The first thing a new born again believers should do is pray to the Lord and ask Him which bible to read. Scripture is inspired by God and is God's word. A translation is man's opinion of what they think God is saying and is man's word. The problem "Christians" have is not understanding 2 Tim 3:16. Scripture has to be God inspired. And ONLY scripture is valid for doctrine, instruction, etc. if you aren't reading scripture, you are wasting your time and just practicing intellectual Christianity. It also shows the person has more faith and trust in academia than they do in God, for providing God's word.
Guys, the problem with your analogy is that some translations are better in the NT but not as good with the OT. Regarding the NT portion I prefer the NKJV but the OT doesn’t incorporate the Dead Sea Scrolls. Regarding the OT portion I prefer the ESV since it incorporates the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Did I miss the kjv? I use the nkjv and nasb95. Glad to hear they rated higher. Is there a byzantine bible out there? I will certainly check out this guy's RU-vid
I listened to a majority text guy (Phillip Kayser) and he said that if you want the majority text and get best quality, reading both ESV and NKJV is the way to go. Been doing so ever since and it’s been a blessing and a blast.
This was interesting, do more of this! I’m pretty close to kjv only but I do read the nkjv, douay rheims bible, Mev, 1560 Geneva, 1537 Mathew’s bible, septuigent and the interlinear Hebrew and Greek. Only modern translations I use is if I get a study Bible for the notes
This was a lot of fun thanks guys new sub here! If you’d like to do another one with a bit of a difference can I suggest a comparison/ranking of English translations specifically ones that are copyright free? I’m interested in producing some evangelistic literature for outreach purposes but want to stay away from anything that could land me in hot water (lol), however I also want to know that o can recommend/have confidence in whichever translation I use. Im usually an NKJV guy
You both even got me confused as to which is better -- 1 or 10. Maybe next time do grades like A-F or something You can even do A+ and F-, etc. That's harder to mess up, IMHO.
You guys have great energy together! I was hoping to hear about the translations that don't get a lot of coverage - the Geneva, Matthews, Jay P. Green's Literal, WEB, the Majority Standard Bible. I know that you were trying to cover the mainstream translations but it would be nice to see where you guys think these stack up. Since you left out the KJV, the only way you guys can redeem yourself is to do a part 2. Thank you both!
I think the LSB is an excellent translation, much better than the NASB 95. It still reads beautifully, and is a more literal translation. I think it is a necessary translation.
The NKJV is an amazing English translation, you can tell it was a labor of love. And I'll be defaulting to it until an LXX/Byzantine English Bible comes out.
I would've liked to see your opinions on the EOB eastern orthodox bible I believe it's A Byzantine/Patriarchal Text English translation with alot of footnotes and resources
Good video! I used the NKJV for 21 years then switched to the ESV. It is now my favourite, but I still highly regard the NKJV and it is the only translation I use for for Scripture memorisation. I agree the NET notes are very helpful. NASB 1995 (& it’s footnotes) is one I regularly use for sermon preparation, while I preach from the ESV.
Passion "Translation" = -10 Interesting perspectives. The NKJV is #10 for me! For a CT base, I agree with Stephen: LSB. The LSB preserves the poetic imagery connections between the OT and the NT. Thanks & Blessings! 🙏📖
Very disappointed that GENEVA BIBLE was not on top of list!!! This was the Bible our pilgrim ancestors used. GENEVA GENEVA GENEVA BIBLE IS BEST! It’s not a version…says it all
Nice work, gentlemen! It's funny, I'd probably be a lot more enthusiastic about the ESV if it just had the large number of unbiased/honest marginal translation notes found in the NKJV.
What is your opinion on the use of " Jesus" instead of the "Lord" in Jude verse five? I've noticed that a few versions do this. I don't read Greek so I'm not sure what the word for that verse is in Greek. I know that "Jesus" is used in the ESV, LSB, CSB, and in the NRSV updated version but not in the original NRSV. It's also used in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, and in the old Wycliffe Bible, both of which are based on the Latin Vulgate. I checked on Bible Gateway and it has the Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament. It has the Greek text with the English translation. In Jude verse five, it shows the Greek word for Jesus, but in the English above it says Lord. I'm not sure why, but since I don't read Greek, maybe you brothers could elaborate on this. I watch both of your channels and always enjoy your videos. God bless.
Most Greek manuscripts and NT’s use the Greek word κύριος, which is “Lord”. (Both Stephans TR, and NA28 say κύριος).Some manuscripts do contain Ιησούς, which is “Jesus”. The verse in question though, regardless of translation, is saying that Jesus was the One who delivered Israel out of Egypt, since in verse 4 Jude says Jesus is our only master and Lord. 🩷
I love formal equivalent and functionally equivalent translations. Not everyone is on the same reading level. Of course, the goal is to improve our reading so that we move up to a word for word translation, but I think there’s a place in the body of Christ for both kinds.
I’m a little surprised that the MEV didn’t rate higher. I also lean Majority Text and since the MEV uses the TR and I find it both more readable and in many cases more literal than the NKJV (based on the NKJV footnotes, the MEV seems to follow the rendering that is listed as “Lit.” In the footnote). Yes there were a few misprints and printing errors in the MEV (which are all now fixed, 2024 update live on YouVersion) but this is an excellent translation I believe. The NKJV, while great, uses some awkward word choices, often putting the better (more sensible/intelligible) alternate in the footnote or using a less literal rendering when the more literal one (again in the footnote) is better, and literal. I realize a lot of this is subjective personal preference, I just really enjoy the MEV. It’s both very readable and very literal in my experience.
Is there a translation in the same tradition as the NKJV that is a little easier to understand? I use it for study, but at times I find it is difficult for some to grasp.
The NKJV's advantage is also it's weakness in this regard. I think it's worth persevering with to get the meaning by practice and prayer, similar to the KJV.
Adam Boyd's translation is the one that convinced me that an individual translator can do an excellent translation. And no longer believe committees are better. The reverence and carefulness that Adam exhibits gives me higher confidence in the quality of the translation. And do love the variant notes.
DBH is my go-to for New Testament translations. It’s by far the most superior IMO. As far as the OT goes, I like Alter for the Masoretic and for the LXX Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton’s translation.
I lost respect for you because you didn’t even mention the GENEVA BIBLE !!!!!😡😡😡😡😮😮😮🤔🤔🤔🤔 GENEVA BIBLE was the Bible of our founders and you didn’t even mention it…SHAME ON YOU
I was more disappointed when I realized I forgot to mention the KJV, my favorite. But don’t worry, we will probably do another one of these and I’ll get both those worked in, Lord willing. The Geneva Bible isn’t used very widely these days, so I didn’t think about it.
I do appreciate very much your prompt response!🙏 , however, the fact that GENEVA isn’t used very much today is not relevant to the fact that it should be. Geneva Bible has been under assault for centuries and the footnotes are the reason. Anti-Christ and beast are revealed
The original 89 edition of the NRSV is brilliant. From what I have seen, the updated edition of the NRSV is not an improvement. Some of the changes in the NRSVue are shocking. It's best to avoid it and stay with the NRSV (the original 89 edition).
Translations you listed I've used and recommended when I teach ranked: ESV NKJV NET translations you listed I've used otherwise ranked: YNG NRSV (not updated) MEV ASV Translations you listed I've forbidden my students when I teach (ranked by badness): NIV (orig) AMP Translations you listed I have not used: NLT LSB NIV (updated) Boyd's translation NRSV (updated) CSB Translations not mentioned that I like: WEB RSV2CE Douay-Rheims NETS LES2 LXX2012 Positives for me: I like formal equivalence translations, translations that use the LXX to supplement, complete Bibles, and Byzantine Text or Textus Receptus NTs. Even if it's a critical text vs a Byzantine Text, a complete Bible will always beat an incomplete Bible if all things are equal. I'm rather neutral on committee-based translations vs individual. The NIV was committee-based, for instance, but it still snuck in heretical alterations to the text that translations by individuals usually don't. Committees are no better than individuals without proper accountability and mixing of view points, and most committee-based translations do not meet that requirement. On the other end, the ASV has a couple of renderings I would consider border-line heretical that no individual would put in because the committee was too diverse (though unlike the NIV, they *can* be justified from the text but are just wrong).
The King James version is THE HOLY BIBLE for all English speaking people. It gets a 10 for best English bible. All others get a zero for complete failures.
