This is such a blessing. This has cleared up YEARS of me struggling on which version to read. Which one was ok etc. I thank God for this video. I have went back and forth through several versions and would always end up with the KJV. I wanted to read the NLT but was afraid to because of what certain pastors said. Such a blessing! Finally feel like I can breathe
@@davidkennedy6251 I actually had to rewatch it just 2 days ago. I started watching a pastor talk about the KJV and why it should be the only Bible you trust and read. How the newer versions have taken stuff out etc. Had me almost convinced and drove me crazy thinking and praying for a couple of days.
@@davidhiramreyes6490 Brother I appreciate that. Most have no idea how much this has affected me. Like bothered me to the core to where I didn’t read at all because I was tore up in my spirit about it.
Dave, after taking Greek and Hebrew in seminary, I've wondered about much of this discussion. Thanks for your excellent insight, and for your faithful service to the Lord in Papua New Guinea and on RUclips!
Get Ruckman's book entitled Manuscript Evidence for the truth. Not all Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are the same. NO ONE HAS THE ORIGINALS that he keeps mentioning.
Outstanding explanations incorporating a well done systematic approach. Having taught Greek language at both high school and seminary levels, everything presented in this video is absolutely true.
What great understanding I came away with. I have struggled King James (my heart & soul) but needing more understanding. I bounce from NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, Young’s and my favorite kick back in a chair and obtain more understanding from NLT. But felt NLT is not the precise Bible I should count on since growing up with KJV. I will continue to enjoy my NLT but also dig into my other versions for clarification. Thank you so much for this teaching. Just what this old granny needed. ❤️🙏
People who are studying the Bible deeply for a long time would appreciate many good translations. If one is reading Bible commentary or other Christian books and let it add to his knowledge; Bible translation is not a big problem.
Thank you for your very clear and detailed presentation on the different ways the Scriptures are translated. You crammed a lot of material into those 30 minutes.
I love this! I have been praying for greater connectivity between Bible translators and the body of Christ. I really feel like this is one area that is absolutely lacking, and it is an area that we desperately need more exposure in. I would love more videos like this!!!
Have you See Dr. Bill Mounce's RUclips channel? He is on the NIV translation committee and was the ESV translation committee New Testament chair for 10 years. He has a whole series of videos explaining this. So helpful and encouraging.
This is a terrific explanation of the difficulties of bible translation and the silliness of those who claim they want a "word-for-word" translation. One would think this information raises an obvious flaw in "sola scriptura." Peace.
So, at the end of the day it doesn't actually matter what translation of the Bible we read! I personally enjoy the NLT translation, it reads so easily. What's great is that there are so many sound resources (this video included) available to us nowadays to help us understand God's message. I especially love it when schooled scholars like Dave Brunn highlight and explain the significant greek and hebrew words that appear throughout our Bible. It gives the text a whole new perspective.
That all depends if you want to read a modern version inspired of Satan or the King James Bible which is God's inspired word(s). Get Gail Riplinger's book New Age Bible Versions.
@@henrylaurel4476 Satan has a way of Character attacking, without ever addressing any evidence = PERFECT EXAMPLE HENRY, NOTHING BUT A CHARACTER ATTACK ON ME, AND ZERO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP ANYTHING YOU SAID = EPIC FAILURE HENRY!
What an awesome presentation! I have seen many different ones, mostly by theologians who end up rooting for the translation of their choice and ruling out others as the very work of the devil, but I had never had the chance of listening to an actual objective scholar and obviously a serious follower of Christ, who could explain so well the difficulties and challenges faced by translators when trying to do their most professional and best possible work with such an important task such as translating God's Word.
Really helped me an Interpreter in Church Why there are differences in Translations - especially Word to Word translations are not so... Thank you Dave Brunn from bringing me this beautiful insight video
Robert Zanol You Sir Are A Rairly Within The Camp Of kjv-onlyism !!!!!! May Your Viewpoint Spread To All Within The Camp Of kjv-onlyism !!!!!!! from South Louisiana March 26,2021 Friday .
The Guy who put together the NASB confessed he made a huge mistake translating that version!!....."I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?" - Frank Logsdon
Very interesting. But I get annoyed when people say (like this man does at 16:55) that Rev 22 vs18-19 warns against taking from or adding to Scripture. It doesn't. It only warns against adding to or taking away from the book of Revelation. There was no New Testament not completed canon when John penned this warning. Rev 22 vs18-19 (CSB) "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, which are written about in this book."
Anytime a Bible Critic knocks a version of the Bible, just ask them if they know the original languages. The cultural context also needs to be translated as well, a formal translation can’t do this like a dynamic translation can.
The main issue is that current Bible Translation Committees do not have scholars who natives speakers of Hebrew and Greek. That’s important in deciding when to translate word for word and when idiomatic translation is appropriate. For example, “the soles of the feet” might reveal a cultural insight that the simpler “their feet” does not reveal. More native Hebrew and Greek speakers are needed on these committees.
If you translate too literally, you can come up with a situation I call "Good Arms", after a translation mistake I made: the Japanese phrase 腕がいい - literally, "arms are good". A line using the phrase, which meant "I'm just that good", as "I have good arms". Is it a literal translation, yes...but it's straight-up incorrect.
20:46 I was reading the Bible in Afrikaans when I got to Job 1 and the Bible read: Bless God and die... and he will bless thee to thy face. At first I was confused, but then I saw the euphomism.
Dave, so well done. Thank you for this. One other force at play in translation in English (German, etc.) is the inertia of translation tradition. Often when a rendering in NRSV or NASB makes us think "Why did they do it that way", the answer is because they maintained that rendering from the KJV, etc.
We can't explore the forest from the cabin. KJV-Onlyists refuse to leave their bubble and only listen to those who affirm their entrenched beliefs. A competent judge hears the prosecution and the defense in every case. Remaining obstinate and not allowing the other side to speak traps the Onlyist in an information deprived state. KJVO feeds off of itself and produces ignorant and unbalanced Christians who lack objectivity. I thank God that I was able to question the narrative and look beyond the KJVO movement after about thirty five years of unrelenting conditioning!
I've noticed that the nkjv uses words like nevertheless,lest,nor,thus, and shall other various words that I don't hear people speak. Also the word order doesn't seem normal to me sometimes. I can say it's more plain English than the kjv though. But I like the kjv because it doesn't question words of God. Then I look at the niv which questions words in verses and verses that are the Word of God but is easier to read and understand. It's a more common day language that I basically know anyone to speak. In my opinion it's beautiful how understandable it is to read. What I don't understand is why there isn't a single translation that uses words we use today but also doesn't question the Word of God. This is a translation that I would want to memorize from. Hope this comes out soon. In the meantime I'm not sure what translation I'm going to memorize from any suggestions on that?
Arguing about translations is like arguing about a leak in the boat when you are headed towards a waterfall. The bigger issue here, the elephant in the room that no agreement about translations can solve, is INTERPRETATION. Mormons prefer the KJV but they sure don't agree with Baptists who prefer the KJV. To be honest, the argument over translations is guided by interpretation. KJVOs who interpret Psalm 12:6-7 a certain way. Or conservative evangelicals who interpret the bible to be against gender neutral translation. People deciding that verbal plenary inspiration means XYZ and therefore insisting that translations respect the details of that understanding. Etc. and etc. So yeah, the argument over translations is like a raging bar brawl that spilled over from next door. Because when you face the issue of translations on its own, it's really very straightforward.
Great explanation and points. Even when we do have the same "perfect" translation, our disagreements when interpreting it are usually greater than the disagreements of the various translations.
@@solomon467 that's because no one has any business interpreting it. The key is to let the bible do it's own interpreting. First Corinthians 2 says to compare spiritual things with spiritual ( scripture). Much more on this but got to go.
@@jerrylisby5376 Everyone who reads the Bible interprets it. Reading IS interpretation, unless when you look at a paragraph of words you just see gibberish.
@@sorenpx it must be interpreted by the light of other scripture. Start with the immediate context. And who is speaking to who. Then compare like scriptures. More to it but that is a start. Mostly I'm saying let the bible speak for itself. No private interpretation.
@@jerrylisby5376 I mostly agree but it's a disconcerting fact that even readers who apply these principles often come to different conclusions about what the text is saying.
This discussion of translation was good. I'm still biased towards formal equivalence... because then the interpretation is left to the reader... but it is clear that wisdom must be exercised when translating Thank God that he promised he would preserve his word!
i understand the difficulty of translation - longest german words: "Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft"(80 letters) "Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz" (79 letter). I did not make this up! i'm german and it is infuriating to translate these kind of words.
I know there are different interpretations for the bible ... but does these different interpretations affects the meaning or not? and does all the versions have the same content, stories, instructions, concepts.... etc. ?
+Maher Othman I don't think so. Here or there a different word or phrase is used. But as a whole, the message remains. Except the Jehovah's translation (NWT) which is corrupted.
Romans 1:13 (move just a comma and see what you get! "Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren,....." or "Now I would not have you, ignorant brethren,....." LOL
@@johncolage1651 Firstly I am not an agent of Satan. I could be wrong, but I promise you I am not out to deceive. To address your kind request. John 1:1. In the American Standard Version (as in all standard versions), the passage says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This verse clearly teaches that before He was born into this world, Jesus existed as the Word. He is One of the Godhead along with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; Acts 17:29; 2 Corinthians 13:14). As the Word, He was present at creation and brought all things into being (Colossians 1:15-17). The Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus was the Creator of all things. They teach He was simply a created being. Therefore, they wrongly translate John 1:1 in order to rob Jesus of His place with the Father and the Spirit in the Godhead. The NWT mistranslates John 1:1 as, In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. From this it appears the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in two Gods-a big God and a little god. The Bible teaches there is only one God (James 2:19). The ignorance of the translators of the NWT is shown by their claim that, since there is no definite article in Greek before God, the translation should be “a god.” Source: truthfortheworld.org/problems-with-the-new-world-translation
@@qdog9521 John 1:18 says: "No one has ever seen God." Verse 14 clearly says that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..... we have beheld his glory." Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was "with God." Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as "the only true God"; so, Jesus as "a god" merely reflects his Father's divine qualities.----Heb. 1:3.
Funny that. I wrote off the NLT years ago, only to find it's more often than not, my go to. I have found that text + footnotes are invaluable for referencing even though I'm a die hard NKJVist.
@@NewLivingTranslation Thank you for this upload, I'm free to love the NLT 🙂 Now that I've watched the entire clip, I just want to confess that my arguing over translations is nothing short of pride in my own ignorance, not to mention my complete inadequacy of understanding of language in general. Thank you for this invaluable clarity. God bless your work, for His glory.
I recommend the Tyndale new testament for the New testament, and the Matthew bible for the old testament. But if those are too hard to understand due to being nearly 500 years old, then overall there's the new Matthew bible aka October [new] testament. The old testament of this bible is still being worked on, but the new testament is available on bible gateway without the footnotes.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THIS NEW LIVING CHANNEL BROTHER FOR YOUR EXPLANATIONS FOR ALL OF THE VERSION BIBLE .YES EVEN THOUGH A LOT OF TRANLATIONS FOR ALL OTHERS LANGUAGE BUT ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS ALL ALMOST THE SAME .SO THEY MUST CHOOSE THE TRANLATIONS OR BIBLE THAT IS GOOD FOR THEMSELVES SO THAT IT WILL NOT BRINGS THEM TO A COMPLICATED WAYS TO STUDY FOR THEIR BIBLES .AS IF THEY FEELS THAT ONE OF THE TRANLATIONS IS MORE BETTER FOR THEM SO THEY MUST USED ONE PART OF THE TRANLATIONS SO THAT IT WILL NOT BRINGS THEMS ANY DIFFICULTIES OR WILL NOT STUMBLE ABOUT THE BIBLE .WHY IT IS SO HARD FOR THEM TO BELIEVED IN HIS WORDS. ? REALLY SO SAD TO SEE ALL OF THIS TYPE OF CHRISTIANITY .LET'S GOD OPEN ALL OF THEIR HEART SO THAT THEY CAN KNOWS MORE ABOUT GOD WORDS.BELIEVED WITH ALL OF THEIR HEART IN THY LORD JESUS CHRIST .AMEN.GOD BLESSED YOU ALL.
I honestly find this a very interesting video, but I also wonder: One Bible, a collection of books, many copies and translations, hundreds of denominations, and God still wants us to puzzle about what was being written down 2000+ years ago?
If a receptor language does not have a word for an original language word then you need to make a new word in the receptor language. This was done by Tyndale, Luther, et al. Those new words then have to be taught to the recipients. Otherwise you're not translating, eg. Love
@@kingston163 It is not me making the ludicrous claims that you are making. The KJV translators knew their work wasn't perfect, so what makes you think you know better than they did? Which edition and revision of the KJV is perfect? Also prove from scripture that the KJV is perfect. Chapter and verse please also is it the 1611, 1769, edition, Oxford or Cambridge? Or one of the other revisions? You have absolutely no proof that the KJV is perfect. As I said you are a lying deluded fraud.
@2.46 you said you looked at what the "ORIGINAL" said? This is an amazing statement. Where did you get hold of the originals? How do you know they are the originals? Did you have the papyrus/vellum dated? This is an astounding revelation indeed. Will you be donating these originals to the Vatican or a museum?
Here is the problem. When someone says, "original" they NEVER mean the ACTUAL original that was written. People like yourself will find anything to make it seem like those who hold a different view than yourself are wrong. So I ask, do you believe that God has preserved His word? If there is no legitimacy to ACTUAL documents that we have access to, why trust ANY Bible version?
Looks like someone I can trust. A man who has spent his life translating the Bible for others. So many selfish Christians who are so selfish that even the translation of of the Bible is all about me me me. I respect my Lutheran ancestors but i rather suspect the Apostle Paul didnt read Luther's translation. Hmmm maybe that's because he was using the kjv....
The problem is that the NLT, like the NIV before it, uses dynamic equivalence as a guise for slipping in narrow Evangelical interpretations of passages that make the translation pretty useless outside of that circle. Of course, translations that favor formal equivalence (NRSV, NASB, ESV, NKJV) all have particular passages that sound a bit partisan at times, but it's generally a greater problem with a looser translation, especially in the New Testament. Ambiguity is sometimes absolutely necessary to avoid toeing a line.
But what you don't know is that the new modern Bibles use a much older manuscript than the King James and that the King James Bible added versus and the new modern Bible he's not missing scripture it's the manuscript that they found did not have those scriptures so nothing is dynamic!
The idea that a whole language doesn't have a Bible is so sad. I wish translation teams would focus on bringing God to everyone and not creating the 500th english version
NLT is merely a Bible commentary, not a translation please. It has caused me troubles in understanding God’s Word many times. One serious mistake is which day Our Lord was crucified. I simply couldn’t put up with this translation any more after using three years or so.
15:30 The soles of their feet is rendered by the NASB as "Their feet" disregsrds the commandments: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, *neither shall ye diminish ought from it,* that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (De. 4:2) Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; *diminish not a word:* (Je. 26:2)
I've been a career translator for many years too and undestand what this presenter says very well. But it seems to me that he does not recognize the fact that there are manuscripts (in the original languages) that are intentionally corrupt. And they are the sources of many a modern translation. That will constitute a completely different motif for prefering one translation over another, will it not? How can he then encourage us to consider ALL the translations and study them indiscriminately?
GuitarraUltima I seriously don't think that's his point. He's simply saying that the current argument pitting the translations generally known to be 'literal translations' on the one hand and those known to be 'dynamic equivalents' on the other, is way too simplistic. He goes on to show how the work of translation is incredibly difficult, with lots of decisions to make. The result: The 'literal translations' aren't as literal as may be perceived, while the 'dynamic equivalents' may in some instances be more literal than their 'literal' counterparts.
Not to mention of the differences in manuscript traditions. Like Byzantine or more specifically the Textus Receptus vs the Alexandrian or Codex Vaticanus. I suggest the MEV or good ole KJV.
Are you up for a debate Is God the author of confusion Charlie or is it Satan? Why would you want to read something "only sorta pure" and "could cause confusion" and think that is truly from God? If we do a hangout, it will have to be a debate format just on the topic of bible translations/KJV. You can ask your questions for NIV, MSG or whatever translation you wish, or just specifically on the KJV and we will answer and give facts as to those versions/KJV you bring up in your questions. I would say we start with 5 questions of your choice. You need to figure out what 5 questions you wish to ask and stick with them and then once you determine what 5 you need to send that list here to all of us 2 wks before the debate, so those answering you has time to study and have an answer for you. If time permits, you could add another 2-3 and we could do those if time doesnt run out. Plan on a 4 hr hangout in order to cover at least 5 of your main concerns/questions. Looks like Sat 8 am PST would be best for you with your work schedule. I would send link to join 30 min ahead of time so all can connect and we start right at 8 am PST. I cant do any earlier due to others in my home getting ready for work, waking up etc...Plan for a 4 hr hangout so you have time to ask your questions/us to answer and you get to work. I want everyone to have time to prepare for this, so maybe the 27th Oct or Nov 10 would be good? I will be out of town on Nov 2-3. If we go with the 27th you need to submit your questions to this email group no later than this Sat Oct 13th. This would need to be done the way Bill set it up on his channel when he was the mod for Ryan and Mathias debate. I would be the mod for this one. I would be impartial, keep track of everyone's time and keep the peace and not be "in the debate". Each question would be allowed 5 min to ask and explain your position and then Bill, Merle and Hannah would each have 5 min to respond. Since Hannah is KJV only herself, she would be on the opposing side from you. None of us wishes you to feel ganged up on, or outnumbered. If you wish to bring in someone else that isnt KJV only, you need to let me know by this Sat. I need their channel name and email address to send email to them. I'd prefer if you bring in someone else to be on "your side" that it be 2/2. If that ends up being the case it would be you and whoever you wish to join you for your side, then Merle and Bill for the opposing side. Hannah you are still welcome to join and maybe you could help me mod and keep time, in case I need a break, use restroom, go out for a smoke break (we dont smoke in our house and I will need a break haha) No interrupting at all from anyone when they are on the clock. This has to be strictly enforced. Anything I wish to contribute I would wait til the very end when all your questions are asked, the opposing side has given their answers etc... We would prob want to devote 10 min at the start just for welcoming, introductions, then get right into the debate with your 1st question and total can not run over 20 min per questions for you to ask and the others to give their answers. No more than 4 total to ask/respond to each question. 4 hrs is plenty of time to go thru at least 5 main questions you have, everyone respond and then for closing remarks from me. Figuring up the time in my head (assuming we can stick to the time schedule) there would be time for 2 addl questions Charlie. But start with the 5 main ones, then add 2-3 others and as long as we stay within the time constraints, we can prob get to 2 more. Just have your 7-8 questions sent here no later than 2 wks ahead of time. So, I need to hear from everyone what dates are good for all of you? It can be later in Nov if need be, I just need to know as I am the master scheduler for these special hangouts on our various channels. This would be on my channel and I am fine to have live chat be open for this. I will not really be able to mod the chat if I am the mod for the debate so will need Bill, Merle and others to help with the chat if ThickShades decides to show up and troll. Please let me know asap what dates works for all of you. Oct 27th, Nov 10th.
There’s Catholic canons, protestant canons, Coptic canons, etc. Don’t lie. There is no such thing as ONE singular Bible. The word Bible means library. No Bible could contain all scripture.
Here is a short video on Bible version comparisons; this will help you decide which versions is best suited for you: ruclips.net/video/4dA98WKw5DE/видео.html
I’m sorry but your video isn’t really any sort of comparison or explanation of different versions. You showed a lot of examples where other versions differed from the KJV but neglected to explain to the viewer why these differences existed. Nor did you go into the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic to investigate the author’s original intent. You also didn’t mention context in a few of the examples. Just to look at one: in Daniel 3 verse 25 this is Nebuchadnezzar speaking. He’s a pagan king who would have no knowledge of the Messiah. Put yourself in his position. His description of this fourth man being a “son of the gods” made sense to him and to those around him. This is not an error. As for Gail Riplinger… her work has been widely discredited. She’s not a Bible scholar. There’s more I could say, but it’s not my intention to be rude or anything. Languages are complex and translating from one to another is difficult, as the NLT video explains very well. And something else to ponder - Jesus spoke Aramaic. The New Testament books were written in Greek. So Jesus’s words, when penned, we already a translation.
@@thesimplegospel8697 I’m sorry but no. Off hand I can’t think of anything I agreed with. I would have to view it again to say with certainty. But without really digging into why certain text appears in later manuscripts and ends up in the KJV and why those same texts are absent from earliest manuscripts and are not in newer translations - I don’t see the video as being overly honest or transparent in providing full context. In essence - it’s misleading! Your video will not convince anyone with background knowledge, only someone who doesn’t know any better. And most staunch and scholarly KJV Only advocates will find your video good but way too basic.
@@timcarr6401 what's your point? I was trying to explain that some Bible translations are better than others because they are wfw type .... so what's your agenda?
@@Dilley_G45 Since there is no such thing as W-F-W, your premise falls flat. Some translations are more form-oriented. That's probably what you mean. But it does not follow that the more form-oriented ones are "better" than those which are more functional.
The video uploader should be reminded that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob only authored/authorized ONE Holy Written Word - just one. And He warns us more than once in that Written Word to NOT add to - nor take from - His Holy Word. . What do ALL of these "versions" do? Just that - they take from - and add to. . As well .... these "books" are creating massive confusion amongst God's people. Is that God bringing that division and confusion? Or is it - as God tells us - satan who brings division and confusion. God tells us that He is not the author of confusion. Period. . Also .... satan has God's people actually referring to His Holy Written Word as a "version". Yep - when we say "King James Version" - we have just tossed God's Word into the "it's not the original" pile along with all of these other "books" out here that claim to be a Bible. When we refer to something as a "version" we automatically water it down - calling something a "version" lets people know upfront that "Hey, this isn't the original - it's just a copy". . God tells us that His Holy Word is inspired - by the Holy Ghost - can you say that about these "versions" out here? Without a doubt - NO. The NIV alone has removed over 66 thousand different names, phrases and even entire verses. Think God is okay with us removing the words that HE chose to put in there? Judging from the stern /eternal warnings He gives us about not adding to or taking from His Word - I would venture to say no, He is NOT okay with it. . And last - God Himself promises He will preserve His Holy Word. So .... um, where IS that Holy preserved Written Word at - is it the NIV - the NSB - the NKJV - the NWT ? No - it is the one book that has stood the test of time - longer than these human written "versions". . Be wiser than the serpent, folks - satan isn't picky about who he deceives - he will deceive young, old and even preachers. . . .
Puppy Trax, you know that the Latin Vulgate lasted longer than English versions, right? You know that the Textus Receptus used the Vulgate for its final verses of Revelation? Study to show yourself approved.
No " perfect" Bible till 1611? or 1769 or what other revision it was. And only in English? Not just English but some archaic English where the meaning of so many words have changed. The breathtaking arrogance of the KJV only cult, is totally demonic
This gentleman neglected to note that many of these modern versions omit the generic masculine in hundreds of passages and changes thousands of words, in order to make the language "gender-neutral". Gender-neutral language is not the language of the Scriptures and has no place in any version calling itself a "Bible translation", which the NLT is not. That the generic masculine is offensive to modern English-speaking feminists is just too bad; the generic masculine is part of the inspired words given by God Himself. If this man really means what he claims, that he wants a Bible that is accurate and faithful, he will not use a gender-neutral "Bible", such as the NLT, the 2011 NIV, the CEV, the NRSV, etc. The NLT is a feminist revision of the old Living Bible of 1971, made by feminists who now have great influence in modern evangelical churches. It is not the job of a translator to be focused on the needs (real or supposed) of his target audience or potential consumer, but to faithfully translate the words they are given to translate. That so many modern evangelicals no longer do this is because so many of them no longer believe the words themselves are not inspired, but only the "message". It is not surprising that Dave Brunn does not refer to the old KJV, since this version is despised by modern evangelicals.
I, Thomas Jefferson, am perhaps what you would call a modern evangelical, and although I possess a KJV in my collection, I admit to not referring to it a great deal. However, this does not mean that I despise it. On the contrary, I am very grateful to those who, 400 years ago, first translated the Scriptures into English, it was indeed a great achievement. So please don't start accusing people like myself of such things. You only succeed in showing that you yourself have little understanding of our views. My view would be that of Dave Brunn, we are very, very blessed to have so many versions to study from, being able to cross reference one version against another to come to a more complete understanding of what the LORD is telling us. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness."
I would also add that, of all the RUclips videos I have watched on this subject I have not, as far as I can remember, heard anyone who holds my view, imply that they despise the KJV. I have, however, come across a great many of KJ onlyist's who literally despise the modern versions, calling them satanic. I believe people need to wake up and realise that, as disciples of Jesus Christ, we are in this together and we should not be squabbling about petty things that do not affect salvation. I have done my studies through the NIV and ESV and would say that my beliefs on the fundamental issues of Chritianity are probably the same as yours. These modern versions do not alter fundamental theological viewpoints. I believe Jesus/Yeshua is LORD of all, that he died for sins, rose on the 3rd day and is at the Fathers side, and if we believe on him and repent, seeking to live for him as his disciples, then we shall receive the promise of eternal life.
Very well stated, TJ. Feminism is was the idol of churchianity well before the 21st century and he KJV is the idol of the KJ Onlyists. I grew up on the KJV and most of the Scripture imprinted on my mind is KJV but I now rely more on the more modern translations that are generally more accurate and incorporate more depth of scholarship and manuscript evidence. I bought Dunn's book and plan to learn some more from him so long as he is true to the Word and does not try to peddle feminism and/or cater to the feminist culture of this era.
Novem Ber, "Don't be naive" is a very interesting choice of words when combined with the 2nd sentence. You need to apply your own advice to yourself. Get out of that feminist-led cult of KJV only.
Acts 5:30 - so Jesus was killed BEFORE nailing to the cross? I don't think so. The KJV is excellent and more reliable than NASB, ESV etc. but the NKJV matches its accuracy and corrected some unfortunate translations.
I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law then CHRIST IS DEAD IN VAIN. Galatians 2:21 KJV. Note is dead current tense a contradiction of the resurrection.
In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ The KJV also denies Jesus. “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, In whom there is no help.” Psalm 146:3 KJV. This is to be expected from Greek manuscripts produced by Roman Catholic priests.
What Dave has neglected to mention is that the differences between the Bibles are numbered in the thousands which affect doctrine in hundreds of passages. A classic example is Acts 8.37 which is THE repudiation of infant baptism. It is found in the King James Bible but removed from the modern apostate versions. Only the King James Bible is translated from the Traditional Text line of manuscripts which can be traced back to the firsts century believers. The other modern English counter-reformation bibles (eg. NLT, ESV, NEB, NJB, NASB, NIV etc.) rely upon the Alexandrian Text which was a revision of the True text performed by Origen of Alexandria, a gnostic. They don't teach you that in Bible school because Seminaries are a counter-reformation institution (look it up) designed to destroy the Traditional Text of the Protestant Reformation.
***** Wow! Can you seriously be that dim? Well, let's get started then... The KJB was translated by the world's best scholars who were both Anglican and Puritan. Some of them practiced infant baptism, yes. But does this demonstrate a fault with the translation? No, of course not. In fact it does just the opposite. Despite the fact that some of them practiced infant baptism they included the repudiation AGAINST infant baptism in their translation (Acts 8:37 KJB) demonstrating that their own personal doctrinal biases did NOT influence their translational work. Praise God. The KJB is the inerrant Words of God in the English language. If you don't know this right now it is because you are ignorant of history OR you don't have the Spirit of Christ OR both! Read David Ottis Fuller's, Which Bible. THEN come back here to continue this discussion.
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:37, KJV) How is this a repudiation of infant baptism?
This is rightly put in the comedy category...welcome to the modernistic Bible Babble Buffet where every scholar is his own final authority. KJB is the one and only real true and complete Bible that exists today.
Comedy????? His own authority? You know, the KJV translators were their own authority as well, so was Erasmus when compiling the TR. It’s a pity you watched this video and came away with that as your conclusion.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19 You translators who butcher God’s word and make these perVersions of God’s word including the NLT, you are going to answer and pay dearly and no amount of money is worth that! Unless you repent, you’re going to pay and answer for this!
Hmmmm… Forgive my ignorance, but if that passage from Revelation was applicable to translations - all translations would be in serious error, including the KJV. They’ve all taken liberties in the translation process. Not one single Bible widely available is word for word.
This video was posted 10 years ago and is still valuable to this day in 2024, truly recommend watching the full video
The video aged as well as the NLT translation.
This is one of the few people who truly knows what he is talking about translations.
This is such a blessing. This has cleared up YEARS of me struggling on which version to read. Which one was ok etc. I thank God for this video. I have went back and forth through several versions and would always end up with the KJV. I wanted to read the NLT but was afraid to because of what certain pastors said. Such a blessing! Finally feel like I can breathe
I totally agree. This is a first rate introduction to Bible versions and translation.
@@davidkennedy6251 I actually had to rewatch it just 2 days ago. I started watching a pastor talk about the KJV and why it should be the only Bible you trust and read. How the newer versions have taken stuff out etc. Had me almost convinced and drove me crazy thinking and praying for a couple of days.
@@thetattooedguy1413 don’t listen to people that say you should only use the KJV
@@davidhiramreyes6490 Brother I appreciate that. Most have no idea how much this has affected me. Like bothered me to the core to where I didn’t read at all because I was tore up in my spirit about it.
@@thetattooedguy1413 I understand. I went through the same thing.
Most modern translations are very good. Read God’s word with confidence!
This is the best video I've seen to date about translations. Thank you!
Dave, after taking Greek and Hebrew in seminary, I've wondered about much of this discussion. Thanks for your excellent insight, and for your faithful service to the Lord in Papua New Guinea and on RUclips!
Get Ruckman's book entitled Manuscript Evidence for the truth. Not all Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are the same. NO ONE HAS THE ORIGINALS that he keeps mentioning.
This was EXTREMELY helpful and interesting. From an actual translator and not just someone with an opinion.
Thank you!
This should be mandatory viewing for all Bible lovers! Thank you for your service brother.
Outstanding explanations incorporating a well done systematic approach. Having taught Greek language at both high school and seminary levels, everything presented in this video is absolutely true.
Excellent video, and I agree with Dave Brunn: reading many different translations does lead to a greater understanding of Scripture.
What great understanding I came away with. I have struggled King James (my heart & soul) but needing more understanding. I bounce from NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, Young’s and my favorite kick back in a chair and obtain more understanding from NLT. But felt NLT is not the precise Bible I should count on since growing up with KJV. I will continue to enjoy my NLT but also dig into my other versions for clarification. Thank you so much for this teaching. Just what this old granny needed. ❤️🙏
more clarity the better I use KJV and NLT as well
NLT is not good, same changes as the others! www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/300_changes.htm
People who are studying the Bible deeply for a long time would appreciate many good translations. If one is reading Bible commentary or other Christian books and let it add to his knowledge; Bible translation is not a big problem.
Dave Bruun spoke at my school New Orleans Theological Seminary. He is an excellent scholar. His book is outstanding
Thank you for your very clear and detailed presentation on the different ways the Scriptures are translated. You crammed a lot of material into those 30 minutes.
I love this! I have been praying for greater connectivity between Bible translators and the body of Christ. I really feel like this is one area that is absolutely lacking, and it is an area that we desperately need more exposure in. I would love more videos like this!!!
Have you See Dr. Bill Mounce's RUclips channel? He is on the NIV translation committee and was the ESV translation committee New Testament chair for 10 years. He has a whole series of videos explaining this. So helpful and encouraging.
I started loving NLT...
Dave, you did an awesome job explaining Bible translating. 👏👏👏👏✝️
Love the NLT
Hey Dave, This is fantastic! Thanks so much for explaining this.
This is a terrific explanation of the difficulties of bible translation and the silliness of those who claim they want a "word-for-word" translation. One would think this information raises an obvious flaw in "sola scriptura." Peace.
And this is why I like to reference a multitude of translations… LSB/NASB95, ESV, HCSB, NET and NLT.
This video is very powerful and well explained.
So, at the end of the day it doesn't actually matter what translation of the Bible we read!
I personally enjoy the NLT translation, it reads so easily.
What's great is that there are so many sound resources (this video included) available to us nowadays to help us understand God's message. I especially love it when schooled scholars like Dave Brunn highlight and explain the significant greek and hebrew words that appear throughout our Bible. It gives the text a whole new perspective.
That all depends if you want to read a modern version inspired of Satan or the King James Bible which is God's inspired word(s). Get Gail Riplinger's book New Age Bible Versions.
@@jerrylisby5376 AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The NLT butchers what God said!
@@henrylaurel4476 Empty words without proof Henry! You don't have a leg to stand on!
@@henrylaurel4476 Satan has a way of Character attacking, without ever addressing any evidence = PERFECT EXAMPLE HENRY, NOTHING BUT A CHARACTER ATTACK ON ME, AND ZERO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP ANYTHING YOU SAID = EPIC FAILURE HENRY!
What an awesome presentation! I have seen many different ones, mostly by theologians who end up rooting for the translation of their choice and ruling out others as the very work of the devil, but I had never had the chance of listening to an actual objective scholar and obviously a serious follower of Christ, who could explain so well the difficulties and challenges faced by translators when trying to do their most professional and best possible work with such an important task such as translating God's Word.
Yes, may more language scholars like him be used by God
Interesting to see the level of language understanding people have, even in the face of clear explanations.
Really helped me an Interpreter in Church Why there are differences in Translations - especially Word to Word translations are not so... Thank you Dave Brunn from bringing me this beautiful insight video
I use King James only. However I do not argue with or attack others who use other versions.
I use nkjv buy I go back to KJV too first
Robert Zanol You Sir Are A Rairly Within The Camp Of kjv-onlyism !!!!!! May Your Viewpoint Spread To All Within The Camp Of kjv-onlyism !!!!!!! from South Louisiana March 26,2021 Friday .
Well, you should because these “translators” who make these perVersions of God’s word are ENEMIES of the King James Bible!
whichever translatio the words in it are living ones.. God's word is alive
It's a miracle😂
Nlt is the first Bible I fully understand, so therefore it’s the most accurate translation. Period.
Fascinating...we owe more respect to all our translators...imagine doing this with every word...they did
The Guy who put together the NASB confessed he made a huge mistake translating that version!!....."I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"
- Frank Logsdon
Very interesting. But I get annoyed when people say (like this man does at 16:55) that Rev 22 vs18-19 warns against taking from or adding to Scripture. It doesn't. It only warns against adding to or taking away from the book of Revelation. There was no New Testament not completed canon when John penned this warning. Rev 22 vs18-19 (CSB)
"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, which are written about in this book."
Amen! I also cannot understand how people think it is talking about the bible, when it is only referring to the book of revelation.
Anytime a Bible Critic knocks a version of the Bible, just ask them if they know the original languages. The cultural context also needs to be translated as well, a formal translation can’t do this like a dynamic translation can.
The NLT is the Bible of choice for me, but in this presentation it was NOT championed......and THAT is what makes this presentation rock IMHO.
I'm narrating the NLT psalms on my channel. I love using different translations for parallel comparison.
If you compare, you'll see clearly! www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/300_changes.htm
The main issue is that current Bible Translation Committees do not have scholars who natives speakers of Hebrew and Greek. That’s important in deciding when to translate word for word and when idiomatic translation is appropriate. For example, “the soles of the feet” might reveal a cultural insight that the simpler “their feet” does not reveal. More native Hebrew and Greek speakers are needed on these committees.
A thoroughly enlightening presentation. Thanks for posting this.
If you translate too literally, you can come up with a situation I call "Good Arms", after a translation mistake I made: the Japanese phrase 腕がいい - literally, "arms are good". A line using the phrase, which meant "I'm just that good", as "I have good arms". Is it a literal translation, yes...but it's straight-up incorrect.
Exactly, one of the challenges of using a too literal translation
I enjoyed and liked Dave's presentation. Terrific.
20:46 I was reading the Bible in Afrikaans when I got to Job 1 and the Bible read: Bless God and die... and he will bless thee to thy face. At first I was confused, but then I saw the euphomism.
Dave, so well done. Thank you for this. One other force at play in translation in English (German, etc.) is the inertia of translation tradition. Often when a rendering in NRSV or NASB makes us think "Why did they do it that way", the answer is because they maintained that rendering from the KJV, etc.
This was helpful, Dave. Thank you.
Very well presented! Full of excellent examples and cogent explanation.
Just Awesome.. thanks for sharing deep things from the Bibles..
This is very informative and interesting, really something to think about.
This was very informative and well explained. Thanks for sharing!! God bless!
Very well done! I learned so much! Thank you
EXCELLENT VIDEO!
Strange to have it being promoted through the NLT though.
This is excellent. I'll show this to our king james only friends.
We can't explore the forest from the cabin. KJV-Onlyists refuse to leave their bubble and only listen to those who affirm their entrenched beliefs. A competent judge hears the prosecution and the defense in every case. Remaining obstinate and not allowing the other side to speak traps the Onlyist in an information deprived state. KJVO feeds off of itself and produces ignorant and unbalanced Christians who lack objectivity. I thank God that I was able to question the narrative and look beyond the KJVO movement after about thirty five years of unrelenting conditioning!
I've noticed that the nkjv uses words like nevertheless,lest,nor,thus, and shall other various words that I don't hear people speak. Also the word order doesn't seem normal to me sometimes. I can say it's more plain English than the kjv though.
But I like the kjv because it doesn't question words of God.
Then I look at the niv which questions words in verses and verses that are the Word of God but is easier to read and understand. It's a more common day language that I basically know anyone to speak. In my opinion it's beautiful how understandable it is to read.
What I don't understand is why there isn't a single translation that uses words we use today but also doesn't question the Word of God. This is a translation that I would want to memorize from.
Hope this comes out soon.
In the meantime I'm not sure what translation I'm going to memorize from any suggestions on that?
I suggest that we have one or several, one classic and literal, one a little contemporary, etc.
Excellent...... Bless you David. NTM?
I read the KJV, NIV, NLT, ESV, NKJV too. For my studying.
Me as well
excellent presentation
This was insightful. Thank you!
Excellent scholarly video, thank you.
This is wonderful.
To truly understand the bible, you have to use many bibles; NASB, CSB, NLT, NIV, ESV, AMP, NCV, GNT, MEV,
Praise the Lord for someone in the comment section has commonsense a rarity in this day and age
Arguing about translations is like arguing about a leak in the boat when you are headed towards a waterfall. The bigger issue here, the elephant in the room that no agreement about translations can solve, is INTERPRETATION. Mormons prefer the KJV but they sure don't agree with Baptists who prefer the KJV.
To be honest, the argument over translations is guided by interpretation. KJVOs who interpret Psalm 12:6-7 a certain way. Or conservative evangelicals who interpret the bible to be against gender neutral translation. People deciding that verbal plenary inspiration means XYZ and therefore insisting that translations respect the details of that understanding. Etc. and etc.
So yeah, the argument over translations is like a raging bar brawl that spilled over from next door. Because when you face the issue of translations on its own, it's really very straightforward.
Great explanation and points. Even when we do have the same "perfect" translation, our disagreements when interpreting it are usually greater than the disagreements of the various translations.
@@solomon467 that's because no one has any business interpreting it. The key is to let the bible do it's own interpreting. First Corinthians 2 says to compare spiritual things with spiritual ( scripture). Much more on this but got to go.
@@jerrylisby5376 Everyone who reads the Bible interprets it. Reading IS interpretation, unless when you look at a paragraph of words you just see gibberish.
@@sorenpx it must be interpreted by the light of other scripture. Start with the immediate context. And who is speaking to who. Then compare like scriptures. More to it but that is a start. Mostly I'm saying let the bible speak for itself. No private interpretation.
@@jerrylisby5376 I mostly agree but it's a disconcerting fact that even readers who apply these principles often come to different conclusions about what the text is saying.
Interesting, helpful
This discussion of translation was good. I'm still biased towards formal equivalence... because then the interpretation is left to the reader... but it is clear that wisdom must be exercised when translating
Thank God that he promised he would preserve his word!
Yes but even a formal equivalence translation
Involves interpretation…
i understand the difficulty of translation - longest german words: "Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft"(80 letters) "Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz" (79 letter). I did not make this up! i'm german and it is infuriating to translate these kind of words.
I wonder how accurate the Navajo version is? Guess I have some homework ahead of me. This is a hard subject to tackle!
I know there are different interpretations for the bible ... but does these different interpretations affects the meaning or not? and does all the versions have the same content, stories, instructions, concepts.... etc. ?
+Maher Othman I don't think so. Here or there a different word or phrase is used. But as a whole, the message remains. Except the Jehovah's translation (NWT) which is corrupted.
Romans 1:13 (move just a comma and see what you get!
"Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren,....."
or
"Now I would not have you, ignorant brethren,....."
LOL
@@qdog9521 Show me one word or phrase in the [NWT] that is corrupt and I will expose you as an agent of Satan. Promise.
@@johncolage1651 Firstly I am not an agent of Satan. I could be wrong, but I promise you I am not out to deceive.
To address your kind request. John 1:1. In the American Standard Version (as in all standard versions), the passage says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This verse clearly teaches that before He was born into this world, Jesus existed as the Word. He is One of the Godhead along with the Father and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; Acts 17:29; 2 Corinthians 13:14). As the Word, He was present at creation and brought all things into being (Colossians 1:15-17). The Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus was the Creator of all things. They teach He was simply a created being. Therefore, they wrongly translate John 1:1 in order to rob Jesus of His place with the Father and the Spirit in the Godhead.
The NWT mistranslates John 1:1 as, In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. From this it appears the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in two Gods-a big God and a little god. The Bible teaches there is only one God (James 2:19). The ignorance of the translators of the NWT is shown by their claim that, since there is no definite article in Greek before God, the translation should be “a god.”
Source: truthfortheworld.org/problems-with-the-new-world-translation
@@qdog9521 John 1:18 says: "No one has ever seen God." Verse 14 clearly says that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..... we have beheld his glory." Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was "with God." Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as "the only true God"; so, Jesus as "a god" merely reflects his Father's divine qualities.----Heb. 1:3.
Thanks Jesus for your words
Very well spoken
Excellent video
Funny that. I wrote off the NLT years ago, only to find it's more often than not, my go to. I have found that text + footnotes are invaluable for referencing even though I'm a die hard NKJVist.
Thank you for sharing this!
@@NewLivingTranslation Thank you for this upload, I'm free to love the NLT 🙂
Now that I've watched the entire clip, I just want to confess that my arguing over translations is nothing short of pride in my own ignorance, not to mention my complete inadequacy of understanding of language in general. Thank you for this invaluable clarity. God bless your work, for His glory.
I too almost wrote off the NLT, but was directed to this video. I’ve grown to find that the NLT is like a breath of fresh air!
I recommend the Tyndale new testament for the New testament, and the Matthew bible for the old testament. But if those are too hard to understand due to being nearly 500 years old, then overall there's the new Matthew bible aka October [new] testament. The old testament of this bible is still being worked on, but the new testament is available on bible gateway without the footnotes.
Perfect Well done...
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THIS NEW LIVING CHANNEL BROTHER FOR YOUR EXPLANATIONS FOR ALL OF THE VERSION BIBLE .YES EVEN THOUGH A LOT OF TRANLATIONS FOR ALL OTHERS LANGUAGE BUT ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS ALL ALMOST THE SAME .SO THEY MUST CHOOSE THE TRANLATIONS OR BIBLE THAT IS GOOD FOR THEMSELVES SO THAT IT WILL NOT BRINGS THEM TO A COMPLICATED WAYS TO STUDY FOR THEIR BIBLES .AS IF THEY FEELS THAT ONE OF THE TRANLATIONS IS MORE BETTER FOR THEM SO THEY MUST USED ONE PART OF THE TRANLATIONS SO THAT IT WILL NOT BRINGS THEMS ANY DIFFICULTIES OR WILL NOT STUMBLE ABOUT THE BIBLE .WHY IT IS SO HARD FOR THEM TO BELIEVED IN HIS WORDS. ? REALLY SO SAD TO SEE ALL OF THIS TYPE OF CHRISTIANITY .LET'S GOD OPEN ALL OF THEIR HEART SO THAT THEY CAN KNOWS MORE ABOUT GOD WORDS.BELIEVED WITH ALL OF THEIR HEART IN THY LORD JESUS CHRIST .AMEN.GOD BLESSED YOU ALL.
I honestly find this a very interesting video, but I also wonder:
One Bible, a collection of books, many copies and translations, hundreds of denominations, and God still wants us to puzzle about what was being written down 2000+ years ago?
If a receptor language does not have a word for an original language word then you need to make a new word in the receptor language. This was done by Tyndale, Luther, et al. Those new words then have to be taught to the recipients. Otherwise you're not translating, eg. Love
Thanks!
Excellent presentation. I wish you had said more about the KJV. It was conspicuous by its absence.
@@kingston163 The KJV perfect? Not in a million years, God has obviously sent you great delusions.
@@kingston163 It is not me making the ludicrous claims that you are making. The KJV translators knew their work wasn't perfect, so what makes you think you know better than they did? Which edition and revision of the KJV is perfect? Also prove from scripture that the KJV is perfect. Chapter and verse please also is it the 1611, 1769, edition, Oxford or Cambridge? Or one of the other revisions? You have absolutely no proof that the KJV is perfect. As I said you are a lying deluded fraud.
@2.46 you said you looked at what the "ORIGINAL" said? This is an amazing statement. Where did you get hold of the originals? How do you know they are the originals? Did you have the papyrus/vellum dated? This is an astounding revelation indeed. Will you be donating these originals to the Vatican or a museum?
verbumdeikjb "original" as in the hebrew/greek/aramaic
Here is the problem. When someone says, "original" they NEVER mean the ACTUAL original that was written. People like yourself will find anything to make it seem like those who hold a different view than yourself are wrong. So I ask, do you believe that God has preserved His word? If there is no legitimacy to ACTUAL documents that we have access to, why trust ANY Bible version?
I find it difficult to believe a bible scholar does not use the RSV !
That's a Catholic translation
Looks like someone I can trust. A man who has spent his life translating the Bible for others. So many selfish Christians who are so selfish that even the translation of of the Bible is all about me me me. I respect my Lutheran ancestors but i rather suspect the Apostle Paul didnt read Luther's translation. Hmmm maybe that's because he was using the kjv....
Some bite the wax tadpole?
The problem is that the NLT, like the NIV before it, uses dynamic equivalence as a guise for slipping in narrow Evangelical interpretations of passages that make the translation pretty useless outside of that circle. Of course, translations that favor formal equivalence (NRSV, NASB, ESV, NKJV) all have particular passages that sound a bit partisan at times, but it's generally a greater problem with a looser translation, especially in the New Testament. Ambiguity is sometimes absolutely necessary to avoid toeing a line.
I found myself distracted by the fact that his suit is way too big and I began to wonder how “tailor” would be translated from the Hebrew or Greek.
But what you don't know is that the new modern Bibles use a much older manuscript than the King James and that the King James Bible added versus and the new modern Bible he's not missing scripture it's the manuscript that they found did not have those scriptures so nothing is dynamic!
The idea that a whole language doesn't have a Bible is so sad. I wish translation teams would focus on bringing God to everyone and not creating the 500th english version
NLT is the most accurate Bible translation because it’s the only one I actually understand. And it’s not a paraphrase!
NLT is merely a Bible commentary, not a translation please. It has caused me troubles in understanding God’s Word many times. One serious mistake is which day Our Lord was crucified. I simply couldn’t put up with this translation any more after using three years or so.
The NLT is indeed a legitimate Bible translation. Take a look at the scholars who contributed to it.
15:30 The soles of their feet is rendered by the NASB as "Their feet" disregsrds the commandments:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, *neither shall ye diminish ought from it,* that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
(De. 4:2)
Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; *diminish not a word:*
(Je. 26:2)
😊
Revelation 22:18-19 is referring to the book of revelation, not the whole Bible.
I don't get it!!
Daily Reading:NLT Bible Study:KJV or similar
I've been a career translator for many years too and undestand what this presenter says very well. But it seems to me that he does not recognize the fact that there are manuscripts (in the original languages) that are intentionally corrupt. And they are the sources of many a modern translation. That will constitute a completely different motif for prefering one translation over another, will it not? How can he then encourage us to consider ALL the translations and study them indiscriminately?
I think he assumes one will collate the manuscripts prior to translation.
GuitarraUltima I seriously don't think that's his point. He's simply saying that the current argument pitting the translations generally known to be 'literal translations' on the one hand and those known to be 'dynamic equivalents' on the other, is way too simplistic. He goes on to show how the work of translation is incredibly difficult, with lots of decisions to make. The result: The 'literal translations' aren't as literal as may be perceived, while the 'dynamic equivalents' may in some instances be more literal than their 'literal' counterparts.
Not to mention of the differences in manuscript traditions. Like Byzantine or more specifically the Textus Receptus vs the Alexandrian or Codex Vaticanus.
I suggest the MEV or good ole KJV.
the KJV and nkjv passed every bit except Bathsheba and the nkjv did not pass the toilet test
Are you up for a debate
Is God the author of confusion Charlie or is it Satan? Why would you want to read something "only sorta pure" and "could cause confusion" and think that is truly from God? If we do a hangout, it will have to be a debate format just on the topic of bible translations/KJV. You can ask your questions for NIV, MSG or whatever translation you wish, or just specifically on the KJV and we will answer and give facts as to those versions/KJV you bring up in your questions. I would say we start with 5 questions of your choice. You need to figure out what 5 questions you wish to ask and stick with them and then once you determine what 5 you need to send that list here to all of us 2 wks before the debate, so those answering you has time to study and have an answer for you. If time permits, you could add another 2-3 and we could do those if time doesnt run out. Plan on a 4 hr hangout in order to cover at least 5 of your main concerns/questions.
Looks like Sat 8 am PST would be best for you with your work schedule. I would send link to join 30 min ahead of time so all can connect and we start right at 8 am PST. I cant do any earlier due to others in my home getting ready for work, waking up etc...Plan for a 4 hr hangout so you have time to ask your questions/us to answer and you get to work. I want everyone to have time to prepare for this, so maybe the 27th Oct or Nov 10 would be good? I will be out of town on Nov 2-3. If we go with the 27th you need to submit your questions to this email group no later than this Sat Oct 13th.
This would need to be done the way Bill set it up on his channel when he was the mod for Ryan and Mathias debate. I would be the mod for this one. I would be impartial, keep track of everyone's time and keep the peace and not be "in the debate". Each question would be allowed 5 min to ask and explain your position and then Bill, Merle and Hannah would each have 5 min to respond. Since Hannah is KJV only herself, she would be on the opposing side from you. None of us wishes you to feel ganged up on, or outnumbered. If you wish to bring in someone else that isnt KJV only, you need to let me know by this Sat. I need their channel name and email address to send email to them. I'd prefer if you bring in someone else to be on "your side" that it be 2/2. If that ends up being the case it would be you and whoever you wish to join you for your side, then Merle and Bill for the opposing side. Hannah you are still welcome to join and maybe you could help me mod and keep time, in case I need a break, use restroom, go out for a smoke break (we dont smoke in our house and I will need a break haha)
No interrupting at all from anyone when they are on the clock. This has to be strictly enforced. Anything I wish to contribute I would wait til the very end when all your questions are asked, the opposing side has given their answers etc... We would prob want to devote 10 min at the start just for welcoming, introductions, then get right into the debate with your 1st question and total can not run over 20 min per questions for you to ask and the others to give their answers. No more than 4 total to ask/respond to each question. 4 hrs is plenty of time to go thru at least 5 main questions you have, everyone respond and then for closing remarks from me.
Figuring up the time in my head (assuming we can stick to the time schedule) there would be time for 2 addl questions Charlie. But start with the 5 main ones, then add 2-3 others and as long as we stay within the time constraints, we can prob get to 2 more. Just have your 7-8 questions sent here no later than 2 wks ahead of time. So, I need to hear from everyone what dates are good for all of you? It can be later in Nov if need be, I just need to know as I am the master scheduler for these special hangouts on our various channels. This would be on my channel and I am fine to have live chat be open for this. I will not really be able to mod the chat if I am the mod for the debate so will need Bill, Merle and others to help with the chat if ThickShades decides to show up and troll. Please let me know asap what dates works for all of you. Oct 27th, Nov 10th.
There’s Catholic canons, protestant canons, Coptic canons, etc. Don’t lie. There is no such thing as ONE singular Bible. The word Bible means library. No Bible could contain all scripture.
Here is a short video on Bible version comparisons; this will help you decide which versions is best suited for you: ruclips.net/video/4dA98WKw5DE/видео.html
I’m sorry but your video isn’t really any sort of comparison or explanation of different versions. You showed a lot of examples where other versions differed from the KJV but neglected to explain to the viewer why these differences existed. Nor did you go into the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic to investigate the author’s original intent. You also didn’t mention context in a few of the examples.
Just to look at one: in Daniel 3 verse 25 this is Nebuchadnezzar speaking. He’s a pagan king who would have no knowledge of the Messiah. Put yourself in his position. His description of this fourth man being a “son of the gods” made sense to him and to those around him. This is not an error.
As for Gail Riplinger… her work has been widely discredited. She’s not a Bible scholar.
There’s more I could say, but it’s not my intention to be rude or anything. Languages are complex and translating from one to another is difficult, as the NLT video explains very well. And something else to ponder - Jesus spoke Aramaic. The New Testament books were written in Greek. So Jesus’s words, when penned, we already a translation.
@@Jeremy_White75 Thanks for your view, is there anything that you agree with from this video.
@@thesimplegospel8697 I’m sorry but no. Off hand I can’t think of anything I agreed with. I would have to view it again to say with certainty. But without really digging into why certain text appears in later manuscripts and ends up in the KJV and why those same texts are absent from earliest manuscripts and are not in newer translations - I don’t see the video as being overly honest or transparent in providing full context. In essence - it’s misleading! Your video will not convince anyone with background knowledge, only someone who doesn’t know any better. And most staunch and scholarly KJV Only advocates will find your video good but way too basic.
It's very easy....NKJV and ESV and older NASB....no need for anything else....word for word
There is no such thing as a W-F-W Bible translation.
@@timcarr6401 yes but no. You know what I mean. Word-for-word versus thought for thought.
@@Dilley_G45 Since we all know that there's no such thing as W-F-W --why continue the practice of calling any translation that?
@@timcarr6401 what's your point? I was trying to explain that some Bible translations are better than others because they are wfw type .... so what's your agenda?
@@Dilley_G45 Since there is no such thing as W-F-W, your premise falls flat.
Some translations are more form-oriented. That's probably what you mean. But it does not follow that the more form-oriented ones are "better" than those which are more functional.
The video uploader should be reminded that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob only authored/authorized ONE Holy Written Word - just one. And He warns us more than once in that Written Word to NOT add to - nor take from - His Holy Word.
.
What do ALL of these "versions" do? Just that - they take from - and add to.
.
As well .... these "books" are creating massive confusion amongst God's people. Is that God bringing that division and confusion? Or is it - as God tells us - satan who brings division and confusion. God tells us that He is not the author of confusion. Period.
.
Also .... satan has God's people actually referring to His Holy Written Word as a "version". Yep - when we say "King James Version" - we have just tossed God's Word into the "it's not the original" pile along with all of these other "books" out here that claim to be a Bible.
When we refer to something as a "version" we automatically water it down - calling something a "version" lets people know upfront that "Hey, this isn't the original - it's just a copy".
.
God tells us that His Holy Word is inspired - by the Holy Ghost - can you say that about these "versions" out here? Without a doubt - NO.
The NIV alone has removed over 66 thousand different names, phrases and even entire verses. Think God is okay with us removing the words that HE chose to put in there? Judging from the stern /eternal warnings He gives us about not adding to or taking from His Word - I would venture to say no, He is NOT okay with it.
.
And last - God Himself promises He will preserve His Holy Word. So .... um, where IS that Holy preserved Written Word at - is it the NIV - the NSB - the NKJV - the NWT ?
No - it is the one book that has stood the test of time - longer than these human written "versions".
.
Be wiser than the serpent, folks - satan isn't picky about who he deceives - he will deceive young, old and even preachers.
.
.
.
Puppy Trax, you know that the Latin Vulgate lasted longer than English versions, right? You know that the Textus Receptus used the Vulgate for its final verses of Revelation? Study to show yourself approved.
No " perfect" Bible till 1611? or 1769 or what other revision it was. And only in English? Not just English but some archaic English where the meaning of so many words have changed. The breathtaking arrogance of the KJV only cult, is totally demonic
One real Bible the King James and hundreds of per versions ...
Dressel dribble, stone heart and mind.
Which King James Bible version? It has been revised several times
This gentleman neglected to note that many of these modern versions omit the generic masculine in hundreds of passages and changes thousands of words, in order to make the language "gender-neutral". Gender-neutral language is not the language of the Scriptures and has no place in any version calling itself a "Bible translation", which the NLT is not. That the generic masculine is offensive to modern English-speaking feminists is just too bad; the generic masculine is part of the inspired words given by God Himself. If this man really means what he claims, that he wants a Bible that is accurate and faithful, he will not use a gender-neutral "Bible", such as the NLT, the 2011 NIV, the CEV, the NRSV, etc. The NLT is a feminist revision of the old Living Bible of 1971, made by feminists who now have great influence in modern evangelical churches. It is not the job of a translator to be focused on the needs (real or supposed) of his target audience or potential consumer, but to faithfully translate the words they are given to translate. That so many modern evangelicals no longer do this is because so many of them no longer believe the words themselves are not inspired, but only the "message". It is not surprising that Dave Brunn does not refer to the old KJV, since this version is despised by modern evangelicals.
I, Thomas Jefferson, am perhaps what you would call a modern evangelical, and although I possess a KJV in my collection, I admit to not referring to it a great deal. However, this does not mean that I despise it. On the contrary, I am very grateful to those who, 400 years ago, first translated the Scriptures into English, it was indeed a great achievement. So please don't start accusing people like myself of such things. You only succeed in showing that you yourself have little understanding of our views. My view would be that of Dave Brunn, we are very, very blessed to have so many versions to study from, being able to cross reference one version against another to come to a more complete understanding of what the LORD is telling us. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness."
I would also add that, of all the RUclips videos I have watched on this subject I have not, as far as I can remember, heard anyone who holds my view, imply that they despise the KJV. I have, however, come across a great many of KJ onlyist's who literally despise the modern versions, calling them satanic. I believe people need to wake up and realise that, as disciples of Jesus Christ, we are in this together and we should not be squabbling about petty things that do not affect salvation. I have done my studies through the NIV and ESV and would say that my beliefs on the fundamental issues of Chritianity are probably the same as yours. These modern versions do not alter fundamental theological viewpoints. I believe Jesus/Yeshua is LORD of all, that he died for sins, rose on the 3rd day and is at the Fathers side, and if we believe on him and repent, seeking to live for him as his disciples, then we shall receive the promise of eternal life.
Very well stated, TJ. Feminism is was the idol of churchianity well before the 21st century and he KJV is the idol of the KJ Onlyists. I grew up on the KJV and most of the Scripture imprinted on my mind is KJV but I now rely more on the more modern translations that are generally more accurate and incorporate more depth of scholarship and manuscript evidence. I bought Dunn's book and plan to learn some more from him so long as he is true to the Word and does not try to peddle feminism and/or cater to the feminist culture of this era.
Jeff O'Neal Don't be naive. The modern translations are based on heretical corrupt manuscripts. Wake up. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in truth.
Novem Ber, "Don't be naive" is a very interesting choice of words when combined with the 2nd sentence. You need to apply your own advice to yourself. Get out of that feminist-led cult of KJV only.
KJV has no errors.
Which version of the KJV has no errors? Did they miss it the first time? Was the fix perfect? How did they know ?
Acts 5:30 - so Jesus was killed BEFORE nailing to the cross?
I don't think so.
The KJV is excellent and more reliable than NASB, ESV etc. but the NKJV matches its accuracy and corrected some unfortunate translations.
I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law then CHRIST IS DEAD IN VAIN. Galatians 2:21 KJV. Note is dead current tense a contradiction of the resurrection.
In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’
The KJV also denies Jesus. “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, In whom there is no help.”
Psalm 146:3 KJV. This is to be expected from Greek manuscripts produced by Roman Catholic priests.
What Dave has neglected to mention is that the differences between the Bibles are numbered in the thousands which affect doctrine in hundreds of passages. A classic example is Acts 8.37 which is THE repudiation of infant baptism. It is found in the King James Bible but removed from the modern apostate versions. Only the King James Bible is translated from the Traditional Text line of manuscripts which can be traced back to the firsts century believers. The other modern English counter-reformation bibles (eg. NLT, ESV, NEB, NJB, NASB, NIV etc.) rely upon the Alexandrian Text which was a revision of the True text performed by Origen of Alexandria, a gnostic.
They don't teach you that in Bible school because Seminaries are a counter-reformation institution (look it up) designed to destroy the Traditional Text of the Protestant Reformation.
*****
Wow! Can you seriously be that dim?
Well, let's get started then... The KJB was translated by the world's best scholars who were both Anglican and Puritan. Some of them practiced infant baptism, yes. But does this demonstrate a fault with the translation? No, of course not. In fact it does just the opposite. Despite the fact that some of them practiced infant baptism they included the repudiation AGAINST infant baptism in their translation (Acts 8:37 KJB) demonstrating that their own personal doctrinal biases did NOT influence their translational work.
Praise God. The KJB is the inerrant Words of God in the English language. If you don't know this right now it is because you are ignorant of history OR you don't have the Spirit of Christ OR both!
Read David Ottis Fuller's, Which Bible. THEN come back here to continue this discussion.
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:37, KJV) How is this a repudiation of infant baptism?
This is rightly put in the comedy category...welcome to the modernistic Bible Babble Buffet where every scholar is his own final authority. KJB is the one and only real true and complete Bible that exists today.
What was your name, Conspiracy Cuber?? Is that like Conehead?
So only the people who understand 400 yo English can read the real word of God?
Comedy????? His own authority? You know, the KJV translators were their own authority as well, so was Erasmus when compiling the TR. It’s a pity you watched this video and came away with that as your conclusion.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Revelation 22:18-19
You translators who butcher God’s word and make these perVersions of God’s word including the NLT, you are going to answer and pay dearly and no amount of money is worth that! Unless you repent, you’re going to pay and answer for this!
Hmmmm… Forgive my ignorance, but if that passage from Revelation was applicable to translations - all translations would be in serious error, including the KJV. They’ve all taken liberties in the translation process. Not one single Bible widely available is word for word.