and not just supporting updates to regenerate income streams) we could probably do just fine with updates every 50 years. Often these “updates” are just further dumbing down the Bible (or liberalizing it). We are not stupid and we don’t need a children’s Bible to understand the Gospel or the Scriptures. Let’s make sure the emphasis is on accurately translating the text as even your examples in the video are clear in their meaning by just looking at the context.
Wallace is spot-on. I think a person needs to have one translation that they always read, to be able to memorize scripture. And they should have many good translations that they study. The translation I have memorized for 45 years is the NIV (1984), but I prefer the NET as a study bible. I also use ESV, KJV, NASB, NRSV, HCSB and of course the Greek NT. Sometimes for devotional reading I use the NLT, which is not a good translation for study, but is great for reading. I have about 30 other English translations, but these are the ones I use the most. I disagree that the NKJV is a good bible - it ignores the best texts and for some reason uses a text that was what Erasmas had 5 centuries ago. If you want a bible in the tradition of KJV, I think the ESV is your best bet. I also think you should rethink your view of verbal plenary inspiration. We have 400K or more transmission errors, so we don’t know the original wording, even though we have the original meaning. And the biblical authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, felt comfortable modifying the words of Jesus as they translated them from Aramaic to Greek, getting the gist of his words but not always the exact text (which is impossible anyway, when translating from one language to another). So we know what Jesus said, but not the exact wording of it (except for “ephphatha” and “talitha koum”). Even what Jesus cried out on the cross is rendered differently by 2 gospels. We don't get the exact wording, but it is clear what he said, paraphrasing Psalm 22:1. Thanks for helping people learn about the bible!
I do agree with Dr. Wallace the most. (I respect your opinions, too.) I use multiple versions in difficult areas of the Bible. I love the NET the best, so far. I'm renewing my love of the NIV somewhat, but the best resources in my view are the KJV and NKJV. Use the translations that speak to you. What works great is the Thompson Chain Bible with Strong's Concordance numbering system of the original languages. If that fails, take Hebrew and Greek classes then, and I'm too busy or lazy to do that. I do have interlinear Bibles with the Hebrew and Greek alongside, and then use a Hebrew and Greek set of dictionaries. Learning the alphabets of those languages is easy. That's all you need to know to use the dictionaries.
NLT: "And evening passed and morning came, marking the XXXX day." That is not a translation, that is John Sailhamer adding "marking" to take out the 24 hour period he believed was false.
I’ve considered parallel bibles and did have a NLT parallel bible which had study notes from LASB and NLT study bibles. I do have a KJV/NKJV parallel bible.
NASB 1977? How about the 1995? When you start designating which copy right of the NASB you prefer are you saying one is better than the other? I think (and I might be wrong) there are more changes between the NASB 77 to the 95 version than the Bishops Bible to the KJV.
Thank you for this video.I heard you announce in another video that you plan to have Pastor Mark Ward,I'm looking forward to this video because I remember you recommending Pastor Mark's book on the Authorized Version.
I have an NIV, KJV, NKJV and two NASBs one a Thompson Chain Reference that I love to study. I do like NASB because it is word for word. I would like to get the NET to see the notes of the scholars. Great video. 👍
Thanks again. I always appreciate your thoughts on bible translations. You mentioned the use of italics. That brought to mind a related topic. It's useful to me to know when translators supplied a word for greater comprehension. In like manner, I find it helpful when translators capitalize pronouns for deity.
Have you ever considered reviewing the MEV? It is a very interesting translation. To me, it reads more like the CSB, but is TR based. Even though it is exceptionally readable and modern, most Bible translation charts I’ve seen have it ranked as more word for word than the KJV and NKJV.
It has seemed to me that the publishers of the MEV have given up on it. I am not even sure if it will continue to be printed after the current stock runs out. But yeah, it's kind of interesting.
I appreciate Wallace's arguments for favoring a functional equivalance approach as being more "accurate." There is, however, at least one factor that Wallace's orientation misses--namely, that a formal equivalence ("literal," or "word for word") translation affords a greater opportunity for a reader to engage in the linguistic and thought world of the original languages and to feel the foreignness of that world. One good example is the phrase "turned his heel against me" in the psalm that you cite in this video. A mature reader will understand that this is some sort of idiom or poetic language, and he will likely be confused by it--but he will be struck by the foreignness of it and, perhaps in consultation with other more dynamic translations, he will wrestle through this confusion to understand both the idiomatic meaning of the phrase and the foreign imagery behind it.
First, I believe 'heart language' in the area of Bible translation refers to one's mother tongue or indigenous ethnic language, as opposed to an official language or lingua franca. Second, thanks for the insight about comparison to the KJV. It's true that later English translations will have to take some reference from the KJV - but I would say this should only be secondary. Primary reference should be to the original languages. Subsequently, translation goals will determine to what extent resemblance to the KJV is desirable. We who grew up with the KJV should not impose expectations on many throughout the world who do not share this particular linguistic heritage.
My favorite translations are NASB95, ESV, and now the amazing LSB but I absolutely love the King James and New King James. When I am digging in to really attempt to understand a verse I use them all. One thing that does bother me is that they rely too much on the masoretic text for the Old Testament. That is one thing I want people to pay attention to. When the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint both agree with each other and disagree with the masoretic text (completed hundreds of years after Jesus) then the DSS and LXX are probably the correct reading. The ESV actually does go with the DSS and LXX over the masoretic text where they agree in many important places. I’ve really been coming to appreciate how great the ESV translation is.
Hello Like your youtube content very much. I wonder if you could review the MEV: it’s a great new KJV update and is is faithful to the TR. I think it reads as well as the NKJV with slightly more updated language. Thanks Neil
Interestingly, I agree with both Wallace and Frisch! :) I didn't grow up with the KJV tradition. I grew up in a non-Christian home, quite secular in many respects, and the Lord didn't save me until I was in my 20s. The first English translation I read in its entirety was the NIV. Today I'm a conservative evangelical and Reformed/Calvinist. However, as someone who appreciates good literary qualities, I have a tremendous respect for the KJV and translations in line with the KJV tradition (e.g. NKJV, ESV). It's true there's a certain kind of elegance and beauty in their words that I have never seen in any other modern English translation. The NEB/REB come closest to my ears, which might not be a surprise since I believe CS Lewis, TS Eliot, and JRR Tolkien were among those consulted on the original NEB (I think?), but the NEB/REB is too theologically liberal for me. The Jewish scholar Robert Alter's translation of the OT (the Tanakh) also has a kind of literary quality, and his translation is worth reading, but it's still not on par with the KJV, which Alter himself highly respects despite being a secular Jew. My main English translation is the ESV, followed very closely by the CSB which may someday replace the ESV as my primary translation. I really love the CSB! Men like Iain Duguid (OT biblical scholar at Westminster Theological Seminary) and Tom Schreiner (NT biblical scholar at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) both serve(d) on the CSB committee; they're both godly accomplished scholars whose opinions I trust and they both use the CSB in their own personal lives as their own main English translation and recommend its use to others as well. I wish I knew the biblical languages, but I haven't had the time to learn biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek. Short of learning the biblical languages, here's how I try to study the BIble: 1. Know my preferred English translation inside out. Be saturated in the word of the Lord. Master the word and more importantly be mastered by the word! 2. Compare multiple English translations. Such as via using a free online resource like BibleGateway or Parallel Plus. This alone helps so much in my biblical comprehension! 3. Read the NET Bible's excellent footnotes which are a window into how translators work. 4. Download the free version of Logos Bible Software. Use Logos' free biblical study tools like its Text Comparison, the Lexham Bible Dictionary, and the Bible Word Study Guide. These tools are truly amazing. They won't get me as far as, say, using gold standard biblical lexicons like BDAG or HALOT, but they get me much much much farther than I could on my own. 5. Consult good commentaries on the Bible (e.g. the Bible Speaks Today, the Pillar NT Commentary series). 6. Read How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Doug Stuart. I don't agree with everything in this book, but it's a solid introduction to how to read and study the Bible. 7. Read Exegetical Fallacies by Don Carson. It helps one avoid logical pitfalls and pursue intellectual excellence in reading and studying the Bible. Just my two cents' worth, which is all it's worth! :)
@@soardfuzr4209 It wrongly changes the word FORNICATION in Matthew 5:32, and 19:9 to "sexual immorality" thus completely changing the meaning and context of the verses and as a result gives people a FALSE "reason" to divorce. I'll stick with the CORRECT English translation in the King James. Thanks
What do you think about the Amer. Standard Bible? I saw a chart that Mike Winger showed on one of his video's and it had the ASB as the most literal translation. I went through your channel and couldn't find anything on it.
Thanks for watching! I don't talk much about the ASV because it is essentially not in use today. I prefer translations that are more literal but also are well-written in English. The ASV is awkward English (even the NASB can be at times, in my opinion), plus the ASV is outdated English. So it is interesting from a historical perspective but not a translation that I really think fits a highly needed purpose today.
i read the NIV 1984 version. i use that and the NKJV for studying. it's my understanding that there's a lot of changes in the 2011 NIV version that makes it not an accurate translation.
I use a free app on my computer so the translations I use (cause I'm cheap) are ESV for general reading and memorization and quoting, then NET and AMP for their notes and comments which help expand the meaning in the text. Then I check NLT, CSB, NIV, to see how they read in casual language. My NET (in the app) has Strong's references so I can quickly see original words and definitions, plus references, Nave's, and commentaries. I don't use everything all the time, but I expand out as needed until I really get what's going on. Generally speaking if I only had two it would be ESV for the more literal and NIV or CSB for the more casual. I'm using CSB for devotions with my kids. I find NLT takes things too far, and NIV reads really smooth to me.
My “side by side translations are the KJV and ESV. I might switch up next year (I do want to read the NIV and NKJV cover to cover...I read portions of both but not cover to cover.)
There are 4 formal, word for word translations of the original texts. AKA Formal equivalency translations: The KJV, NKJV, NAS, and ESV. All others are "dynamic equivalency translations. There is a whole book written on this called "the Word of God in English" by Ryken.
Any time I engage in a serious Bible study, I cross check the NKJV with the ESV and NET, and sometimes the KJV. If more than one copy is good because then we can weed out the errors (as Mr. Wallace is wont to argue), then more than one translation is good for the same reason. If you’re coming from the other side and you think everything must be inspired by God or it’s corrupt then I would stand on the biblical principle of “iron sharpens iron”
I was waiting for you to give your suggestions in each of the categories that Dr. Wallace used; so here is your chance. What is your ONE favorite in each of the following categories: For Study. For Readability. For beauty/elegance. For rich wording. For ecumenical reading and cross-checking scholarly opinion.
Hey Tim, I appreciate this. I find myself struggling more and more from the early years where we sat under Dr. Peper and it was KJVO, and from my fundamentalist High School. I still struggle with being afraid of reading the “wrong version” after all these years. I appreciate your videos but wondering if you have any suggestions for combatting that fear? It keeps me out of Bible Study sometimes out of fear of getting the wrong information.
I know what you mean. It would take me months of time just trying to figure out what Bible translation to get. Then I asked God to please pick it out for me. He did it in an amazing way. He reminded me to follow Him and listen for the Holy Spirit. There is no "wrong" translation. Now I have several different Bible/translations. All for different seasons of my life. Once I finish with one, I ask him to lead me to what is next. Sometimes it is back to an older translation, sometimes to a newer one. You are @onajourney. Praying for you.
For me, I would say that the best bible for reading is the NLT and my favorite translation for church service and study is the ESV and probably my least favorite is the KJV. To me, there is no greater putoff than reading a book that you just cannot understand without careful concentration. And honestly I can use the NRSV, the ESV, NASB, or the NKJV for a church bible and I am good with that too. A close second to the NLT is the the 2011 NIV. Why I dislike the KJV: I started off reading the King James, but it was so hard to read and for a young person, that bible is basically impossible to understand so I never read it. I carried that bible to church with me for years as a kid with my parents, but I never read it. As a teen, I basically stopped caring about the translation and bought an NIV and I haven't read the KJV since. Why I like the NLT: In college, I didn't go to "Church", but we had college bible study groups and we used the NLT that we sold in the college bookstore. I loved the readability of the NLT and I wore it out. Actually, the first time that I read the bible cover-to-cover was in the NLT and I still read my NLT when I want to just read the text because it flows so smoothly. My NLT is a life application red letter in single column formatting. It is fake leather and it is so worn that I would replace it if I didn't have so many notes and highlights in it. It is the most read book that I have in my house, and when I bring it to my home bible study classes, everyone knows that bible has been read a bunch and they usually ask about it. Why I like the ESV: Over the years, I have had several pastors and they have preached out of the NKJV, the NIV, the NRSV, and NASB and I ended up buying all of them except the NRSV, which my current pastor has switched to after using the NIV. I was going to buy a NRSV, but they didn't have one at Half priced books and I am tired of buying a new bible because my preacher decided to change texts, so I instead got the ESV for $8 and I love it. I have been very impressed by the fact that whatever service, denomination, or text, the ESV is close enough so I can follow along and I can have one bible for all. I also use it for my bible study and it just works. What I find more important than the translation now is the other things that make up a bible. The format is very important to me. I like a two-column bible with red letter that is thin and large print with the references in the center that is leather bound. I also like an awesome concordance and beautiful maps. My ESV has a subpar set of maps and concordance compared to my much more expensive NASB, but my NASB is single column. I also don't like branding on the spine of the bible. I like my bible to have as little branding as possible. I have yet to find exactly what I want yet, but I am looking, and I am going to hold out until I find it.
The Gideons have an edition of the ESV where they got permission from the publishers of the ESV to add back all the verses that were omitted in the original ESV. They put them in hotels and doctor's offices. I have seen several myself. So there is a hybrid edition just for the use by the Gideons.
Having been a seminary student and having done a lot of syntax and exegesis, I find KJV pretty close to the original. I agree it is nearly impossible to translate literally. A lot of times it is common sense translation because of absence equal idioms and difference of culture etc. However KJV can be demanding because the semantics of words change over time. It is a good idea to have a bible of every version so that some paraphrasing helps understand the intent of the author better, but some word study etymology helps us better grasp the deeper meaning of the words
7:50 the reason for the difference of perspective on what denotes a town, village or city is because the Jews did not go by population but by how close houses were built together. If the buildings were clustered like terraces sharing common walls these became cities according to the Mishna (I'm pretty sure it's the Mishna but might be one of the Talmuds)...
I simply must have a more readable and less literal word for word translation when reading anything Paul penned. I love and own ESV and NASB and KJV and NKJV Bibles, but a NIV or CSB are great for getting the flow and common understanding of Paul's writting. His super long sentences and deep meanings can get difficult to follow some times. Of course, a good study bible (ESV) will help to break down the meanings of verses, but sometimes I just want to read the scripture and not have to look down and read the notes.
It’s funny...you’re videos keep popping up on my feed literally like right after I’ve seen the video/news story you’re referring to. Think we’re running on the same track. :) Appreciate the video. Ever done one on the NET? I’ve got a first edition and just ordered a full notes edition...would love to know the differences/your thoughts.
I am late to this party! I appreciate "literal" translations to an extent, but actually don't use them much. When I do, it tends to be the ESV or NRSV. The reason my main translation is the NIV is as Dr Wallace says, there really isn't such a thing as "literal translation". When people say that they often also say that these translations help someone see the "form" of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts - but if we don't speak the language is that actually useful? An interlinear would surely be better if that's what someone is looking for? There are two people in my Church who have backgrounds in translation (both with Masters degrees in other languages and translation studies). They have really helped me think through Bible translations before I settled on the NIV. They looked at Bible translations, one uses the NLT. The other, who I know better, explained that he thinks the NIV is the best method of translation, as its translation philosophy is true to "best practice" in translation. He's actually highly dismissive of anything more "literal" than the NRSV, or "dynamic" than the NLT. One thing I picked up on was the KJV as the "standard" - but it was also in a line of translations. Surely the standard should be faithfulness to the original languages, not our love for a particular translation tradition. The other thing is looking at why certain translations were done, and whether there is a need for any more new English translations (by that I mean new, not revising existing ones - it is of course important to update as we learn more about the languages and new discoveries). I personally don't see the need for things like the CSB which is in reality following the same lines as the NIV, the ESV which is just another RSV revision that is so similar to the NRSV - aside from some obvious theological slants. But as you mentioned, so many other languages don't even have one translation. I wish these companies would pour their resources into those languages - but I suspect the fact that there is profit to be made does come into it.
There's a terrible *_"rendering"_* problem in the *_"NET"_* translation, in the book of *_"Romans"_* it renders *_"it"_* referring to the *_"Holy Spirit"_* instead of *_"he"_* as correctly must be, also in *_"1Corinthians 15:2"_* renders _"being saved"*_ instead of *_"are saved"_* as also correctly must be, so cause all these, I prefer to avoid this and other translations which make the same mistakes.
Vet the credentials of Dr. Baruch Korman, and see exactly how close (expository) "word for word", he can get one. IMHO, he is the next best thing to being able to read Paleo Hebrew.
I think that we have too much knowledge, and think that we know more than God, but as God said "My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts are higher than your thoughts" We need to put our own attributes aside and pay more attention to God. He did say that not one jot or one title shall pass from my word, heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away.
I often prefer the ISV which is a hybrid between word for word and concept for concept. They didn't really talk about it probably because it's very new.
I'm a little iffy about when you start interpreting idioms rather than translating them. Scholarly research often brings light to the meaning of such idioms which adds richness to our understanding of the passage in which they are used. All that is lost when such passages are interpreted rather than translated. And interpretations are often flat out wrong.
WHY THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS SO BELOVED BY FUNDAMENTALISTS THOUGH IT'S SO INACCURATE Neo Evangelicals (what we used to call Fundamentalists) keep insisting there is such a thing as "The Bible," which they call "The Word of God." They would have everyone believe it was dictated by God to men who simply wrote down God's words, flawlessly. They also say every single word in what they present to their converts as a single volume book, written 411 years ago in what-is-now-antiquated-and-very-difficult-for-most-people-to-understand English, was divinely inspired. If they could, they'd leave it right there, and because most people in their churches never bother once to question any further, they assume what they were told to believe is true. So, when these people hear or read a different bible that has "changes" in it or which "leaves things out," it's understandably confusing. It's often only at this time they are finally told the Bible was not actually written in Old English, but was translated from the ancient languages of Greece and the Hebrew spoken by the ancient, Jewish people. Should they begin asking questions, the leaders of these relatively new believers resort to several fall back positions to keep their flocks believing there is still only one, perfect English bible--the King James Version. One of their tricks is to say, "Oh, but the Greek and Hebrew texts used by the King James translators are the only true bible, the Textus Receptus." Sounds pretty inspired, right? After all, if it's in Latin, that's gotta be divinely inspired, yeah? Sorry, but the term "textus receptus" is just a line found in the introduction to a printed edition of the Greek New Testament in the late 1500s by a printer who wanted to sell his books so, naturally, he made it sound like his edition was error free by simply saying it was! But it wasn't! There were several printed editions of the New Testament, for example, that came out since the first one by a guy named Erasmus about the same time Luther began the Protestant Reformation in 1517. His first edition was rather sloppily done, since he was in a hurry to get it done before another printed edition (known as the Polyglot) came out first. But none of the printed Greek New Testaments of the 16th and early 17th Centuries were all that great, since they relied on hand-written Greek texts which had to be borrowed from universities who were rather stingy with what they had, and what they had, for the most part, dated after the end of the first millennium! Here's the thing to understand--all the books we think of as "The" Bible, are a collection of books that varied from one religious body to another--Catholic, Orthodox, Old Protestant, Later Protestant and so on--but NONE of those books are still around! Every single bible "book", all written in ancient languages that are now all dead, were lost to the ravages of history! All we have today are copies of them, that is, copies of copies of copies! It's true that there are 1000s of these copies, but MANY of them are just little scraps of "paper," written on papyrus or, sometimes, vellum and occasionally on some pottery. Sadly, we don't even have any complete versions of the oldest copies of the Bible until we get to 2 and 3 centuries after the originals were all lost! And these 1000s of texts are DIFFERENT! Over all those centuries, the copyists made a lot of mistakes or decided to add things or take some things out. Some had really bad handwriting. Some were copied from an earlier copy that had all sorts of notes scribbled on the side (like some people do with their bibles today) but the copyists didn't think it mattered which parts they was copying, so they just included them in the main body of the text of new copy (the fancy name for this is an "interpolation")! And then there was the problem of not hearing properly what was said as one guy was reading aloud from an earlier copy, and the listening copyist got the word wrong, or lost his place (This was the ancient version of a copy machine, in what was called a "scriptorium," that made it slightly less expensive to make copies of any particular document, since they ALL had to be done BY HAND!) So, what to do, if you REALLY want to know what the Bible originally said? Well, you can just believe whatever it is your preacher or teacher tells you which printed book IS THE Bible, and just ignore the fact that he was specifically trained to uphold the MAN-MADE DOCTRINES his church denomination or sect or mega-church, wants you to believe...or you can rely on REAL SCHOLARS who from REAL UNIVERSITIES who don't really care about doctrinal implications and, consequently, are going to give you the best translations from the best (oldest and most reliable) copies archeologists have discovered. They way they do this is the same way real scholars, like detectives, take all copies of ancient documents--from the Iliad and Odyssey to Beowulf--applying the disciplines of the Textual and Contextual Criticism, to sort out as many of the errors as possible in order to arrive at what was most likely in the original writings (autographs). After this, it falls to unprejudiced, biblical and historical scholars to make sense of what the original bible texts said. Trouble is, almost all Neo Evangelical preachers and teachers are not interested in finding out what the bible originally said, much less, what the writers of those original documents intended their words to mean, and even far less, what all of their original words and intentions, put together, mean for us today! Instead, they're goal is to ensure they get more converts to believe what they're told to believe, and to do what they're told to do, very often, just to serve the interests of their very wealthy and powerful political allies. This is why anyone who really wants to know what the original Bible had to say should avoid translations (like the NASB) or faux translations (like the Living Bible), issued by "Christian" publishing houses. These heavily skewed versions of the bible are specifically designed to promote certain man-made doctrines...and to make no small amount of money in the process! Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Rightly-Dividing-Word-Properly-Interpret/dp/B091LSMD9N Are you a victim of bible abuse? Get help at ricklannoye.com/contact
A lot of the wording in the NET is strikingly modern, which sometimes makes it a lot more resonant than other translations, but sometimes it pulls away too drastically from the original contextual meaning.
Wallace is a likable guy and clearly a wealth of knowledge for his field, but I was shocked he mentioned the NET as best for study. A 6th grade near paraphrase is best for study? Really? I like easy to read translations, they have their purpose, but I suspect he was talking about the Full Notes edition. Is reading the notes of academics really the best for study? I would think reading the most accurate translation and only looking to outside opinion when confused would be best. What exactly are we supposed to be studying here? The word of God, or Translation theory?
@@nathanfoust7989 Dear sir For many reasons 1- The Kjv uses the Byzantine family of manuscripts which are not the best. They largely date from the 9th-16th cen. Other translations follow better manuscripts that are far older, ie from the 2nd-8th cen. The reason why the older manuscripts are the vast minority is because they are older, and they were written on Papyrus which does not last/survive, while in the 9th cen scribes started to write on leather which lasts a lot longer and so they have survived. Also, why use the Kjv that uses an English that is not spoken today? It is 400 plus years old! In addition, the translators did not do a very good job in translation, ie from the Heb/Gk into English.
@@robertrodrigues7319 Have you watched R.C Sproul Jr's response to the whole older/younger manuscript argument? He says it is blown out of proportion, which I agree. The NKJV does a stellar job at giving you readings from some of the older manuscripts in the footnotes while giving you a text for the younger. I believe that the NKJV is a good blend of both worlds. Now, that is not to say that it is a perfect translation instead, I believe it's good enough. I do agree that the KJV is outdated. However, the NKJV is a good updated version, don't you think?
If you compare the NKJV to the ESV you won't find that MUCH of a difference between the texts. Nothing THAT significant. Usually, when there is something that is different between the underlying texts, the NKJV does a good job supplying the reader with the different readings. :) :)
@@robertrodrigues7319 But back to R.C Sproul J.R's comments. He says that instead of picking a translation that depends on "older better" manuscripts he prefers looking at the translation's philosophy. And that's what I think many people tend to ignore, at least when they talk about choosing a translation. Anyway, what do you think, brother??? :) Peace to you. :)
Quick question: since the idea of putting added words in italics to show reverence for the verbal plenary inspiration, what would you do with the Aorist tense, which doesn't exist in English, or the hundreds of occurrences where the Greek verb contains the pronoun subject of that verb within the verb? Would you have all those in italics as well?
I don't understand your question about the aorist tense, but as for instances where the pronoun is not necessary in Greek because the verb's conjugation makes the subject clear, I don't think (?) the NASB or KJV supply itallics there. You could do a quick check of some instances yourself to verify that. They do supply itallics, however, in the case of a verbless clause in the Hebrew.
I appreciate your tone in this video. We need to remember that if we obeyed any of these translations we would be sinless. And when we sin, the KJB NIV ESV rebukes us. I would encourage you to read Wallace’s Greek textbook on the Greek language. I read it 10 times cover to cover. I only read the Greek New Testament. It took me 10 intense years of study and memorizing all the syntax, and 5,000 word vocabulary to be a fluent reader of Greek. AT Robertson’s massive 1,456 page advanced grammar I read 6 times through. So I believe if we are going to use Greek we better know it well. One misnomer is that only words in italics are not in the original. That is not completely true. For example, in 1 Peter 5:10 the word “after” is not in Peter’s writing. It’s simply a participle with a temporal inference, much the way we would use in English. But the word is not in Greek just the same. I read the entire Greek New Testament about 12 times. I read the entire Textus Receptus too. I think it would give you a perspective (if you have not yet done so) to read through Wallace’s grammar as well as others. I love to meditate, read through and teach from my Greek New Testament. But for the rest of us, let us obey, evangelize, and keep in mind: whatever version you use, it is your authority and it rebukes you and not the other way around. Thank you again for your friendly, non combative presentation
Of the three things: 1) Bible Translation 2) Church 3) Obeying The weakest link is obeying. You're only as strong as your weakest link. All of the major translations are fine.
I really enjoy these translations: NRSV is my daily reader I used both in my own church and in my religous studies degree. KJV is poetic and very historical. I am in the Anglican communion so I really value the KJV. To supplement NRSV I look at ESV and NAB often both more on the litteral side. For more of a thought for thought approach I enjoy the CEB.
For some reason Dan has something against the NASB. He acknowledges that it's an accurate translation but he seems to think it utterly fails when it comes to readability and elegance. I disagree.
I read all translations since I teach at my church. In case some member has a argument about a translation I can help explain the reason why.
My favorite are
- NASB77&95
- HCSB
- NLT
It's because of your frisch perspective, I got me a CSB and I'm loving it. GOD BLESS!
Just bought CSB and I love it for study - better than ESV, if I may say.
I'm usually a NASB reader but I have started reading the CSB and I am also loving it.
I will probably get a csb since HCSB is going.
Dan Wallace is an excellent scholar.
Scholarship is the problem.
In my opinion scholarship distracts people from actually reading the Bible.
@@Mr-pn2ehBible scholarship distracts people from the Bible? It has only led me to trust more in God’s word and how He has preserved it.
@@Mr-pn2ehstudying the Bible deeper distracts people from reading the Bible? What!?!?
This is by far the best ‘response’ video I have ever seen. You respected the other person and their opinions and didn’t go on to crush them and and say my opinion is better. You added value to the translations interview with Dan Wallace and I pray God would bless you for that.
I grew up on NIV then went on to NKJV.
I am using the verse-less ESV Reade’s bible now. I also have the Complete Jewish Bible that helps me understand more of the Jewish traditions behind the stories. I have come to prefer the Jewish book order which ends with 2 Chronicles in the Old Testament to the Christian order that ends with Malachi.
The narrative flows more naturally especially if you are reading it through nonstop.
He's 100% right, in my opinion, about language translation and accuracy. I'm American but grew up in the Philippines (my parents actually did translation work for New Tribes Mission which is very similar to Wyclif) and am married to a Korean and have lived in Korea, so translating between language has regularly been a part of my life. There simply is too high a difference between languages to equate word for word translation with accuracy. That doesn't mean more word for word meanings aren't USEFUL or you shouldn't prefer them but does mean they aren't more ACCURATE.
Although I personally find the use of italics very helpful, I don't think that the NIV or NLT are showing less respect for the plenary language. Again, some translations may be more or less useful for some readers, but I'd argue that the any translator who has devoted their life to learning the original language and wrestled with the best way to help readers understand these words in their language has given equal respect and any reader who devotes their time to studying God's word is showing equal respect regardless of translation used. Personally, some translations do seem to offer less respect for the original inspired words (ie. Passion Translation) and I'd like to avoid these translations altogether. My standard on this is I want 100% respect for the original language from any translation I read, and I think KJV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, NASB, CSB, and ESV (among others) all offer this.
Just my take- as always, I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful consideration of other's points of view as you offer a "Frisch Perspective!"
Thanks for your insight and perspective. The NLT, NKJV, CSB, NASB, KJV/Geneva 1599 is what I read most. NLT and NKJV are my favorites.
You can't translate Hebrew into English
I have been a Bible reading Christian for about 40 years now. I have enjoyed the excitement of many biblical translations. The Christian Standard Bible translation with the Spurgeon Study Bible included is now my preference. This broadcast has not caused me to rethink my preference, but to constantly reassess my preference as I study. Thank you.
I started using a CSB bible after listening to you, and i really found as u had implied in another video of yours it strikes a good balance between liberality and readability, I’m loving it. I used to use NLT as a companion but now i use CSB
Also thanks to you, I have a new found love for nkjv, I’ve been using ESV and kjv up until now
Anyways God bless! And thank you 😊
The NASB had been my favorite since 1975. I started with the KJV and still use it with the Strong’s. I have read the NIV and the ESV, but the NASB is the one I like the best. I watched the video you were discussing and I learned a lot. I appreciated your perspective. Good job.
Linda. I have recently got NASB 95 and like it.
NASB95 is the greatest English translation in my opinion. Been using it for 11 years and haven’t really used any other. When I do use another translation, I always go right back to the NASB. It’s blessed me tremendously. But again, that’s just my opinion. But I think looking into all translations is a good idea. You tend to lean towards one over the others.
Agreed. I just picked up the 2020 and am enjoying it so far. The gender stuff is much milder than I thought. 2020 has got some textual changes which I like a lot that the 95 doesn't.
Thanks for this, Tim. A very balanced response!
I greatly appreciate Dr. Wallace’s opinion. So with that in mind , my favorite and meaningful to my Christian growth is the NKJV , the KJV, the NASB, the ESV and for a dynamic translation I appreciate and use the HCSB/ CSB translation .
Those are my choices as well.
I listened to Dr. Wallace’s interview a few days ago before your response popped up on my feed (way to go RUclips algorithm). The discussion was very enlightening, although very meandering.
I appreciate your concise summary of his take and preferences, and understand where you’re coming from about respecting the original text (as best as we can identify that) as the inspired Word of God.
That’s why I like to see supplied words in italics, although I understand they’re necessary for mapping the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek into modern English (which wasn’t even a language yet when the Bible was written a couple thousand or more years ago).
I used to always want a very literal translation of the Bible, until I started learning Spanish at school. The teacher would give us stories and things in Spanish and get us to translate them into English. Now, I started finally seeing that, there was a lot of times when I couldn't translate the Spanish literal at all, even sometimes I would have to change the word entirely just to get it to make sense. So, I now have a respect and even sometimes even prefer something like the CSB and the NIV over something literal like the NASB.
Good point
I’m bilingual (English-Spanish) & I can certainly tell you that phrases & sentences don’t usually translate word for word, & rarely do they translate in the same word order. Further, there are words in Spanish that sound like similar words in English but have entirely different meanings.
I had such a hard time getting 'I am 10 years old' correct in English, from Spanish, the word to word translation is 'I have 10 years'.
Yep I'm a native Spanish speaker 🔊
This is the kind of thing that a person only picks up when it learns another language, my native language is Brazilian Portuguese and while learning English I've found all sorts of jokes and idioms that only make sense in the language they were created, it's so interesting to see the different nuances of each language, like in Portuguese the verb "to be" is sort of split into two verbs, while the verbs lose and miss(like in the sentence "I missed the bus") they both are expressed by one verb in Portuguese, also some words don't have the same "weight"(if that makes any sense) that they have in their native language when they're translated.
I am not a Greek scholar, but I do read the Greek New Testament along with several different English Translations. I use what I term as a scale working from literal to paraphrase. Being NASB to ESV to NET to NLT. I use N/A 27 (N/A 25 - 28, too. I collect old N/A editions), UBS 4, and a majority text. Sometimes I use translations such as Philips and Moffett. I find some of J. P. Green's specific verse translations profitable. I too saw a lot of the issues with the NASB that the Legacy Standard Bible group saw, but I also understand from where Dan Wallace is coming. The Legacy Standard Bible is good for seasoned Christians, but not for new Christians. I believe (my opinion) the NIV 1984 is one of the best for someone who is a new Christian. Not only will it introduce doctrinal words, but it will give them an accurate picture of the Bible. NET Bible is very good too.
Both NIV and NET are great for English Second Language readers, or for foreign cultures. I have NET on my Bibles in Android and Linux apps such as AndBible, Xiphos and BibleTime
Ever hear of RAY SUMMERS ESSENTIALS OF NT GREEK? You'll love it. A used copy is cheap ,cause nobody wants to learn koine Greek
why is the NIV good for new christians but not the LSB?
Thank you Dr. Tim (joking) The Dr. Wallace video popped up in my suggested videos yesterday but have not had a chance to take a look at it yet. As always appreciate your well balanced response and how you don't try to steer us (your viewers) in any one direction bu you do make us think.
As a Bible teacher, I have used all of the translations that Dr. Wallace mentioned, as well as the Amplified translation. I was surprised that no one mentioned the AMP.
I use the AMP sometimes
I was surprised by that also.
why were you surprised?
I was surprised [confused, astonished, left speechless]
just joking haha
ahahahaha I knew someone would post this.
@@ArmandoBN497
Dr. Wallace has and is a wealth of information in the topic of textual criticism, and I greatly respect his more than educated opinion on the topic at hand. Having said that his bias for the NET still shows through.
The NIV, NET, ESV, KJV, along with several others are nothing less than a blessing for the English speaking world.
At the end of the day it is the same as has been said many times before, the best version for you is the one you will continue to read and grow closer to Christ in.
Absolutely … the one that grows your relationship with our Savior ❤
One simple good reason to have several translations available is that, if you're reading the Bible as much as you probably should (ok, hardly anyone does, but still . . .) you'll get bored because eventually you just know exactly what it's going to say next. It's so refreshing to spend time reading a translation that surprises you by saying the same thing with different words, and that in turn often makes you consider whether your understanding was accurate or not. I've been really enjoying the NET Bible recently.
Totally agree with you that most of us should be reading the bible more, myself included
I love the Notes in the NET for its explanations of the translators. I don't believe there is a "literal" translation but I suppose you and I may define "literal" in different ways. Bill Mounce makes cogent arguments for the impossibility of a "literal" translation. There are many examples of Greek and Hebrew idioms that just do not translate word-for-word. I'm a DTS alum so also strongly agree with verbal plenary inspiration. (I also have a deep love for the KJV's sheer beautiful renderings of so many verses.) I personally read the NIV but study using Logos Bible Software to access the original languages with a number of translations open on the side.
I appreciate your videos and watch you on a fairly regular basis. Keep it up, my brother.
I agree with both you and Dr. Wallace. I think one should use many translations to get as best they can to the truth of scripture. We are blessed that we have so many to choose from.
Good to compare
You're a blessing! Thank You! ✝️🕊️
Hey great video! I really 💯 with the way you see things. I agree with you in a lot of ways. Thanks for posting these videos as I plan to watch probably all of them. God bless and thank you
I have been teaching Hebrew and Greek for decades. Agree very much with your sentiments. Theology plays a big role in translation. So do the ego’s of scholars. Based on accuracy and some other factors, the best translations out there are the NKJV, the ESV and the NASB.
You're my hero when it comes to Bible translation and commentary!
I totally agree with you Brother Tim!
Dr. Wallace is still determined to make the NET a major translation, but I don't ever see it happening. The notes are good, but the text itself is pretty unremarkable. I agree that the ESV and NRSV are solid "essentially literal" translations. I'd favor the CSB for a mediating translation and the REB (which unfortunately doesn't get much love in the States) for a dynamic translation.
Dr. Wallace is a major contributor to the Net Bible
ESV is pretty good.
Please do a review of the MEV (Modern English Version) , the TLV (Tree of Life Version) and the LSV (Literal Standard Version) Thank you very much sir.
I would like that too, as I use all three of them.
Very nicely explained. I don't completely agree with you but I really appreciate your style of speaking and the way you explain yourself very clearly and calmly, and why you favor the KJV for example and things that you brought up.
My translation preferences:
NASB
ESV
HCSB
NET
Yay for the HCSB! I wish it had continued to be published. It's not my favorite translation, but it is quite good with some unique and valuable features.
Many Scholars do not like the NASB. But do like the ASV. I do use the Holman in witnessing sometimes.
Without the KJV, your missing out on the best
Do u use NET for the notes or do you like the actual translation or both?
Thank you!
Good stuff!
I READ MY HINDI N URDU BIBLE AND IN ENGLISH I UNDERSTAND NIV BETTER THAN. KJV N ENLISH KJV NOT GIVE ME AS MY ENGLISH NOT VERY HIGH LITERATURE BUT NIV EASY TO UNDERDTAND LIKE BOOK OF DANIEL CHEPTER NINE VERSE NINE IN ENGLISH N URDU READS NOT STEMP IN MY HEART THAT STRONG BUT IN HINDI IS SO POWERFULLY MEANING FULLY STEMP IN SOUL OF MY HEART THE MEANING GIVE ME WHEN I READ IN HINDI I JUST BOW DOWN N WORSHIP MY LORD I CRY TO WORSHIP MY LORD ALLOHEEM LORD YAHOWAH FATHER SON GOD HOLLYSPIRIT AMEN AMEN TO MY LORD SO NIV ENGLISH GIVE ME UNDERSTANDING REALLY IT IS HOW GOOD LANGUAGE U KNOW THAN U UNDERSTAND. GOD BLESS U SIR FROM HOUSTON TX
Your personal colour matching in your outfit is on point 😀
Thanks! 😁
Thank you for your video in response to Dr Wallace. I had previously seen Dr Wallace’s video with Mike Licona and found it very interesting. My favourite translation is the NKJV. To me it retains the beauty of the KJV but in a more accessible form. Plus, it capitalises pronouns for Deity which I love as a mark of reverence. I’m not surprised that Dr Wallace would commend the NET bible as he served as senior New Testament editor for the NET Bible. However, I also like the NET bible very much in terms of accuracy and readability.
What about the geneva translation was before the kjv
It is good , but not perfect.
@@Brucev7 Is that to say that the KJV is perfect?
@@davidhiramreyes6490 Haven't seen one yet
@@davidhiramreyes6490 yes it is
All of us have leanings and preferences when it comes to Bible versions. Some would not touch 'Critical" manuscripts based, some don't like TR texts. Some wouldn't go near translations that is "Reformed" influence, others would go for "Dispensation" view of versions. That is why there are so many translations out there. I have KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, HCSB, RSV (been using that for years), NKJV, GNT, and even The Living, and The Message (which I kept in bookself most of the time). I use each one once a year as daily reading, but for serious study I use ESV, NASB, and for comparison NIV. I came to faith through reading GNT 35 or so years ago. Thanks for the video.
On the mission field, the GNT and the NIV are good for English Bible study classes. But the HCSB has a higher level of English vocabulary, so if used, I have their first/main language translation to refer to with their first language, and then easy to read English for their second language learning. It is not a problem, because western languages are better for precise meaning, and the Asian languages are best overall for their first language understanding. That is why they like a western language as well as their first language. Of course, if someone can explain the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, that is welcome too. Most native pastors in our area can do that somewhat. But sometimes there is no native pastor around.
My every day is the ESV. I also use the LSB, NET and NKJV. I have others as well and when I'm curious about something, or stuck, I open up LOGOS and check the Lemmas to get the meanings.
I am beginning to think people have become idiots OR people who talk about translations think we have become idiots. There is a constant emphasis on readability and updating the language which in itself is not a bad thing, but not one single major translation made since the 20th century is difficult to understand. With just a bit of time spent familiarizing oneself with the older language even the KJV become easily understandable. We keep saying “make it more understandable to the modern English speaker” when in fact anyone with a basic education can easily understand the ESV, NASB, CSB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, ….on and on.
We do not need language updates every 10 years, we don’t even need them every 25 years. Honestly if we are really just making sure the text is understandable to the reader (and not just supporting updates to regenerate income streams) we could probably do just fine with updates every 50 years. Often these “updates” are just further dumbing down the Bible (or liberalizing it). We are not stupid and we don’t need a children’s Bible to understand the Gospel or the Scriptures. Let’s make sure the emphasis is on accurately translating the text as even your examples in the video are clear in their meaning by just looking at the context.
Wallace is spot-on.
I think a person needs to have one translation that they always read, to be able to memorize scripture. And they should have many good translations that they study.
The translation I have memorized for 45 years is the NIV (1984), but I prefer the NET as a study bible. I also use ESV, KJV, NASB, NRSV, HCSB and of course the Greek NT. Sometimes for devotional reading I use the NLT, which is not a good translation for study, but is great for reading. I have about 30 other English translations, but these are the ones I use the most.
I disagree that the NKJV is a good bible - it ignores the best texts and for some reason uses a text that was what Erasmas had 5 centuries ago. If you want a bible in the tradition of KJV, I think the ESV is your best bet.
I also think you should rethink your view of verbal plenary inspiration. We have 400K or more transmission errors, so we don’t know the original wording, even though we have the original meaning. And the biblical authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, felt comfortable modifying the words of Jesus as they translated them from Aramaic to Greek, getting the gist of his words but not always the exact text (which is impossible anyway, when translating from one language to another). So we know what Jesus said, but not the exact wording of it (except for “ephphatha” and “talitha koum”). Even what Jesus cried out on the cross is rendered differently by 2 gospels. We don't get the exact wording, but it is clear what he said, paraphrasing Psalm 22:1.
Thanks for helping people learn about the bible!
I do agree with Dr. Wallace the most. (I respect your opinions, too.) I use multiple versions in difficult areas of the Bible. I love the NET the best, so far. I'm renewing my love of the NIV somewhat, but the best resources in my view are the KJV and NKJV. Use the translations that speak to you. What works great is the Thompson Chain Bible with Strong's Concordance numbering system of the original languages. If that fails, take Hebrew and Greek classes then, and I'm too busy or lazy to do that. I do have interlinear Bibles with the Hebrew and Greek alongside, and then use a Hebrew and Greek set of dictionaries. Learning the alphabets of those languages is easy. That's all you need to know to use the dictionaries.
I like the NKJV, ESV and NASB as my literal translations, and use the NLT for clarification on difficult passages.
NLT: "And evening passed and morning came, marking the XXXX day." That is not a translation, that is John Sailhamer adding "marking" to take out the 24 hour period he believed was false.
I’ve considered parallel bibles and did have a NLT parallel bible which had study notes from LASB and NLT study bibles. I do have a KJV/NKJV parallel bible.
NKJV, followed by the NASB 1977, Youngs Literal Translation 1898
NASB 1977? How about the 1995? When you start designating which copy right of the NASB you prefer are you saying one is better than the other? I think (and I might be wrong) there are more changes between the NASB 77 to the 95 version than the Bishops Bible to the KJV.
John Oberda Many Scholars do not like the NASB. But do like the ASV.
Thank you for this video.I heard you announce in another video that you plan to have Pastor Mark Ward,I'm looking forward to this video because I remember you recommending Pastor Mark's book on the Authorized Version.
I have an NIV, KJV, NKJV and two NASBs one a Thompson Chain Reference that I love to study. I do like NASB because it is word for word. I would like to get the NET to see the notes of the scholars. Great video. 👍
Thanks again. I always appreciate your thoughts on bible translations. You mentioned the use of italics. That brought to mind a related topic. It's useful to me to know when translators supplied a word for greater comprehension. In like manner, I find it helpful when translators capitalize pronouns for deity.
Have you ever considered reviewing the MEV? It is a very interesting translation. To me, it reads more like the CSB, but is TR based. Even though it is exceptionally readable and modern, most Bible translation charts I’ve seen have it ranked as more word for word than the KJV and NKJV.
It has seemed to me that the publishers of the MEV have given up on it. I am not even sure if it will continue to be printed after the current stock runs out. But yeah, it's kind of interesting.
Yes i agree with you, very good perspective. And for me I love NKJV and the NASB20.
I’m excited for the Legacy Standard Bible coming out by the end of the year.
I appreciate Wallace's arguments for favoring a functional equivalance approach as being more "accurate." There is, however, at least one factor that Wallace's orientation misses--namely, that a formal equivalence ("literal," or "word for word") translation affords a greater opportunity for a reader to engage in the linguistic and thought world of the original languages and to feel the foreignness of that world. One good example is the phrase "turned his heel against me" in the psalm that you cite in this video. A mature reader will understand that this is some sort of idiom or poetic language, and he will likely be confused by it--but he will be struck by the foreignness of it and, perhaps in consultation with other more dynamic translations, he will wrestle through this confusion to understand both the idiomatic meaning of the phrase and the foreign imagery behind it.
Wow I admire your knowledge,point by point.i was enlightened.now I began to appreciate diff version of the bible.
First, I believe 'heart language' in the area of Bible translation refers to one's mother tongue or indigenous ethnic language, as opposed to an official language or lingua franca. Second, thanks for the insight about comparison to the KJV. It's true that later English translations will have to take some reference from the KJV - but I would say this should only be secondary. Primary reference should be to the original languages. Subsequently, translation goals will determine to what extent resemblance to the KJV is desirable. We who grew up with the KJV should not impose expectations on many throughout the world who do not share this particular linguistic heritage.
My favorite translations are NASB95, ESV, and now the amazing LSB but I absolutely love the King James and New King James. When I am digging in to really attempt to understand a verse I use them all. One thing that does bother me is that they rely too much on the masoretic text for the Old Testament. That is one thing I want people to pay attention to. When the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint both agree with each other and disagree with the masoretic text (completed hundreds of years after Jesus) then the DSS and LXX are probably the correct reading. The ESV actually does go with the DSS and LXX over the masoretic text where they agree in many important places. I’ve really been coming to appreciate how great the ESV translation is.
Since the Quentel is ONLY available in 1995 NASB in Goatskin and I got it today..THAT will be my favourite for awhile.
Hello
Like your youtube content very much. I wonder if you could review the MEV: it’s a great new KJV update and is is faithful to the TR. I think it reads as well as the NKJV with slightly more updated language.
Thanks
Neil
My primary bible is bilingual: NKJV/RVR 1960 (Spanish). After that one is the NET.
Amplified Bible is great for study. NIV was explained to me as a verse by verse Thought for Thought.
I have also enjoyed the Amplified Bible for studying. The Study Bible version of that is also quite good.
I use the AMP sometimes. I do not like the NIV. The NIV is a Dynamic equivalence. Both are.
www.tbsbibles.org/page/NIV1?
What about the Cepher Bible
Interestingly, I agree with both Wallace and Frisch! :)
I didn't grow up with the KJV tradition. I grew up in a non-Christian home, quite secular in many respects, and the Lord didn't save me until I was in my 20s. The first English translation I read in its entirety was the NIV. Today I'm a conservative evangelical and Reformed/Calvinist.
However, as someone who appreciates good literary qualities, I have a tremendous respect for the KJV and translations in line with the KJV tradition (e.g. NKJV, ESV). It's true there's a certain kind of elegance and beauty in their words that I have never seen in any other modern English translation. The NEB/REB come closest to my ears, which might not be a surprise since I believe CS Lewis, TS Eliot, and JRR Tolkien were among those consulted on the original NEB (I think?), but the NEB/REB is too theologically liberal for me. The Jewish scholar Robert Alter's translation of the OT (the Tanakh) also has a kind of literary quality, and his translation is worth reading, but it's still not on par with the KJV, which Alter himself highly respects despite being a secular Jew.
My main English translation is the ESV, followed very closely by the CSB which may someday replace the ESV as my primary translation. I really love the CSB! Men like Iain Duguid (OT biblical scholar at Westminster Theological Seminary) and Tom Schreiner (NT biblical scholar at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) both serve(d) on the CSB committee; they're both godly accomplished scholars whose opinions I trust and they both use the CSB in their own personal lives as their own main English translation and recommend its use to others as well.
I wish I knew the biblical languages, but I haven't had the time to learn biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek. Short of learning the biblical languages, here's how I try to study the BIble:
1. Know my preferred English translation inside out. Be saturated in the word of the Lord. Master the word and more importantly be mastered by the word!
2. Compare multiple English translations. Such as via using a free online resource like BibleGateway or Parallel Plus. This alone helps so much in my biblical comprehension!
3. Read the NET Bible's excellent footnotes which are a window into how translators work.
4. Download the free version of Logos Bible Software. Use Logos' free biblical study tools like its Text Comparison, the Lexham Bible Dictionary, and the Bible Word Study Guide. These tools are truly amazing. They won't get me as far as, say, using gold standard biblical lexicons like BDAG or HALOT, but they get me much much much farther than I could on my own.
5. Consult good commentaries on the Bible (e.g. the Bible Speaks Today, the Pillar NT Commentary series).
6. Read How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Doug Stuart. I don't agree with everything in this book, but it's a solid introduction to how to read and study the Bible.
7. Read Exegetical Fallacies by Don Carson. It helps one avoid logical pitfalls and pursue intellectual excellence in reading and studying the Bible.
Just my two cents' worth, which is all it's worth! :)
Another great video from my Christian nerd brother🙏🏼 I like the KJV NKJV ESV CSB and NIV
The Niv is garbage. Throw it out and stick with the 1st 2 you listed
@@philarevolutionarywarriorp8295 you can try the nasb it's rlly good
@@soardfuzr4209 It wrongly changes the word FORNICATION in Matthew 5:32, and 19:9 to "sexual immorality" thus completely changing the meaning and context of the verses and as a result gives people a FALSE "reason" to divorce. I'll stick with the CORRECT English translation in the King James. Thanks
What do you think about the Amer. Standard Bible? I saw a chart that Mike Winger showed on one of his video's and it had the ASB as the most literal translation. I went through your channel and couldn't find anything on it.
Thanks for watching! I don't talk much about the ASV because it is essentially not in use today. I prefer translations that are more literal but also are well-written in English. The ASV is awkward English (even the NASB can be at times, in my opinion), plus the ASV is outdated English. So it is interesting from a historical perspective but not a translation that I really think fits a highly needed purpose today.
i read the NIV 1984 version. i use that and the NKJV for studying. it's my understanding that there's a lot of changes in the 2011 NIV version that makes it not an accurate translation.
I use a free app on my computer so the translations I use (cause I'm cheap) are ESV for general reading and memorization and quoting, then NET and AMP for their notes and comments which help expand the meaning in the text. Then I check NLT, CSB, NIV, to see how they read in casual language.
My NET (in the app) has Strong's references so I can quickly see original words and definitions, plus references, Nave's, and commentaries.
I don't use everything all the time, but I expand out as needed until I really get what's going on.
Generally speaking if I only had two it would be ESV for the more literal and NIV or CSB for the more casual. I'm using CSB for devotions with my kids.
I find NLT takes things too far, and NIV reads really smooth to me.
My “side by side translations are the KJV and ESV. I might switch up next year (I do want to read the NIV and NKJV cover to cover...I read portions of both but not cover to cover.)
I do not like the NIV. I do use it, sparingly in witnessing.
@@Brucev7 its garbage. Throw it away. The devil is behind the Niv "bible"
I want to know sir what do you think of the MEV version of the Bible
There are 4 formal, word for word translations of the original texts. AKA Formal equivalency translations: The KJV, NKJV, NAS, and ESV. All others are "dynamic equivalency translations. There is a whole book written on this called "the Word of God in English" by Ryken.
No such thing as word for word. There is a formal equivalent.
Ryken's worst book by far.
Any time I engage in a serious Bible study, I cross check the NKJV with the ESV and NET, and sometimes the KJV.
If more than one copy is good because then we can weed out the errors (as Mr. Wallace is wont to argue), then more than one translation is good for the same reason. If you’re coming from the other side and you think everything must be inspired by God or it’s corrupt then I would stand on the biblical principle of “iron sharpens iron”
Thanx,Pastor 🌹🌹🌹
I was waiting for you to give your suggestions in each of the categories that Dr. Wallace used; so here is your chance. What is your ONE favorite in each of the following categories:
For Study.
For Readability.
For beauty/elegance.
For rich wording.
For ecumenical reading and cross-checking scholarly opinion.
Hey Tim, I appreciate this. I find myself struggling more and more from the early years where we sat under Dr. Peper and it was KJVO, and from my fundamentalist High School. I still struggle with being afraid of reading the “wrong version” after all these years. I appreciate your videos but wondering if you have any suggestions for combatting that fear? It keeps me out of Bible Study sometimes out of fear of getting the wrong information.
I know what you mean. It would take me months of time just trying to figure out what Bible translation to get. Then I asked God to please pick it out for me. He did it in an amazing way. He reminded me to follow Him and listen for the Holy Spirit. There is no "wrong" translation. Now I have several different Bible/translations. All for different seasons of my life. Once I finish with one, I ask him to lead me to what is next. Sometimes it is back to an older translation, sometimes to a newer one. You are @onajourney. Praying for you.
For me, I would say that the best bible for reading is the NLT and my favorite translation for church service and study is the ESV and probably my least favorite is the KJV. To me, there is no greater putoff than reading a book that you just cannot understand without careful concentration. And honestly I can use the NRSV, the ESV, NASB, or the NKJV for a church bible and I am good with that too. A close second to the NLT is the the 2011 NIV.
Why I dislike the KJV: I started off reading the King James, but it was so hard to read and for a young person, that bible is basically impossible to understand so I never read it. I carried that bible to church with me for years as a kid with my parents, but I never read it. As a teen, I basically stopped caring about the translation and bought an NIV and I haven't read the KJV since.
Why I like the NLT: In college, I didn't go to "Church", but we had college bible study groups and we used the NLT that we sold in the college bookstore. I loved the readability of the NLT and I wore it out. Actually, the first time that I read the bible cover-to-cover was in the NLT and I still read my NLT when I want to just read the text because it flows so smoothly. My NLT is a life application red letter in single column formatting. It is fake leather and it is so worn that I would replace it if I didn't have so many notes and highlights in it. It is the most read book that I have in my house, and when I bring it to my home bible study classes, everyone knows that bible has been read a bunch and they usually ask about it.
Why I like the ESV: Over the years, I have had several pastors and they have preached out of the NKJV, the NIV, the NRSV, and NASB and I ended up buying all of them except the NRSV, which my current pastor has switched to after using the NIV. I was going to buy a NRSV, but they didn't have one at Half priced books and I am tired of buying a new bible because my preacher decided to change texts, so I instead got the ESV for $8 and I love it. I have been very impressed by the fact that whatever service, denomination, or text, the ESV is close enough so I can follow along and I can have one bible for all. I also use it for my bible study and it just works.
What I find more important than the translation now is the other things that make up a bible. The format is very important to me. I like a two-column bible with red letter that is thin and large print with the references in the center that is leather bound. I also like an awesome concordance and beautiful maps. My ESV has a subpar set of maps and concordance compared to my much more expensive NASB, but my NASB is single column. I also don't like branding on the spine of the bible. I like my bible to have as little branding as possible. I have yet to find exactly what I want yet, but I am looking, and I am going to hold out until I find it.
Dr Wallace's opinion on the NKJV made no sense to me. As an ex KJV only guy the NKJV has been a HUGE blessing .
Mainly because he doesn't agree with Byzantine/ TR/ MT theory.
The Gideons have an edition of the ESV where they got permission from the publishers of the ESV to add back all the verses that were omitted in the original ESV. They put them in hotels and doctor's offices. I have seen several myself. So there is a hybrid edition just for the use by the Gideons.
Having been a seminary student and having done a lot of syntax and exegesis, I find KJV pretty close to the original. I agree it is nearly impossible to translate literally. A lot of times it is common sense translation because of absence equal idioms and difference of culture etc. However KJV can be demanding because the semantics of words change over time. It is a good idea to have a bible of every version so that some paraphrasing helps understand the intent of the author better, but some word study etymology helps us better grasp the deeper meaning of the words
7:50 the reason for the difference of perspective on what denotes a town, village or city is because the Jews did not go by population but by how close houses were built together. If the buildings were clustered like terraces sharing common walls these became cities according to the Mishna (I'm pretty sure it's the Mishna but might be one of the Talmuds)...
Great video. For a second I though Mike Schmidt was guest hosting.
I simply must have a more readable and less literal word for word translation when reading anything Paul penned. I love and own ESV and NASB and KJV and NKJV Bibles, but a NIV or CSB are great for getting the flow and common understanding of Paul's writting. His super long sentences and deep meanings can get difficult to follow some times. Of course, a good study bible (ESV) will help to break down the meanings of verses, but sometimes I just want to read the scripture and not have to look down and read the notes.
I like the MEV for study, however I do also enjoy reading the CEB/REB as well, but wouldn't use them for study.
It’s funny...you’re videos keep popping up on my feed literally like right after I’ve seen the video/news story you’re referring to. Think we’re running on the same track. :) Appreciate the video. Ever done one on the NET? I’ve got a first edition and just ordered a full notes edition...would love to know the differences/your thoughts.
Here are some NET Bible videos I have done:
ruclips.net/video/TYw5Xjs12xc/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/anE6iPf5tAg/видео.html
Thanks for watching!
My top 10 translations are: 1) RSV-2CE/NRSV, 2) CEB, 3) CSB, 4) NASB 95 & 2020, 5) ESV/ESV-CE 6) NIV 7) NLT-CE, 8) NKJV, 9) MEV 10) NABRE
I am late to this party! I appreciate "literal" translations to an extent, but actually don't use them much. When I do, it tends to be the ESV or NRSV. The reason my main translation is the NIV is as Dr Wallace says, there really isn't such a thing as "literal translation". When people say that they often also say that these translations help someone see the "form" of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek texts - but if we don't speak the language is that actually useful? An interlinear would surely be better if that's what someone is looking for?
There are two people in my Church who have backgrounds in translation (both with Masters degrees in other languages and translation studies). They have really helped me think through Bible translations before I settled on the NIV. They looked at Bible translations, one uses the NLT. The other, who I know better, explained that he thinks the NIV is the best method of translation, as its translation philosophy is true to "best practice" in translation. He's actually highly dismissive of anything more "literal" than the NRSV, or "dynamic" than the NLT.
One thing I picked up on was the KJV as the "standard" - but it was also in a line of translations. Surely the standard should be faithfulness to the original languages, not our love for a particular translation tradition.
The other thing is looking at why certain translations were done, and whether there is a need for any more new English translations (by that I mean new, not revising existing ones - it is of course important to update as we learn more about the languages and new discoveries). I personally don't see the need for things like the CSB which is in reality following the same lines as the NIV, the ESV which is just another RSV revision that is so similar to the NRSV - aside from some obvious theological slants. But as you mentioned, so many other languages don't even have one translation. I wish these companies would pour their resources into those languages - but I suspect the fact that there is profit to be made does come into it.
There's a terrible *_"rendering"_* problem in the *_"NET"_* translation, in the book of *_"Romans"_* it renders *_"it"_* referring to the *_"Holy Spirit"_* instead of *_"he"_* as correctly must be, also in *_"1Corinthians 15:2"_* renders _"being saved"*_ instead of *_"are saved"_* as also correctly must be, so cause all these, I prefer to avoid this and other translations which make the same mistakes.
Dr. Wallace's library puts almost all others to shame. If your bookshelves need a ladder... you win.
😆 Yes
Any thoughts on the Tree Of Life translation?
What’s your opinion of the New Century Version?
Vet the credentials of Dr. Baruch Korman, and see exactly how close (expository) "word for word", he can get one. IMHO, he is the next best thing to being able to read Paleo Hebrew.
What translation is best for eastern EU people literal + dynamic ???
I think that we have too much knowledge, and think that we know more than God, but as God said "My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts are higher than your thoughts" We need to put our own attributes aside and pay more attention to God. He did say that not one jot or one title shall pass from my word, heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away.
You have to drop the expression "literal" or "very literal." It's just as much of a fictional construct as "word-for-word."
I often prefer the ISV which is a hybrid between word for word and concept for concept. They didn't really talk about it probably because it's very new.
I'm a little iffy about when you start interpreting idioms rather than translating them. Scholarly research often brings light to the meaning of such idioms which adds richness to our understanding of the passage in which they are used. All that is lost when such passages are interpreted rather than translated. And interpretations are often flat out wrong.
WHY THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS SO BELOVED BY FUNDAMENTALISTS THOUGH IT'S SO INACCURATE
Neo Evangelicals (what we used to call Fundamentalists) keep insisting there is such a thing as "The Bible," which they call "The Word of God." They would have everyone believe it was dictated by God to men who simply wrote down God's words, flawlessly. They also say every single word in what they present to their converts as a single volume book, written 411 years ago in what-is-now-antiquated-and-very-difficult-for-most-people-to-understand English, was divinely inspired.
If they could, they'd leave it right there, and because most people in their churches never bother once to question any further, they assume what they were told to believe is true. So, when these people hear or read a different bible that has "changes" in it or which "leaves things out," it's understandably confusing. It's often only at this time they are finally told the Bible was not actually written in Old English, but was translated from the ancient languages of Greece and the Hebrew spoken by the ancient, Jewish people.
Should they begin asking questions, the leaders of these relatively new believers resort to several fall back positions to keep their flocks believing there is still only one, perfect English bible--the King James Version. One of their tricks is to say, "Oh, but the Greek and Hebrew texts used by the King James translators are the only true bible, the Textus Receptus." Sounds pretty inspired, right? After all, if it's in Latin, that's gotta be divinely inspired, yeah?
Sorry, but the term "textus receptus" is just a line found in the introduction to a printed edition of the Greek New Testament in the late 1500s by a printer who wanted to sell his books so, naturally, he made it sound like his edition was error free by simply saying it was! But it wasn't!
There were several printed editions of the New Testament, for example, that came out since the first one by a guy named Erasmus about the same time Luther began the Protestant Reformation in 1517. His first edition was rather sloppily done, since he was in a hurry to get it done before another printed edition (known as the Polyglot) came out first.
But none of the printed Greek New Testaments of the 16th and early 17th Centuries were all that great, since they relied on hand-written Greek texts which had to be borrowed from universities who were rather stingy with what they had, and what they had, for the most part, dated after the end of the first millennium!
Here's the thing to understand--all the books we think of as "The" Bible, are a collection of books that varied from one religious body to another--Catholic, Orthodox, Old Protestant, Later Protestant and so on--but NONE of those books are still around! Every single bible "book", all written in ancient languages that are now all dead, were lost to the ravages of history! All we have today are copies of them, that is, copies of copies of copies!
It's true that there are 1000s of these copies, but MANY of them are just little scraps of "paper," written on papyrus or, sometimes, vellum and occasionally on some pottery.
Sadly, we don't even have any complete versions of the oldest copies of the Bible until we get to 2 and 3 centuries after the originals were all lost!
And these 1000s of texts are DIFFERENT! Over all those centuries, the copyists made a lot of mistakes or decided to add things or take some things out.
Some had really bad handwriting. Some were copied from an earlier copy that had all sorts of notes scribbled on the side (like some people do with their bibles today) but the copyists didn't think it mattered which parts they was copying, so they just included them in the main body of the text of new copy (the fancy name for this is an "interpolation")!
And then there was the problem of not hearing properly what was said as one guy was reading aloud from an earlier copy, and the listening copyist got the word wrong, or lost his place (This was the ancient version of a copy machine, in what was called a "scriptorium," that made it slightly less expensive to make copies of any particular document, since they ALL had to be done BY HAND!)
So, what to do, if you REALLY want to know what the Bible originally said? Well, you can just believe whatever it is your preacher or teacher tells you which printed book IS THE Bible, and just ignore the fact that he was specifically trained to uphold the MAN-MADE DOCTRINES his church denomination or sect or mega-church, wants you to believe...or you can rely on REAL SCHOLARS who from REAL UNIVERSITIES who don't really care about doctrinal implications and, consequently, are going to give you the best translations from the best (oldest and most reliable) copies archeologists have discovered.
They way they do this is the same way real scholars, like detectives, take all copies of ancient documents--from the Iliad and Odyssey to Beowulf--applying the disciplines of the Textual and Contextual Criticism, to sort out as many of the errors as possible in order to arrive at what was most likely in the original writings (autographs). After this, it falls to unprejudiced, biblical and historical scholars to make sense of what the original bible texts said.
Trouble is, almost all Neo Evangelical preachers and teachers are not interested in finding out what the bible originally said, much less, what the writers of those original documents intended their words to mean, and even far less, what all of their original words and intentions, put together, mean for us today! Instead, they're goal is to ensure they get more converts to believe what they're told to believe, and to do what they're told to do, very often, just to serve the interests of their very wealthy and powerful political allies.
This is why anyone who really wants to know what the original Bible had to say should avoid translations (like the NASB) or faux translations (like the Living Bible), issued by "Christian" publishing houses. These heavily skewed versions of the bible are specifically designed to promote certain man-made doctrines...and to make no small amount of money in the process!
Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Rightly-Dividing-Word-Properly-Interpret/dp/B091LSMD9N
Are you a victim of bible abuse? Get help at ricklannoye.com/contact
Very good video, sir. Thanks. Do we need to take up a collection to get you into some proper baseball attire? :D
Philadelphia is biblical. Cf. Rev. 3:7
Maybe a Cincinnati Red’s hat and jersey?
Did God preserve His thoughts or words?
A lot of the wording in the NET is strikingly modern, which sometimes makes it a lot more resonant than other translations, but sometimes it pulls away too drastically from the original contextual meaning.
Wallace is a likable guy and clearly a wealth of knowledge for his field, but I was shocked he mentioned the NET as best for study.
A 6th grade near paraphrase is best for study? Really?
I like easy to read translations, they have their purpose, but I suspect he was talking about the Full Notes edition. Is reading the notes of academics really the best for study? I would think reading the most accurate translation and only looking to outside opinion when confused would be best.
What exactly are we supposed to be studying here? The word of God, or Translation theory?
Dr Wallace is correct in not choosing the KJV or the NKJ.
Why would you say that, friend?
@@nathanfoust7989
Dear sir
For many reasons
1- The Kjv uses the Byzantine family of manuscripts which are not the best. They largely date from the 9th-16th cen.
Other translations follow better manuscripts that are far older, ie from the 2nd-8th cen. The reason why the older manuscripts are the vast minority is because they are older, and they were written on Papyrus which does not last/survive, while in the 9th cen scribes started to write on leather which lasts a lot longer and so they have survived.
Also, why use the Kjv that uses an English that is not spoken today? It is 400 plus years old!
In addition, the translators did not do a very good job in translation, ie from the Heb/Gk into English.
@@robertrodrigues7319 Have you watched R.C Sproul Jr's response to the whole older/younger manuscript argument? He says it is blown out of proportion, which I agree. The NKJV does a stellar job at giving you readings from some of the older manuscripts in the footnotes while giving you a text for the younger. I believe that the NKJV is a good blend of both worlds. Now, that is not to say that it is a perfect translation instead, I believe it's good enough.
I do agree that the KJV is outdated. However, the NKJV is a good updated version, don't you think?
If you compare the NKJV to the ESV you won't find that MUCH of a difference between the texts. Nothing THAT significant. Usually, when there is something that is different between the underlying texts, the NKJV does a good job supplying the reader with the different readings. :) :)
@@robertrodrigues7319 But back to R.C Sproul J.R's comments. He says that instead of picking a translation that depends on "older better" manuscripts he prefers looking at the translation's philosophy. And that's what I think many people tend to ignore, at least when they talk about choosing a translation. Anyway, what do you think, brother??? :) Peace to you. :)
ESV, CSB, NLT, NKJV.
Quick question: since the idea of putting added words in italics to show reverence for the verbal plenary inspiration, what would you do with the Aorist tense, which doesn't exist in English, or the hundreds of occurrences where the Greek verb contains the pronoun subject of that verb within the verb? Would you have all those in italics as well?
I don't understand your question about the aorist tense, but as for instances where the pronoun is not necessary in Greek because the verb's conjugation makes the subject clear, I don't think (?) the NASB or KJV supply itallics there. You could do a quick check of some instances yourself to verify that. They do supply itallics, however, in the case of a verbless clause in the Hebrew.
I appreciate your tone in this video. We need to remember that if we obeyed any of these translations we would be sinless. And when we sin, the KJB NIV ESV rebukes us.
I would encourage you to read Wallace’s Greek textbook on the Greek language. I read it 10 times cover to cover. I only read the Greek New Testament. It took me 10 intense years of study and memorizing all the syntax, and 5,000 word vocabulary to be a fluent reader of Greek.
AT Robertson’s massive 1,456 page advanced grammar I read 6 times through.
So I believe if we are going to use Greek we better know it well.
One misnomer is that only words in italics are not in the original. That is not completely true. For example, in 1 Peter 5:10 the word “after” is not in Peter’s writing. It’s simply a participle with a temporal inference, much the way we would use in English. But the word is not in Greek just the same.
I read the entire Greek New Testament about 12 times. I read the entire Textus Receptus too.
I think it would give you a perspective (if you have not yet done so) to read through Wallace’s grammar as well as others.
I love to meditate, read through and teach from my Greek New Testament.
But for the rest of us, let us obey, evangelize, and keep in mind: whatever version you use, it is your authority and it rebukes you and not the other way around.
Thank you again for your friendly, non combative presentation
I'm not as fluent as you, but I totally agree.
Of the three things:
1) Bible Translation
2) Church
3) Obeying
The weakest link is obeying. You're only as strong as your weakest link. All of the major translations are fine.
I really enjoy these translations: NRSV is my daily reader I used both in my own church and in my religous studies degree. KJV is poetic and very historical. I am in the Anglican communion so I really value the KJV. To supplement NRSV I look at ESV and NAB often both more on the litteral side. For more of a thought for thought approach I enjoy the CEB.
How in the world could somebody make a top 5 and not include the nasb. 😕
The 1977 or the 1995?
ASV is better
For some reason Dan has something against the NASB. He acknowledges that it's an accurate translation but he seems to think it utterly fails when it comes to readability and elegance. I disagree.