At about the 28:30 point, I made an observation about the BSB's translation of Romans 5.17. As Rob Pettifer points out, this translation isn't at all unusual. But it struck me so here, perhaps because the BSB normally reads more smoothly.
@@fr.davidbibeau621 - my email address is ignatios_antioch@hotmail.com . (Contact information for RUclips channel owners is sometimes posted at their channels' 'About" tabs.)
Mr. Jones, you reviewed this Bible over two years ago, but the BSB recently caught my attention when someone mentioned it as one of their favorites, largely due to the textual footnotes. Thanks for the review, and I appreciate your channel.
@@jovondeonte89 It's more than likely the site itself. Comment deletion, censorship and shadow censoring of comments tends to be automated by bots, and the criteria for what comments are subject to this is notoriously capricious.
Just wanted to say thank you for your great channel. I'm a Catholic and your excellent and detailed reviews of both Catholic and Protestant Bibles (which I have many of both) are perfect. Many thanks and God Bless.
@@RGrantJones - Any recommendations for raw original Bibles with just the text (...without the added Chapters and Verse numbers)? What are good options without the modern additives of chapters, verses, section headings? Thanks!
Hello sir. I just wanted to say I enjoy your videos. I like the diversity of bibles you review. While I don’t have anything against the $200 bibles (I have one), those reviews all sound the same to me. And they all seem much more shallow. I appreciate your knowledge.
I have never said this to you (I think), but I really really appreciate the level of detail you put into your bible reviews. You capture little things that others tend to overlook, including in-depth information about the translations themselves. So I wholeheartedly thank you for that. Also, as far as the font is concerned, I truly appreciate coming across non-bolded (or really dark) fonts in a bible when I do so on the rare occasion. I completely understand the need for them, I really do. So many of my bibles have semi-bold to bold font and I really like how Thomas Nelson has done it with their premiere collection bibles especially. However, I recently found one of my heavily damaged ESV thinlines I bought back in 2013-14. After looking in it, I was amazed at how beautiful, light and crisp the font looked on the pages. It caught my eye so much that I immediately went and ordered another copy of it (as they still make it.) Unfortunately, the new bible print I received was much darker - and since Crossway prints on HORRIBLY thin pages for its “under $100” bibles, the words bled through the page so bad. And it definitely wasn’t that crystal sharp beauty I had in the previous edition of that bible. I was extremely disappointed. First off, if publishers like Crossway are gonna darken their text, they need to consider slightly thicker pages because that’s my biggest complaint with their thinline editions. The original damaged ESV I had did infact have the same thin pages, but the lighter font complemented that thinness, which in turn made the ghosting less apparent. Nowadays, I think many bible publishers have gotten a little obsessed with the really dark/bolded fonts, but I know they have a purpose and I’m not fully opposed to it. If anything, if you darken the fonts, brighten up the pages (again - like Thomas Nelson! LOL) However, I noticed the more expensive bible publishers like Schuyler and R.L. Allan have really clean fonts that I absolutely love. It’s probably why I’ve been strangely drawn to them lately. But….. I can’t afford those right now 😂. Oh and Humble Lamb…. my oh my, Humble Lamb fonts are *chef’s kiss* 😮💨
Thanks for the kind words! Regarding font boldness (and red letters, page-bottom references, column width, ...), we're all wired differently, and sometimes what appeals to one person is a hardship to others. I'm happy you find the detail in these videos useful. (I've been told that a 10 minute Bible review is too long.)
The BSB and CSB are very much the same. The BSB seems to come off more traditional in its rendering compared to the CSB. In Psalm 25:1 the BSB says “I lift up my soul to you” and the CSB says “I make my appeal to you”. Here is this instance where the BSB decides to retain literacy and sound more traditional in this verse. This doesn’t mean the BSB is better overall but what the BSB offers compared to the CSB is readability, accuracy and traditional rendering. The CSB only accurate and readability.
With respect, the CSB and BSB are quite different. It's not like comparing the KJV to the Message, but there are definitely important and significant differences
Hi, great review as always. Thanks. Regarding the reading at Romans 5:17, it appears there are a number of translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV to name a few) that read 'of the gift of righteousness' as the BSB does.
thank you for such a detailed review. The text size and highlighting are very important me. I am considering this Bible to add to my library. More space outside the text, is more space for my notes.
Perhaps I will some day, but to do so I'll need to score it over the same 200 verses I use for the other translations, and that's quite a lot of work. Thank you for the suggestion!
Great review! Thank you once again for sharing your thoughts on the quality of the translation as well as the quality of the physical book. A thought occurred to me when you were mentioning how this translation sometimes converts units and sometimes leaves them alone: a gallon as a unit of measure has lasted the test of time and their conversion should be accurate for a good while longer, while the value of money is always subject to inflation and they'd have to update their conversion with each new edition. Plus: a literal conversion into dollars (or whatever else) couldn't really tell us what the value of their money was to them -- how much would an average salary be, how much does it take to run a modest household, etc.?
berean has an interlinear version, a literal version, a study (reading) version (in modern english), and an annotated version. annotated version will maybe have expanded meanings similar to the wuest expanded translation.
That's a hard question to answer. I wish I could say the Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint (SAAS), since I like their overall approach. (They take the New Testament's understanding of Old Testament texts seriously and render them accordingly). But the SAAS simply strays from the LXX toward the Hebrew too often. (SAAS is the Old Testament in the Orthodox Study Bible.) I think the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is generally accurate, and I use it frequently. It also packs a great deal of useful, scholarly background information. The font is somewhat small, but larger than that in the standard edition of Brenton's translation. Some people dislike the fact that NETS transliterates names from the Greek (Moyses instead of Moses), but that doesn't bother me. The Lexham English Septuagint (LES) is good also. I haven't seen the second edition yet, but I hope to examine it this summer. I generally liked the first edition, though some of the language was too informal for my taste, and some of the renderings too loose. LES has the advantage of a relatively large, dark typeface and a wide margin in which corrections can be written. Unhappily, the text block is glued, as is that in the next translation. Brenton's translation is still a very good choice. I disagree with some of his renderings, but I've found him to be generally accurate. This edition also includes the Greek text alongside the English, which makes it easy to check. My chief problem with it is the tiny font for the English text. Charles Thomson's translation is also generally reliable. Unfortunately, the edition I've seen includes only 39 books. So, if I could have only one, I would probably chose NETS. But I make frequent use of SAAS, NETS, and Brenton; and when my copy of the second edition of LES arrives, I plan to mark it up extensively.
@@RGrantJones thank you so much for your detailed response. I appreciate all that you do and your dedication to studying and understanding the word of our God. May the LORD our God bless you in all that you undertake.
Thanks for commenting, FinalMythology. I've seen only the edition I reviewed here, so I don't know. Perhaps someone who does know will answer your question.
Thanks for this review. My impression is that this translation is targeting those who desire a more traditional mediating translation, and have come to distrust the NIV2011 and perhaps even the CSB. The NIV2011 due to it's gender language and some questionable translation choices, as well as some other concerning side issues (i.e. The 2020 edition of the NIV Study Bible has endorsements by female pastors published on its official website, as well as an article in the study bible itself that portrays female pastorship as a "grey issue" that shouldn't cause division.) The CSB, possibly due to the dubious direction of the upper echelon of SBC leadership, and perhaps the translation still not being considered traditional enough. I personally appreciate the lack of gender shenanigans, the capitalized pronouns of deity, and view the lack of doubt brackets in places like the longer ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae to be quite refreshing. I also like the fact that it's around in the event that the NIV continues to circle the drain and the CSB follows. It also seems to have a literary style that is a smidge more stately than the NIV or CSB, which is a nice touch (the NET, without its notes, I just find to be boring.) The only thing that concerns me is that they really need to make it available in a wider variety of formats and websites if they want this translation to take off and not fade into obscurity.
@@RGrantJones It's not so much the CSB translation in and of itself, yet, as it is with the SBC and its surrounding organizations, particularly the ERLC, starting to slide further theologically Left, and thus concerns about what could become of the CSB in the future under such leadership.
Who is they?? It’s an open source bible text. You can download the text and print it if you wanted to. In any format of printing, binding, or cover you like.
@@RGrantJones Okay, nevertheless thanks for your answer. I appreciate it. On another note, if you don't mind please pray for me, that I live more according to God's will. Recently I've often fallen short of the standards in the bible.
@@danivuk2036 - Yes, I thought it was an imagined quote from a generic Baptist, but I couldn't decide why our Baptist thought it was an apt name. Because it's a study Bible without study notes? Or because Baptists like to quote Acts 17.11?
Thanks for the review, like so many new translations this 'study bible' just seems unnecessary when we have so many for every purpose and more. The only new translation I've enjoyed recently has been the RNJB which I bought after your review, really like the way it reads although I only ever use it as a secondary translation.
Thanks for commenting, Joshua! I dislike appearing to discourage new translations, but I must admit as I examined this one, it wasn't clear to me why it was needed. (What we lack in English, in my opinion, is a good, relatively literal translation of the Greek Bible, with close collaboration between New and Old Testament committees, so that the translation highlights for the reader the New Testament authors' reliance on the Old. Notes showing the use early Christian writers made of the LXX and the Old Latin would also be worthwhile.)
@@RGrantJones Even just having a high quality bible which includes the lxx alongwith the NT would be a big step up in that regard, the Orthodox study bible is the closest thing currently but as you review shows their OT has some very serious omittions from the lxx in favour of the MT text. I remember from a comment you made about the idea of having Brenton's septuigant with the AV new testament in a single bible which would have been much better than what the Orthodox study bible became.
@@Haexz1 Since the NETS is the standard critical edition of the Greek Septuagint applied to the NRSV, I suppose another good combination would be the NETS and the NRSV New Testament - with contiguous standardization of proper names for the sake of clarity in regard to who the Biblical figures are.
Being more gender inclusive distorts the actual message of the ancient language. It used those for a purpose. Similar to how God was described as Father and Jesus himself was a male.
![ROSÉ(로제) - APT. (Band VER.) (With. 이영지) [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW8qaemx74g/mqdefault.jpg)
![NLE Choppa - Or What ft. 41 (Orchestra Mix) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/biOFASEgSOM/mqdefault.jpg)
At about the 28:30 point, I made an observation about the BSB's translation of Romans 5.17. As Rob Pettifer points out, this translation isn't at all unusual. But it struck me so here, perhaps because the BSB normally reads more smoothly.
how does one get a hold of you? you and I had a conversation once about the Orthodox study Bible. you gave me your notes but I can't find them.
@@fr.davidbibeau621 - my email address is ignatios_antioch@hotmail.com . (Contact information for RUclips channel owners is sometimes posted at their channels' 'About" tabs.)
Mr. Jones, you reviewed this Bible over two years ago, but the BSB recently caught my attention when someone mentioned it as one of their favorites, largely due to the textual footnotes. Thanks for the review, and I appreciate your channel.
BSB in its second printing is now called Berean Standard Bible as its translation name. Thanks for the review.
I posted this same comment twice and both times my comment was deleted. For some reason he doesn’t want it up there 🤷♂️
@@jovondeonte89 It's more than likely the site itself. Comment deletion, censorship and shadow censoring of comments tends to be automated by bots, and the criteria for what comments are subject to this is notoriously capricious.
@@jovondeonte89 I find that RUclips comments often disappear almost instantly -- too quickly for a human censor to accomplish.
Just wanted to say thank you for your great channel. I'm a Catholic and your excellent and detailed reviews of both Catholic and Protestant Bibles (which I have many of both) are perfect. Many thanks and God Bless.
Thank you for those kind and encouraging words, bhgtree!
Bro, I love your videos! I learn so much.
Haven't listened yet, but can't wait! This one has been on my top 3 list!
Been interested in this one for a while. Thank you for the in-depth review!
Thank you for commenting, PastorForThe Master!
@@RGrantJones - Any recommendations for raw original Bibles with just the text (...without the added Chapters and Verse numbers)?
What are good options without the modern additives of chapters, verses, section headings?
Thanks!
Hello sir. I just wanted to say I enjoy your videos. I like the diversity of bibles you review. While I don’t have anything against the $200 bibles (I have one), those reviews all sound the same to me. And they all seem much more shallow. I appreciate your knowledge.
Thanks for the encouraging comment, lucretius123!
I have never said this to you (I think), but I really really appreciate the level of detail you put into your bible reviews. You capture little things that others tend to overlook, including in-depth information about the translations themselves. So I wholeheartedly thank you for that.
Also, as far as the font is concerned, I truly appreciate coming across non-bolded (or really dark) fonts in a bible when I do so on the rare occasion. I completely understand the need for them, I really do. So many of my bibles have semi-bold to bold font and I really like how Thomas Nelson has done it with their premiere collection bibles especially. However, I recently found one of my heavily damaged ESV thinlines I bought back in 2013-14. After looking in it, I was amazed at how beautiful, light and crisp the font looked on the pages. It caught my eye so much that I immediately went and ordered another copy of it (as they still make it.) Unfortunately, the new bible print I received was much darker - and since Crossway prints on HORRIBLY thin pages for its “under $100” bibles, the words bled through the page so bad. And it definitely wasn’t that crystal sharp beauty I had in the previous edition of that bible. I was extremely disappointed. First off, if publishers like Crossway are gonna darken their text, they need to consider slightly thicker pages because that’s my biggest complaint with their thinline editions. The original damaged ESV I had did infact have the same thin pages, but the lighter font complemented that thinness, which in turn made the ghosting less apparent. Nowadays, I think many bible publishers have gotten a little obsessed with the really dark/bolded fonts, but I know they have a purpose and I’m not fully opposed to it. If anything, if you darken the fonts, brighten up the pages (again - like Thomas Nelson! LOL) However, I noticed the more expensive bible publishers like Schuyler and R.L. Allan have really clean fonts that I absolutely love. It’s probably why I’ve been strangely drawn to them lately. But….. I can’t afford those right now 😂.
Oh and Humble Lamb…. my oh my, Humble Lamb fonts are *chef’s kiss* 😮💨
Thanks for the kind words! Regarding font boldness (and red letters, page-bottom references, column width, ...), we're all wired differently, and sometimes what appeals to one person is a hardship to others. I'm happy you find the detail in these videos useful. (I've been told that a 10 minute Bible review is too long.)
The BSB and CSB are very much the same. The BSB seems to come off more traditional in its rendering compared to the CSB. In Psalm 25:1 the BSB says “I lift up my soul to you” and the CSB says “I make my appeal to you”. Here is this instance where the BSB decides to retain literacy and sound more traditional in this verse. This doesn’t mean the BSB is better overall but what the BSB offers compared to the CSB is readability, accuracy and traditional rendering. The CSB only accurate and readability.
Thanks for commenting, ICA Ministry!
With respect, the CSB and BSB are quite different. It's not like comparing the KJV to the Message, but there are definitely important and significant differences
Hi, great review as always. Thanks.
Regarding the reading at Romans 5:17, it appears there are a number of translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV to name a few) that read 'of the gift of righteousness' as the BSB does.
Thanks, Rob! You're right, of course. I wonder why I didn't take the time to check other translations, and why I haven't noticed it before.
thank you for such a detailed review. The text size and highlighting are very important me. I am considering this Bible to add to my library. More space outside the text, is more space for my notes.
Excellent review. Thank you.
Thanks for the kind comment, Tony!
Could you compare the Berean Standard Bibles literalness to the ESV, NASB etc..?
Perhaps I will some day, but to do so I'll need to score it over the same 200 verses I use for the other translations, and that's quite a lot of work. Thank you for the suggestion!
Great review! Thank you once again for sharing your thoughts on the quality of the translation as well as the quality of the physical book.
A thought occurred to me when you were mentioning how this translation sometimes converts units and sometimes leaves them alone: a gallon as a unit of measure has lasted the test of time and their conversion should be accurate for a good while longer, while the value of money is always subject to inflation and they'd have to update their conversion with each new edition. Plus: a literal conversion into dollars (or whatever else) couldn't really tell us what the value of their money was to them -- how much would an average salary be, how much does it take to run a modest household, etc.?
berean has an interlinear version, a literal version, a study (reading) version (in modern english), and an annotated version. annotated version will maybe have expanded meanings similar to the wuest expanded translation.
Great review. I just don't think there was reason for the BSB in light of the CSB -- which I would trust more, due to their stronger translation team.
Hello @R. Grant Jones , in your opinion, what is the best English translation of the Septuagint?
That's a hard question to answer. I wish I could say the Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint (SAAS), since I like their overall approach. (They take the New Testament's understanding of Old Testament texts seriously and render them accordingly). But the SAAS simply strays from the LXX toward the Hebrew too often. (SAAS is the Old Testament in the Orthodox Study Bible.)
I think the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is generally accurate, and I use it frequently. It also packs a great deal of useful, scholarly background information. The font is somewhat small, but larger than that in the standard edition of Brenton's translation. Some people dislike the fact that NETS transliterates names from the Greek (Moyses instead of Moses), but that doesn't bother me.
The Lexham English Septuagint (LES) is good also. I haven't seen the second edition yet, but I hope to examine it this summer. I generally liked the first edition, though some of the language was too informal for my taste, and some of the renderings too loose. LES has the advantage of a relatively large, dark typeface and a wide margin in which corrections can be written. Unhappily, the text block is glued, as is that in the next translation.
Brenton's translation is still a very good choice. I disagree with some of his renderings, but I've found him to be generally accurate. This edition also includes the Greek text alongside the English, which makes it easy to check. My chief problem with it is the tiny font for the English text.
Charles Thomson's translation is also generally reliable. Unfortunately, the edition I've seen includes only 39 books.
So, if I could have only one, I would probably chose NETS. But I make frequent use of SAAS, NETS, and Brenton; and when my copy of the second edition of LES arrives, I plan to mark it up extensively.
@@RGrantJones thank you so much for your detailed response. I appreciate all that you do and your dedication to studying and understanding the word of our God. May the LORD our God bless you in all that you undertake.
probably better to wait for the berean annotated bible.
excellent analysis
thank you
Thanx, RGJ🌹🌹🌹🌹
What's the difference between the text edition and the standard bible? They sell 2 book versions of it at the moment.
Thanks for commenting, FinalMythology. I've seen only the edition I reviewed here, so I don't know. Perhaps someone who does know will answer your question.
Thanks for this review.
My impression is that this translation is targeting those who desire a more traditional mediating translation, and have come to distrust the NIV2011 and perhaps even the CSB.
The NIV2011 due to it's gender language and some questionable translation choices, as well as some other concerning side issues (i.e. The 2020 edition of the NIV Study Bible has endorsements by female pastors published on its official website, as well as an article in the study bible itself that portrays female pastorship as a "grey issue" that shouldn't cause division.) The CSB, possibly due to the dubious direction of the upper echelon of SBC leadership, and perhaps the translation still not being considered traditional enough.
I personally appreciate the lack of gender shenanigans, the capitalized pronouns of deity, and view the lack of doubt brackets in places like the longer ending of Mark and the Pericope Adulterae to be quite refreshing. I also like the fact that it's around in the event that the NIV continues to circle the drain and the CSB follows. It also seems to have a literary style that is a smidge more stately than the NIV or CSB, which is a nice touch (the NET, without its notes, I just find to be boring.) The only thing that concerns me is that they really need to make it available in a wider variety of formats and websites if they want this translation to take off and not fade into obscurity.
Thanks for commenting, Macross DYRL! I wasn't aware of issues with the CSB.
@@RGrantJones It's not so much the CSB translation in and of itself, yet, as it is with the SBC and its surrounding organizations, particularly the ERLC, starting to slide further theologically Left, and thus concerns about what could become of the CSB in the future under such leadership.
@@SolitaireZeta - Thanks! I can see how that would be a concern.
Who is they?? It’s an open source bible text. You can download the text and print it if you wanted to. In any format of printing, binding, or cover you like.
Do you think the Berean Literal Bible (BLB) is more literal or more close to the Greek than the LSB?
Thanks for the question, Michael, but I don't have enough experience with either to give you a good answer.
@@RGrantJones Okay, nevertheless thanks for your answer. I appreciate it. On another note, if you don't mind please pray for me, that I live more according to God's will. Recently I've often fallen short of the standards in the bible.
@@michaelg4919 - I just said a prayer for you. May God bless you and yours!
@@RGrantJones Thank you! This does mean a lot to me.
`Berean Study Bible? Aptly named` said the Baptist. Great video.
Thanks for commenting, Dani! I can only guess at what you mean.
@@RGrantJones I thought you would surely get it 😉. I am referring to the denomination not John 😄Hope you are having a great Sunday.
@@danivuk2036 - Yes, I thought it was an imagined quote from a generic Baptist, but I couldn't decide why our Baptist thought it was an apt name. Because it's a study Bible without study notes? Or because Baptists like to quote Acts 17.11?
@@RGrantJones Study Bible without study notes , while a Baptist with Baptism.. both aptly named😀It was much funnier in my head. 😁
Yes, the name is ridiculous on multiple fronts.
Thats a regular bible format.
But how is the translation? Is it correct? Easy to read?
Thanks for the review, like so many new translations this 'study bible' just seems unnecessary when we have so many for every purpose and more. The only new translation I've enjoyed recently has been the RNJB which I bought after your review, really like the way it reads although I only ever use it as a secondary translation.
Thanks for commenting, Joshua! I dislike appearing to discourage new translations, but I must admit as I examined this one, it wasn't clear to me why it was needed. (What we lack in English, in my opinion, is a good, relatively literal translation of the Greek Bible, with close collaboration between New and Old Testament committees, so that the translation highlights for the reader the New Testament authors' reliance on the Old. Notes showing the use early Christian writers made of the LXX and the Old Latin would also be worthwhile.)
@@RGrantJones Even just having a high quality bible which includes the lxx alongwith the NT would be a big step up in that regard, the Orthodox study bible is the closest thing currently but as you review shows their OT has some very serious omittions from the lxx in favour of the MT text. I remember from a comment you made about the idea of having Brenton's septuigant with the AV new testament in a single bible which would have been much better than what the Orthodox study bible became.
@@Haexz1 Since the NETS is the standard critical edition of the Greek Septuagint applied to the NRSV, I suppose another good combination would be the NETS and the NRSV New Testament - with contiguous standardization of proper names for the sake of clarity in regard to who the Biblical figures are.
What is the font size?
It's about 10.5 points. Thanks for commenting!
Rom 5:17
Perhaps they mean: "an abundance ... of the gift of righteousness."
Being more gender inclusive distorts the actual message of the ancient language. It used those for a purpose. Similar to how God was described as Father and Jesus himself was a male.
@@BellDistrict prove it
Not really, in some cases the gender is important, in others don't
The business of translating bibles relies less on the original languages and more on raiding thesaurus'.
At least half of all translations differ on synonyms for the sake of being different