The dojo is a place where you go to study and train in martial arts. Growing in Christian discipleship is similar to martial arts training (1 Cor. 9:26-27)... We have a Sensei (teacher): Jesus We have a katana (sword): Scripture So consider this a dojo for disciples to be Equipped, Engaged, and Empowered in their study of Scripture. - Go deeper at www.discipledojo.org - Subscribe to the Disciple Dojo podcast for more in-depth teaching and discussions: SoundCloud - soundcloud.com/discipledojo Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/26BDZz70HmnT5eoD9BEKQ7 iTunes - itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/disciple-dojo/id1002934837 Stitcher - www.stitcher.com/s?fid=181458&refid=stpr Amazon - tinyurl.com/uz8dbfet - Like and follow us on Facebook: facebook.com/discipledojo - Disciple Dojo is a 501c3 Nonprofit based in Charlotte, NC.
I 100% agree. Shoot just last night I used 4 different study Bibles all of different translations to dig into James 1 for my teaching this week. Well said, sir!
I definitely have my preferred favorites (and that’s more so to do with preachability and comprehension), but I always tell my church folks that my favorite translation is my own. Unless it’s blatantly going out of its way to mistranslate, it’s going to be pretty fine.
100% in agreement! I use so many translations for my deep dives along with the NET notes. If I had to choose one, I couldn't. Okay, maybe the BSB by Bible Hub, just because it's so independent in it's business model.
JM Smith, I recall that in session 5 of the bible for the rest of us, you did give your response to what is the best bible. Actually, you gave two bibles, the Greek new testament and the Hebrew old testament but like you said then and repeated, not many can read them. I do have my preferred bibles, but I use many bibles for my studies. Thanks for this video and all your work for the kingdom.
Except Paul never read the kjv. Where do people come up with this crap seriously. The kjv was done in 1611 long after Paul was dead and it was translated from more recent manuscripts of that time. These new modern English bibles are being translated from manuscripts that are older than the manuscripts that were used for kjv. The kjv has verses that aren’t even in the oldest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Kings James was translated from the time of shakespere poet view so technically it’s not literal or dynamic. The only inspiration put into it was putting gods word into a poetic form from more recent manuscripts from that time since than older manuscripts have been discovered which is why modern English ones were done. People like to say oh this verse was taken out in these modern translations. No problem is kjv added stuff that’s not even in the oldest manuscripts available.
Having preferences isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it doesn't become a needless point of contention. I find the best approach is to be aware of shortcomings in one's preferred translations while acknowledging the merits of less-liked translations. For example, I dearly love both the NRSV and ESV, but I could nitpick both of them to death if I were so inclined. The same of true of those translations that fall into the "I really like, but not quite love" category (NASB, CSB). Meanwhile, the NLT and CEB kinda leave me cold, but I know of a few verses in each where they handle things quite well. I can even point to one or two things from The Message that are actually quite effective (which, ironically enough, are the places where Peterson goes more literal than most translations). And a pair of NIVs can make for good bookends on a shelf, so even it has some value. 😛
Technically speaking, the New King James is not a Majority Text translation. The NKJV is a Textus Recpetus translation. To be sure, the Textus Teceptus agrees a great deal with the Majority Text, but it is not the same. This is why the textual notes in the NKJV shows differences in the underlying Greek text not only between it and the Nestle-Aland/UBS text, but also between it and the Majority Text.
Technically speaking, the New King James is not a Majority Text translation. The NKJV is a Textus Recpetus translation. To be sure, the Textus Teceptus agrees a great deal with the majority text, but it is not the same. This is why the textual notes in the NKJV shows differences in the underlying Greek text not only between it and the Nestle-Aland/UBS text, but also between it and the Majority Text.
@@PastorKThroop to my knowledge the NKJV retains all the textual decisions of the majority text, does it not? Are there places where it goes against it and follows any older texts? Not footnotes, but in the actual text itself? It has always read like a slightly modernized KJV, which is why Fee and Stuart say that it's actually a downgrade from the KJV--it's basically the TR/Majority without the beautiful language. I've never seen anything that makes ms disagree with that assessment...but I'm admittedly not a NT text critical expert or KJV history buff.
@@DiscipleDojo “Are there places where it goes against it and follows any older texts? Not footnotes, but in the actual text itself?” Well, I won't get into discussing whether the Majority Text (M) or the Textus Receptus (TR) actually do, at points, reflect “older texts,” and that wasn't the point of my comment. The point of my comment was that the M and the TR are not the same text, although they have a lot of agreement (more agreement between the two, for example, than either have with the Nestle-Aland/UBS Text (NU). As for examples of disagreement between the M and the TR, you actually highlighted a few yourself in your review of the Orthodox Study Bible when you showed a page from the end of Rev. 13 and the beginning of Rev.14. There you can see that, in 13:14, the M disagrees with the TR when it says that the Beast deceives “my own people” who dwell on the earth rather than “those” who dwell on the earth. Another example from that page would be found in 14:1, where the TR reads “having His fathers' name written” but the textual note informs us that both the “NU-Text and M-Text add 'His name and.' ”
@@DiscipleDojo For a couple more examples where the TR behind the NKJV and the Majority text disagree, as indicated in the NKJV textual notes, see 1 John 5:7-8, where the notes indicate that the both "NU, M omit the words from 'in heaven' (v. 7) through 'on earth' (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek." Or see Rev. 22:19, which refers to "the Book of Life" in the underlying TR, and thus in the NKJV, but the textual note correctly indicates that both the NU and M disagree and read "tree of life." There are numerous other examples, but these should suffice to make the point. I am really glad that the editors of the NKJV added such notes.
By the way, I thought I should let you know that I really enjoy your reviews. They are excellent, and I have found them very helpful. I also could not agree more with you in your aversion to study Bibles named after celebrity preachers or scholars. 👍
The elephant in the room is the hysterical KJV Onlyists. Spending 90% of their service to the Lord attacking and whining about modern English translations. No group of believers does more harm to the body of Christ. 100% agreed. If you have no facility in Greek or Hebrew, you have zero business advising others about the truth of Scripture. 🙏🏼
Are you belittling those of us who have NOT studied the original languages? Because that, my boy, is how you come across! I call boy not as an insult, but because I was born in the early 50's
His point is that a person who has not studied the original languages cannot thoroughly and carefully evaluate the accuracy of an English translation. At best, such a person might be able to determine whether any given translation lines up more or less with that person's preferred denominational confession. (And, of course, someone could evaluate how well the translation reads in English, though this is largely subjective.)
@@shirleygoss1988 I'm only belittling those who have not studied the languages yet they go on to make condemning or dismissive arguments about why their preferred translation is "the best" or why others are "bad." That, my girl, was the point being made. 😊
@DiscipleDojo OK. I just didn't want to be summarily dismissed because I never learned. I may have a preference, but I make use of several versions. Having been trained KJVO, I just never felt comfortable with the seemingly bigoted attitudes displayed among them Thanks for responding!🙏
@MAMoreno I trust Disciple Dojo quite a bit, and also Mark Ward. However, I think it could be true that some of these knowledgeable ones are attempting to actually corrupt Scripture. None of us can know for certain, but I think we are close to large scale apostasy.
Do you have any advice for a spiritually dry person? I've been a Christian for a few years after reading the gospels but I've never had a spiritual experience. I love to nerd out on the Bible but I'm very spiritually dry. I think the main issue for me is fear of spiritual things. And also the concept of feeling God is so incomprehensibly big to me it's scary
@@finnmartan4629 my first advice is to find a community of Christians you can talk about and explore this with, so that your assumptions about what "a spiritual experience" needs to look like. I would also encourage you to spend some time with authors like Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Philip Yancy, Henri Nouwen, C.S. Lewis' fiction, and some in the Christian mystic tradition like Watchman Nee, St. John of the Cross, and William Law...not seeking to emulate them or agree with everything, but to get a wider view of Christian spirituality that moves beyond modern cookie-cutter Christianity.
Hebrew and Aramaic are very close languages. They are sisters languages. Same family roots. Aramaic has layers. The old Aramaic is written in the old bible. In modern Hebrew we use words and phrases in Aramaic. In the Jewish wedding the rabai is blassing in Aramaic. And in Jewish funeral the rabai is praying in Aramaic.
I use the NRSVue, but have crossed out translation choices (as I’ve done with others). I use it together with the NIV, NLT, and NET notes. And sometimes I use the CEB to change it up a bit.
I love reading many translations. My church uses ESV. In my personal reading and studies I use CSB and NKJV. I use KJV for reading Psalms because it sounds amazing! I also use NASB and LSB for my schooling. So I use many translations for different things in my life. All are great and provide amazing benefits. Just find out which is best suited for you and your Bible needs 😊
I use the NASB 95, and LSB as my main two Holy Scriptures, this doesn’t mean I don’t use other translations of the Holy Scriptures. I also will not tell you which one you have to use.
I prefer king james. It's suppose to be in the iambic pentameter and memorable. After all, the bible is meant to be read out loud, not quietly. So better in poetry format.
Another issue with the tribalism that I've experienced is that some people pit translations against one another, and it's assumed you're "on the team" if you use one of them! I use the NRSV a fair bit and have had people just assume I don't like the ESV only because they see me using the NRSV. It's very strange. We can use and appreciate and critique both equally!
21:55 Amos 9,11; "I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen." Can we read this verse as: I will raise up the booth of david (beloved) that is fallen. If we read it like that, the verse 14 makes more sense.
20:00 You said the seed of David here. I am especially looking for the seed of David in the scripture about the messiah but find none. Here, "He" may refer to the Children of Israel. English is not my mother tongue, so I may have made a mistake not accepting "He" as David.
I couldn't agree more. Our problem, in the English speaking world, is a glut of English translations. However, I think a preacher who does not compare verses in 3 or more translations is not worth his salt. It is of high value to compare versions for best rendering and intelligible application in sermons and apologetics. Thank you for your common sense approach to Scripture and your passion for the Word of God. God bless you and keep you. Thank you, Jesus!!
The Bible doesn't restrict women from teaching in the Church. 1 Cor 14: 34--35 and 1 Tim 2: 11 don't say women can't speak in Church. 1 Cor 14. Shows women in the Church, then v26 says everyone have a teaching, Everyone includes women.
Thanks for the shoutout! You’re exactly right: people who do a lot of work in the original languages don’t make a big deal about any particular Bible translation. It was Dave Brunn who most helped me see that.
So: 1. If reading or watching fantasy and sci-fi is sinful because these "could" lead one away from God, then reading or watching almost anything "could" do the same. Reading ir watching non-fiction like a book about atheism or a book about evolution or a book about another religion like Islam, or a documentary that explains pagan practices or what the Nazis did, etc., "could" lead one astray as well. In fact, resding certain parts of the Bible "could" lead one astray too! Like what if reading the Song of Songs leads one toward lust and related temptations! What if reading about Saul's encounter with the witch of Endor leads to witchcraft! What if reading Ecclesiastes leads one toward existential despair and even nihilism! So we should not read or watch these parts of the Bible and maybe ee should even get rid of these parts of the Bible! We're never safe! Not even Scripture is safe! But seriously this argument against reading fantasy and sci-fi proves too much. 2. A better way to go is to consider common grace. That is, God gave us many gifts in this world to enjoy. Even gifts written or made by non-Christians. Like there's good and beautiful music and art and architecture and even books that were made by non-Christians that we can appreciate and enjoy because they do reflect something of God's glory. Perhaps not ss clearly as a beautiful stained glass window in a magnificent cathedral, but still a lot of light can shine through even a dusty window. Anyway not everything done by non-Christians is necessarily sinful. So there's good fantays abd sci-fi and there's bad fantasy and sci-fi. Good is that which corresponds to biblical values and bad that which is against the same values. There's much that's in between too. And it takes wisdom to discern the differences.
Thanks for all the great videos! The story about the HCSB is a story I thought you told about the LSB once, but I could be wrong. But I’m just curious if that was a little mixup. Thanks again!
@@AllDayML no, I think MacArthur said something similar about the LSB...but I don't give his opinions much credence, honestly. This was back around 2005-2006 when LifeWay ran that marketing ad in CT, I believe.
but yea fr tho thanks so much for videos like this. i grew up attending IFB churches where KJV onlyism was treated like a primary issue, so needless to say it's quite cathartic and validating to see other Christians rightfully annoyed by this kind of attitude
Great answer. If you don’t know the original languages then you have to trust translators. And because of that, you should read as many translations as you can.
I don't know the original languages, and don't shy away from multiple translations. As for the NASB, I have the 1995 and 2020, along with a 1977 New Testament.
Even if one is proficient, in the original languages, one should still compare other versions. No one is perfect and no one is endowed with all knowledge/wisdom.
How dare you, sir! 😡 How dare you not have a favorite Bible translation that you champion and wheel out like a UFC fighter to the cage, ready to destroy all comers, every time someone asks you about your favorite Bible translation! Personally my champion is the one true Authorised Version (with an "s" to look more British and thus in my narrow mind more fancy) because the goal of all good Bible translation is to translate the Hebrew and Greek back into the original AV! Okay clearly I'm just being silly! 😜 I love what Mark Ward says about Bible translations too. Strongly recommend his work on it and on biblical studies in general. Granted I'm a mean old Calvinist like him too, but what he says about the topic is very helpful for anyone of any stripe. 😊
Man, the NET, NASB (all of them lol), LEB, AMP, and EXB Bibles are some of my favorites. Honorable mention for KJV and ESV just for fun, not for any real reason lol
Wow. The slaughter of the innocence. Millions left this world in a couple years back..called Holocaust...the Jews the main target weren't alone. They were joined by a lot of other people. What ur talking about the homosexuals, they found their demise to. And many others. Another one category useless people with all their disabilities .brought together and eliminated. It was tried. Worked pretty well. At the time. One victim that survived this atrocity---qouted "God didn't visit there"
I didn’t even know that the Bible could or would support egalitarianism. It’s something I’ve been struggling with since I stepped away from faith in my twenties. I’m interested to see that perspective and hear from women scholars. Thank you for the in depth review.
While Genesis 9:3 provides broader dietary permission, it does not necessarily nullify the clean and unclean distinction. Instead, it suggests a pragmatic expansion in diet, with an underlying continuity of the principles of clean and unclean animals as understood by Noah and his descendants. Noah understood the he should not eat his children.
@@ashersian2563 Noah understood that his children were not animals. The most we can say, from the text itself, is that "clean" and "unclean" in Noah's day designated which animals could be offered as sacrifices. Anything beyond that is reading Leviticus back into Genesis and must remain speculative at best.
Not sure why you’re trying to fit the spinning ball earth when the creation is very clear earth does not spin around the sun in space. Water was separated from water. So where is all the other water that was separated if outer space is true?
In Acts 8 it says that the new Samaritan disciples who had just come into the faith had been baptized in water, but had not yet received the Holy Spirit, so they called for the apostles to come lay hands on the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit. This seems much more like a definitive moment when the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit after the laying on of hands of the apostles. How would this reconcile with the idea that they could know they had received the Holy Spirit over time as they saw a change in their lives? It seems like they knew one moment they didn't have it, but the next moment they did.
@@apocryphanow yes, they had been Baptized. But in that chapter it seems that it may have been something similar to what John the Baptist had been doing--a conversion washing indicating repentence among the people of Israel (Samaritans were not Jews, but they were Israelites, and were familiar with mikvot). So in order to make sure they were given the full New Covenant Gospel, as opposed to a water Baptism like John's or some of the Essene ritual washings, the Apostles sent Peter and John to "complete the process", so to speak. I'm not aware of any other such events happening after these early days in the book of Acts or the rest of the NT, though I may be wrong. But the question the viewer asked was specifically about receving the Holy Spirit when specifically supernatural/ecstatic occurances *aren't* present.
