How Bible Covers and Binding Are Designed 

"It isn't that the Bible is true, it's that the Bible is the precondition for the manifestation of truth." -Jordan Peterson

Who cares what Jordan Peterson thinks?

Aesthetics are great. Our senses are how we interact and enjoy the world which God has made both for Himself and for us. However, to use the senses as a launching point for worship can be a work of the flesh and not walking by the Spirit by which we were called. We need to remember this. (I'm not saying you are)

helpful explanation Father. Thanks!

Dang straight! Great talent, and great job explaining everything.

Katie that is so sweet. Thank you!

@@MattWhitmanTMBH Thank you for your kind words Matt! I'm glad you came to Tyndale to do this interview. And for the record I can share with family and friends of what I do. Also, as a personal reminder of what a blessing it is to work on God's Word!

@@jenniferghionzoli1409 I started out in graphic design and publications. It was so fun to see behind the scenes on Bible design. I love Tyndale’s covers, btw. Awesome job!

@@jenniferghionzoli1409 May I ask a question please? In the video, you showed Matt a "mock-up" or "test book" that was basically a blank Bible. IS there any way we could get a hold of some of those? I would LOVE to use those for notes and study. Just curious.

Go Wyo!

Thank you for clarifying this! I didn't catch what PMS stood for in the context of choosing colors for Bible covers.

AMEN!!! God bless you!

Same in Germany/Austria. I'm amazed at how beautiful American bibles are! 😀

Cute! Clever!

It's still back there, and I still use it all the time, so it's the long-term plan. This background was just for this series to set it apart.

@@MattWhitmanTMBH fully understand. Keep up the good work!

I'm grateful Beto. Also, I'm with you on your preference for Bible designs that are just timelessly cool looking.

First, thanks for listening to that and thanks for watching this Zach. Second, I have to know, what were you expecting based on my voice?

Thick and thin with the Broncos since 1986 for me.

This is such an old and over-done argument and debate. If you can't believe in a God that can preserve His gospel Truth in a range of translations then it suggests that you don't want to believe in a God other than the one that you've created. And the 'god' that we create isn't a god worth following. God's Truth, when translated from Hebrew and Greek, can take a range of forms in English, many of which can convey the heart of God's Truth to us to the degree that we can be lifted out of darkness and into His light. Paul's thrust of what truly mattered, as found in 1 Corinthians 15, was sufficient for literally multitudes of people to come to faith in Christ and be changed, so I don't see how your argument really has much weight. God loved you enough to lay down His life for you, even in your doubts and your rejections, in the hope that you might turn from your way and embrace Him and His.

@@slawsonscot The earliest NT manuscripts are in what language? = Greek. The language that was spoken by Jesus & the disciples? = Aramaic So if you look at even the earliest manuscripts, you're going to look at hundreds of years after the time of Jesus. Who narrated to who, there is no information. Who the actual scribes, we don't know. We do know that Matthew didn't write the gospel of Matthew, it's according to Matthew. We know Mark or Luke also didn't write it. Any study bible you get, none of them say that they were the actual authors. So the actual authors are all anonymous. So why are Christians are basing their beliefs on a book written by anonymous authors that were not present at the time of Jesus that clearly has copies errors at minimum, maybe more than that.

@@bidenalsagof1571 Come on, let's be real here. The texts were in wide circulation before the end of the first century, as attested to by the early church fathers and the gathering of the texts which became the Muratorian Canon by the mid-to-late 2nd Century. Yes, the language on the ground was Aramaic in many contexts, but what we also know is that Greek was the language of cross-cultural communication and Hebrew was also one of the main languages of the synagogue. So, I really don't understand your point of concern there. What you're actually saying is that over a two hundred year period, the people were so deceitful and corrupt that they fashioned together fabricated texts that they were willing to die for... Weigh that against the proposition, widely accepted until progressive Christianity and pop-athiest figures came on the scene relatively recently, that the texts which were penned within a generation of the events, were faithfully transmitted and tested by eye-witnesses (whom Paul challenges to fact-check his words in 1 Cor. 15) who were willing to defend the texts and the truths within them with their very lives, and which challenged them to live a life of higher moral calibre and self-sacrifice. I know which side I fall down on. Ask yourself this - is this whole argument based on the fact that you have genuine concerns about their transmission, or is it because you don't want the texts to be true?

@@slawsonscot The bible was compiled by men who picked & chose among the manuscripts available to them (probably several hundred) & selected the ones that they thought should be included in the bible. & that agreement was hardly unanimous. Looking to the OT even the major religions can’t agree on how many books should be included. The Jews have 24 books, the Protestants 39, the Catholics 46, & the Eastern Orthodox have 51. Which one is correct? But it’s important to recognize that you don’t have the original texts. You don’t even have copies of the originals. What you have are copies of copies of copies of copies of …. you get the idea. & every time a copy was made there was an opportunity for copyist errors to creep in - especially since in many cases the copyist didn’t speak the language they were copying. (Originally in Hebrew with Aramiac in some parts to Latin to Greek then to English). Worse yet it provided the copyist with an opportunity to amend the text to agree with their own personal orthodoxy. & then come to translation errors. There are plenty.

@@slawsonscot More you read the bible you will begin to discover questions that pose themselves, threatening. And threatening in the sense that on the right which is the OT on the left is the NT & when you read something of the OT it's as if something changed in the NT & they would link these things to god saying god said this & god said that. But how god said this here & then when you come over here god said that. God not supposed to change his mind. God is supposed to know exactly what is going to happen from the beginning of time. And you begin to ask maybe a sister or an older brother in the church & sometimes you don't get the kind of answer once you go to your pastor. And they would feel that what you're doing is riling against the bible because the bible is not supposed to be questioned & so the first thing they would tell you it seems that you're going astray. They said the things of god are mystery to the natural man. But you keep on saying to them; you said & the bible said that when Jesus left to heaven he said i will send the holy spirit & he will teach you all things so therefore there should be no mystery. And still you could not get the answers..