My take on CSB, ESV, and NASB bible translations.

Подписаться 203

Просмотров 3,2 тыс.

50% 1

EDIT::: I believe I misspoke and said that the ASB was a revision of the RSV... it was not. It was a revision of the KJV. These videos are so hard to do off the cuff with no script in front of me... it is inevitable that I am going to forget some things or get some things wrong. I will do my best to correct it in the comments if I catch it.
EDIT 2::: The ESV came out in 2001 and the NASB was revised in 2020.

Опубликовано:

19 мар 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 70

@pattube Месяц назад

I like the CSB a lot, though I like several other translations too (including the NASB as well as the LSB). I think it's worth taking a deeper look at the CSB if you are ever able to find the time someday. In general, I think it sits somewhere between the NIV and the NASB, though closer to the NASB. 😊

@MAMoreno Месяц назад

While I totally agree that the ESV has a complementarian bias, I cannot wrap my head around how you could think that its motivations were impure but that the motivations behind the NASB and NIV were noble. The Lockman Foundation took advantage of the ASV's copyright expiration to make a competitor to the RSV that re-inserted all of the evangelical bias that had been removed by the RSV. Perhaps the RSV did go too far in some places (though not in Isaiah 7.14: "young woman" is correct in context), especially when it was a little too happy to use conjectural emendations in the Tanakh based on little substantive evidence from the ancient versions, but those issues were best resolved by directing readers to consult the marginal notes in places where there were issues, not by trying to take away people's faith in the general reliability of the RSV. But that's nothing compared to the NIV. To find a more biased popular version at the time, you'd have to look toward either the Living Bible (which was paraphrased with Kenneth Taylor's own theological slant) or the New World Translation (for obvious reasons). If you want to talk about rewriting the Bible to say what you want it to say, it doesn't get much more egregious than what came out in 1978. Conservative Protestant apologetics frequently led to the mangling of texts, more so than in either the NASB or ESV. Whether to remove supposed contradictions (as often seen in the tendency to translate past tense verbs as past perfects to harmonize texts), eliminate "inaccuracies" that were really just literary employments of hyperbole (such as exaggerating the size of Nineveh in Jonah 3.3 or overstating the tinyness of the mustard seed in Matthew 13.32), or kill any possibility that someone could read the New Testament with a Catholic lens (especially in Romans 3 and James 2, but also in any case where Paul speaks well of Christian "traditions"), these changes fundamentally warp the meaning of these verses. To be fair, some of the most extreme problems were fixed in the TNIV (and, by extension, the NIV 2011). In the current NIV, Jesus is no longer forced to call the mustard seed "the smallest of _your_ seeds," but is allowed to say what he actually said. So too, Paul now correctly says "faith apart from works of the law" rather than "faith apart from observing the law" in Romans 3.28, and the translators at least give the option of "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" as an alternative to "faith in Jesus Christ" in Roman 3.22's footnote. But James 2.14-26 still does backflips to avoid speaking well of "works" (instead substituting "deeds" and "actions" to obscure the matter), and Paul is still passing on mere "teachings" in 2 Thessalonians 2.15 rather than "traditions." Additionally, the use of unwarranted past perfects in Genesis 2.8, 19 (in an attempt to force the Adam story to fit the chronology of Genesis 1) and 12.1 (presumably to harmonize it with Acts 7.2) remains.

@ChrisWard0 Месяц назад

Why did you do a video on a Bible you didn’t look at?

@sam_burke Месяц назад

I commented on a verse from a bunch of bibles on the previous video… this being one of them… someone from my congregation asked about the CSB and I answered it on the video with as honest an answer as I could. I am going to do a read through and a review in a month or so.

@tjmaverick1765 2 месяца назад

Hey just found your channel. I lean complementarian, but I agree with your assessment of the ESV.

@missinglink_eth Месяц назад

Do you not have textual/translation footnotes in your ESV? Every single time the word “brothers” is plural in the Greek there is a footnote for “brothers and sisters” in every ESV I’ve ever seen.

@sam_burke Месяц назад

I have 3 ESV bibles... 2 do not, 1 does. It doesn't change the fact that they translate the way that they do. It is well documented what I am talking about in the video.

@missinglink_eth Месяц назад

@@sam_burke You literally said aound 16:20 "I know how disingenuous it can feel" about the ESV. That sounds like personal bias, not well documented proof that they lean complementarian.

@sam_burke Месяц назад

@@missinglink_eth It is a personal take and bias, and I acknowledge that, but that does not discount what I am talking about nor does it do away with the history of why the ESV was commissioned. The ESV is a revision of the RSV, and it stands in stark contrast to both the NIV... but more importantly, the NRSV. What is the main contrast? Gender inclusivity and complementarian theology. The main original translation team and commissioning team came out very strongly against Zondervan for wanting to publish a version of the Bible that was gender inclusive in the 1990's and then came out with the ESV a few years later. That is the documented story I am talking about. The company that puts out the ESV, Crossway, is very much tied to the Center for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, a VERY complementarian organization... who just so happened to scathe at the 2011 NIV and promote the ESV. You can look up the names of the main translators and those who endorse the ESV... and you will see a trend. And just because a woman or two was on the translation team, does not mean that they don't lean complementarian as well. This has been written about over and over and over again in the public square, and some of the apologist attempts to quiet it with "that isn't really it" or "this is a myth" are either uninformed about the translation's beginnings, or are trying to use an apologetic to say "that isn't what they did." There was a reason that guys like Mark Driscoll and John Piper, to name a couple, came out in strong support for the ESV when it launched. And listen, I was a pretty strong complementarian in the early 2000's and taught this theology until I starting studying greek and hebrew at a graduate level. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. And when someone shows and tells you who they are, you should probably believe them.

@missinglink_eth Месяц назад

@@sam_burke thank you for the detailed and thoughtful response. I read the ESV, NIV, and NRSV (among others) and am thankful there are so many good English translations. When I see something different in one vs the other I take that as an opportunity to dig in more and find out why one translation team took a different approach. I can't read Hebrew or Greek so I have to rely on interlinear bibles, study bibles, and commentaries as well as people on YT that do know the languages. I like to listen to people from egalitarian and complementarian views so I listen to people like JM (disciple dojo) and Mark Ward - they have both talked about this subject and neither, to my knowledge, think the ESV is a bad translation. If you have recommendations, please share them. Back to the original topic. I fully agree the folks at Crossway are complementarian and that is why you will see brothers everywhere instead of brothers and sisters. Is this your only beef with the ESV or do you think they impose that theology in places like Timothy and Titus? Lastly, I don't know that I am getting your point in the last sentence about "probably believing them".

@sam_burke Месяц назад

@@missinglink_ethif you have a lot of time on your hands, this is THE definitive proof that the ESV was born out of the “gender-neutral” controversy and rooted in complementarian theology: baylyblog.com/blog/2011/03/more-documentation-origin-esv

@guymontag349 Месяц назад

Thanks for the video, Sam. I share your views about the ESV and the NIV2011. I have read the KJV, NKJV, NASB1995, ESV, NLT, and NIV2011. While the NKJV is probably my favorite translation, I also very much enjoyed reading the NASB1995 and look forward to reading the NASB2020 later this summer. And because I hear so many good things about the CSB these days, I also plan to read it in the near future. I'd be very interested to know more about your views on the CSB. Perhaps you could do a video about it sometime?

@sam_burke Месяц назад

thanks for the comment. I may do a deep dive into the CSB to be able to give a more full review of it. Like I said in the video, however, I don't really reference it a lot. In my context, our church uses the NIV and I study mostly from the greek and hebrew and reference the NRSV, NIV, and, occasionally, the TR greek text. Because of that, I don't really pick up the CSB much.

@terrellking4174 Месяц назад

⁠praise the Lord brother shouldn’t we as believers only read the KJV I noticed that the kjv uses thee For singular person pronouns and you for plural pronouns which keeps the Bible accurate I notice modern Bibles use you for singular and plural person pronouns with can lead to misinterpretation of the Bible what are your thoughts

@sam_burke Месяц назад

@@terrellking4174 I use both critical texts and TR (KJV/NKJV). I use KJV devotional because it is the Bible that I grew up with… but I use NASB and NRSV for study (Greek and Hebrew texts first, though), and NIV for preaching (because that is the most accessible for our church congregation)

@terrellking4174 Месяц назад

Thank you pastor with all these versions won’t we bring confusion within the body of Christ

@sam_burke Месяц назад

@@terrellking4174 sometimes yes… but, for the most part, if you put these Bibles side by side, verse by verse, you’ll see that they usually line up very well in most cases. To see this head over to www.kjvparallelbible.org. That website is done by a guy named Mark Ward who is a Bob Jones University. Grad (undergrad degree) and a former KJV only advocate.

@SoberNSavedByGodsGrace 24 дня назад

If you don't really have an opinion on the csb I'm curious why include it in this video rather than keep it only about the ESV and nasb which you do have a opinion on which would make more sense....

@sam_burke 24 дня назад

Because in the video before this, I disagreed with how the CSB translated a verse… And somebody asked me my opinion on the CSB. I’m actually taking this whole month to do a deep dive into it personally and then give it a fair review.

@SoberNSavedByGodsGrace 22 дня назад

@@sam_burke sounds good meant no offense with my question just was jarring and tried to make sense of it....look forward to your feedback.

@timstevenson9585 Месяц назад

What are your thoughts on the NET Bible Full-Notes Edition?

@sam_burke Месяц назад

TBH… I don’t have one. I do know, however, that the ESV used the scholarship for translating certain prepositions in a minority way (not the standard way that translators normally do) that the NET footnotes, so there is a debate about that. Other than that I don’t have an informed opinion on it.

@timstevenson9585 Месяц назад

Gotcha. What is your main and preferred Bible translation?

@sam_burke Месяц назад

@@timstevenson9585 I use the NIV with my congregation, b/c that is the translation they are most familiar with. My personal study bounces back and forth between NASB 95 and NRSV (not UE) and Greek (critical texts) and Hebrew (JPS Tanakh)

@fnjesusfreak 25 дней назад

I find a lot of translations problematic because they have an obvious bent. Some of them in particular gall me, and I won't touch them (e.g., the LSB). That said, I've often found that some places where a lot of translations use neutral language - the original isn't just masculine, it goes out of its way to be masculine, and using neutral language actually affects the meaning. I have no problem using neutral language in my own translation (faulty as it can be at times), but I use it a lot less than other modern translations.

@fnjesusfreak 25 дней назад

To clarify: I usually translate from Latin. As a particular example I might translate the Latin word "homo" as "person", "mankind", "mere mortal"... but "vir" is ALWAYS "man". This results in very specific renderings in, e.g., Psalm 1.1 ("Blessed is the _man_ who does not abide in the counsel of the godless...", reflecting Latin "vir").

@sam_burke 25 дней назад

@@fnjesusfreak I think the best practice with translating is to check the context for the most likely reading. I am not for a sweeping gender neutral, but definitely for where it obviously makes sense. And I’ve heard both good and bad about the LSB… the good being that it sticks relatively close to both NASB 95 and the literal Hebrew and Greek and they noted in the front their reasoning for doing so was to allow the pastor/teacher to read it as written and use their own interpretation… and the bad is usually tied to the fact that it was The Masters Seminary team and that this translation is tied to John MacArthur.

@scottmcmullen6782 Месяц назад

Are you likewise going to excoriate the SBL for the "agenda-driven translation choices" in the NRSVue? They essentially do the same thing the ESV translators did, though in different directions. Hence, why I stick with the RSV.

@sam_burke Месяц назад

Ya.. I didn’t even pick one of those up. I use the NRSV in the 5th edition of the NOAB for study and notes, etc… but some of the translation leaps in the UE are, in my opinion, trying to lead the reader towards a destination, too. I’ll have to get my hands on an SBL… even though I’ll probably never use it.

@scottmcmullen6782 Месяц назад

@@sam_burke Cool. I have a cheap knockoff of a Thomas Nelson bible with the 1952 RSV and an NOAB (1) with the 1971 RSV. Contemplating getting an ecumenical RSV NOAB with the deuterocanonicals (while they're available and still in print). Maybe it's just me, but it seems as if the translation teams have gone off the rails with "agenda-driven translation". Not really a fan of either the NRSV (1989 or ue) or the ESV.

@sam_burke Месяц назад

@@scottmcmullen6782 Ya... the NRSV is fine for me as long as I have my Hebrew and Greek texts next to it. I'm actually going to be doing a deep dive over the next month into the CSB... I don't think I've really given it a fair shake... we'll see. As for agenda driven translations... it is not surprising. We live in an agenda driven world (especially in the USA) with agenda driven culture wars... of course it is going to end up being reflected in translations.

@linjicakonikon7666 17 дней назад

I finally went back to the KJV. It's the only translation I trust and respect.

@KA2HRO 21 день назад

I’m an average Joe near the end of life and I find these RU-vid videos a bit depressing. Why? Because the importance of going on and on about what version is good or bad pales compared to the importance of actual making a difference in the life of someone who is homeless or someone who is just feeling lonely. What a difference we could make if we actually took the time to do the things that Jesus said we should instead of worrying about how he said it. Matthew 25:37-40 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Now I’m sure all you brainiacs who’ve come upon my poorly written comment could squash me like a bug. The importance of knowing what version to read is of utmost importance! I’m sure it does have its place. But I think most people who find themselves homeless and lonely would choose a simple conversation over hearing why one Bible version is better than another. This of course is just my opinion. Please don’t bite my head off. 🙂

@sam_burke 21 день назад

I totally hear you… but I will take what you said a step further… the ideology that is tucked away in some of this can be used by people with bad intentions to oppress women and to treat them inequitably. As a pastor, I have seen this firsthand and it has caused many problems and has led, in some cases, to abuse.

@WilliamKister Месяц назад

The Bible is pretty straight forward in being complementarian in roles of authority(especially within marriage), although we are equal in the eyes of God. Just like we are all equal as humans but the manager of a company or a government has authority of those that are under their stewardship. Authority is something that God established and is supported throughout the Bible, especially in Romans and 1 Peter.

@thedungeon1288 23 дня назад

I have some confusion about this video that I might not have if I were talking person to person. I do not really have a huge problem with using “they” when the text says “he” but I would prefer that it says “he”. So does my wife and mother. My mother is diehard NASB 1995 but will not get 2020 version because of the gender neutrality. Here are a few of my thoughts. If I talk to a group of people that are 50/50 male/female and I say “hey you guys,” the woman still understand that I was still addressing them as well just because I did not use gender inclusive language. So if women can already understand when they are inherently are included and when they are not by the context then why change it. It is hard to say something is word for word translation if you change the words. I would also say that it definitely appears that the scripture does have some patriarchal leanings and I do not see how we get around that nor do I think we should try. Some of that is cultural for sure and some it is not. I would also need more understanding/clarification on why you said that the ESV might make people think that God is a man. I mean God the Father is definitely male. So what do you mean about that?

@sam_burke 23 дня назад

a couple of things... 1) the use of adelphoi (brothers) in greek has traditionally been translated in the masculine plural. The move to "brothers and sisters" was a move to help us realize that it isn't just masculine... That is a small part of the gender-neutral argument. 2) The bigger issue for me is that, over and over again, they continue to make "decisions" that lead someone to think that, from creation, patriarchy was always the design. For example (and I didn't get into it in the video because I didn't want to stir up a huge controversy at my church) Genesis 3:16 says "your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." That is how the hebrew literally reads. It means that, because of sin and the curse, husband and wife relationships are now broken. She will try to rule him. He will rule over her. and on and on it goes. Clearly meaning, IMHO, that patriarchy is the result of brokenness and sin. And that is how Paul can say in Gal. 3 that, "in Christ, there is no male or female." why? Because the curse is broken. The ESV translates Genesis 3:16 "your desire will be "contrary" to your husband, but he shall rule over you." they footnote that it could be read "or toward" (as it should be) but stay with contrary. Why? Because their theology says that the man has been in charge since day one of the woman, and her sin will cause her to be contrary to her husbands leading and ruling. that his ruling over her isn't a result of the fall... but her sin is. This is what caused so many to question why they were inserting their complementarian theological interpretations into the scriptures. A quick google search will bring up rebuttal after rebuttal of this. And while some theology of the new testament clearly leans male about God... and Jesus using "father" as a qualifier... what we discover is that God is neither male nor female. God is spirit... as Jesus also said. God also has feminine attributes throughout the scriptures... but if you are conditioned to think a certain way, you will dismiss all of that. We see that a lot with certain circles... and it ultimately becomes destructive to our sisters in Christ. My question is this: In the eternal state, will men rule over women? If not, why would they have before the fall? This is why egalitarians are hesitant about the ESV. I totally understand the complentarian way of reading scripture. That was how I viewed it for 26 years of my life.

@Mike_W78 Месяц назад

I find it funny you admit that the NIV was changed to appeal to modern ideas but dont think that its trying to make you think a certain way. The ESV is closer to the original than the NIV 2011.

@sam_burke Месяц назад

Because the NIV told us what it wanted to do and then did it… and their updates reflect, in my opinion, how language has evolved and changed and how we use certain language today and how that mirrors the intent of language 2000 years ago. The ESV… while sticking to the “literal” word for word (I would argue that they do that for the most part, and then depart in a few spots that highlight that they will do that as long as it fits their framework) shows no growth in understanding of the evolving of language to fit our current understanding. This is only 1/2 of my beef with the ESV. It’s more about how they rolled it out and denied what they were doing. I posted another video on that. That is way more of my heartburn with it.

@Mike_W78 Месяц назад

@@sam_burke I understand and knew the decision behind the ESV to stay with a traditional view of wording. I don’t see this as a bad thing. We should keep the biblical text as close to the originals as possible to protect it from modern corrupt of ideas. It’s some of the problems with the church today honestly. To weak and scared to boldly proclaim truths. Scared it might hurt people’s feelings with truths that go counter to our modern culture. Not to be used as a cudgel but not to bend to the will of the world either.

@craigime 29 дней назад

The NIV also has the problems you havr with the ESV

@sam_burke 29 дней назад

I am aware of the NIV's issues as well, except the NIV leans the text more evangelical. The NIV just happens to be the Bible that the church I am a pastor at uses. I use it for teaching and for these videos because it is one of the most accessible for the modern person, but have a heavy hand on the hebrew and greek to correct it. In my own personal study, I use NRSV and NASB 95 more than any other.

@user-kc7xk6wy2z 10 дней назад

Pretty much all modern translators being their own theology to the text, unfortunately. Take the CSB. In Genesis 1:5 they use the phrase "one day" instead of "the first day", perhaps reflecting a belief in billions of years and a "recreation" account? They literally translate that differently to every other modern translation out there. Why not, except to incorporate their own opinion into the text?

@sam_burke 10 дней назад

Ya… a lot of translations do this. The CSB is not a terrible translation, but it can be pretty all over the place. I think they were trying to reflect the literal Hebrew, since it says something like “day one..” What is awkward is they don’t follow their own pattern., and day two is “the second day.” They should have just said “the first day.” And it would have been more of a functional equivalent rendering of the Hebrew. I am going to review the CSB next week in a video, and one of my main observations is that it feels like the translators were all over the place with what they wanted to do formal vs. functional.

@bikeknight54 Месяц назад

All translation is interpretation. No English translation will satisfy the reader who feels the need for an exact unfiltered photograph of the original. If anyone is that concerned about translation accuracy should learn Greek. Then they will realize they are translating/interpreting the Greek to English in their head thus nullifying their objective to be objective.

@sam_burke Месяц назад

I totally agree with this statement. Anyone who translates has to make choices… my problem with the ESV has more to do with the fact that they weren’t forthright with why they used their theological bias in translating… and when they got questioned about it, they gaslighted everyone by saying it wasn’t what they were doing, while people in their own camp said that was explicitly what they were doing.

@bikeknight54 Месяц назад

@@sam_burke I agree with you, Sam. My reply wasn’t directed at you. Apologies if it seemed to be a critique of your video. It wasn’t. It was directed more generally for those who obsess over micro inaccuracies in their English translations undermining their wholehearted trust in the Bible. God created confusion of language but certainly didn’t leave his people without the ability to understand his Word in their own native tongue. I was converted reading the wonderful KJV (read all of the KJVO materials at the time 🙄), switched to the original NASB when it came out, then the NIV in the 80’s. I even find the NRSV excellent in its English readability. All this to say, English readers are the most blessed in Christian history having such abundant resources to study God‘s word. Many cultures cry out for a single dynamic equivalent version in their own language, yet we have the luxury of debating the nuances of a dozen excellent translations. I love comparing translations and their accompanying theories which is why I enjoy your video, but I hope for those who are anxious about what they’re reading will have peace in the knowledge they can trust any number of available versions and even, like us, use a variety to get a fuller sense of the text. Thanks, Sam!

@sam_burke Месяц назад

@@bikeknight54 no worries at all. I did not read your response as a critique. I just wanted to explain some of the comments in this video because there were other commenters who were saying things like “well that’s just your opinion so I ended up creating a whole other video to show that it wasn’t just my opinion. and I totally agree about the wealth of English translations.

@rcboyd9 Месяц назад

I think the Bible teaches complementarian, but not arrogance. Too much arrogance in my “camp”. Lead ur wives well with love, and I believe they are hard wired to follow you.. after they trust you. Blurring gender lines is not the answer but elevating men because they’re.. men.. isn’t either imo

@sam_burke Месяц назад

I would agree about many complementarians. Like I said, I don’t have issues with people who read the Bible this way… if it is done in charity. I, personally don’t see it that way from the beginning of the scriptures, but I’m not going to start a huge fight over it. I also don’t see a blurred gender line. I see distinct in gender, but equal in function male and female. I said in another video about Gen. 2, the idea behind “helper suitable” (ezer kenegdo in Hebrew) is more of a “rescuing helper who is fully compatible and equal to” the man… not a subservient helper as has been stated often from extreme complementarian theologians. I see that because of how the word ezer is used over and over again in the Hebrew Bible, especially when used of YHWH. And kenegdo does not mean complementary in role (just suitable) it means something more like “equally compatible.”

@sqwearl1392 12 дней назад

Any examples are completely missing from this very long overly redundant assertion. NIV snuck their ideas into the 2011. You claim the ESV intentionally did the very same thing the NIV did. The ESV even explains why they translaate junia is well known TO the apostles in their notes. So youre toats-cool when NIV says what you like and calling ESV disingenuous 56 times in a row when they do the same thing. Thiss video is a terrible waste of time. Junia is the ONLY example and its well documented why the dative form equates to "well known to" rather than "well known of" and even your own favorite translations acknowledged this possible rendering.

@sam_burke 12 дней назад

Genesis 316. That was the most flagrant hat tip in this entire translation to what they were doing… but I digress. My main issue with the ESV is less about the lack of gender inclusivity, and more about why they were translating this in the first place. I mean, ask yourself… Why am I OK with the NASB 95 if that’s my main argument? I clarified my reasoning on my follow up video to this. I think they made it absolutely clear that they wanted to replace the NIV as the evangelical standard… But my problem with that is that the evangelical church is a pretty big tent, and the theology undergirding the ESV does not represent that big tent. Everyone who was either calling for the translation or on the original translation team was a confessional evangelical complementarian leaning male. This represents a fraction of the evangelical church. So why should their theology be the one that represents evangelicalism? And them siding with the, against the consensus grain, dative/preposition exception from Wallace and Burer is not a great argument. Don’t get me wrong, Wallace has been instrumental in my understanding of Greek… but they got schooled by biblical scholars after they came out with their position. So that just makes me scratch my head as to why translation teams would choose to go with that scholarship knowing they will get scrutinized for it, unless it helps their translation/interpretive argument.

@theworldtomorrow3960 Месяц назад

Well here is wisdom for those who really want the truth… there’s no such thing as a perfect translation when it comes to interpretation of ancient languages that are no longer are In everyday use. Many of the Hebrew, Aramaic , and Greek languages have been updated over the centuries, that includes all languages. Next, most of the modern translations are from Wescot and Hort manuscripts (Alexandrian text) which are corrupt, and you are correct when you say that these new translations are done with biased theology instead of just accurately translating the manuscript. Look at II Samuel 21:19, who killed Goliath? Did Goliath die twice, or was there another Goliath I don’t know about? Some of the new translations get this passage and many others wrong. In order for any new translation to be copyrighted it must have at least 10% difference from other translations. KJV is the only translation that doesn’t have all of these issues, and it’s a wonderful translation. Yes, many of the phrases must be updated because it old English and some of the words mean something different than they did back then. So, many of the newer translations are biased with their interpretations and use the corrupt manuscripts, if only they used and translated the new versions the way KJV translators used and did then this will not be an issue. There’s nothing wrong to read the newer versions for general knowledge and use, but for true deep study KJV and NKJV are the only ones I recommend.

@Mike_W78 Месяц назад

The KJV has its own problems. Mainly using newer manuscripts that had errors in them. Which more modern versions have fixed because of the discovery of older manuscripts. Going back to your first sentence. Nothing is perfect. The KJV is a lovely translation but compared to more modern versions its not as good.

@theworldtomorrow3960 Месяц назад

@@Mike_W78: I disagree to some degree. The older manuscripts are Alexandrian. Alexandrian manuscripts are corrupted and unreliable. I do agree that KJV is not perfect, any translation is not perfect, but all the words and sentences are in KJV unlike newer versions. Some of the words in KJV are old English and must be updated, like the word “mansions” in the 1600 the word mansion meant a room, an abode, a space, but today it means a fancy luxurious house or a very fancy structure, however it’s not a mistranslation by the KJV translators. There are are places in KJV that the phrases must be updated as well, but it’s not a corrupt version. Again, there’s nothing wrong with studying and reading newer versions, but for accurate and deep study KJV so far is the best because nothing is missing, every word is present as they must be.

@Mike_W78 Месяц назад

@@theworldtomorrow3960 so you believe that the newer manuscripts with scribal additions and errors that added verses into the KJV that are not present in older manuscripts is a good thing? There are multiple passages that we know for a fact we’re added in by scribes did not exist in the originals. We know because thousands of older manuscripts don’t include them.

@theworldtomorrow3960 Месяц назад

@@Mike_W78: Friend, older manuscripts are Alexandrian from Egypt. They are unreliable, they are corrupt in several places. The actual original manuscripts have pretty much rotted and destroyed. When something is constantly used it will ware out, so copies are made and eventually they ware out and the cycle continues. So, there are several manuscripts, but the Alexandrian manuscripts are the older manuscripts and those who were involved with translations…etc knew that they are unreliable, that is why they have lasted for so long, because of the lack of use. Again, don’t so get me wrong, as I said before, there’s no such thing as a perfect translation, but KJV is the much better translation from them all because the translators didn’t delete or omit words or passages. There is a place in the KJV that a passage was added for clarification… “…the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they are one…,” but by and large the KJV is far more reliable than others. Read my original comment, the first comment I wrote, read it carefully, I explained some of the reasons as to why for deep study only the KJV is the most reliable. There are several places that I’ve noticed in the NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT that the passages when compared to the KJV are not the same at all, in fact the translations changed the whole meaning because they have used the Alexandrian text, that are unreliable. I’ve been at this for a very long time, and it’s very disappointing to see that the modern translators didn’t follow what the KJV translators did. Remember, in order for a translation to be copyrighted (for profit, money 💰) it must have at least 10% difference from other translations, but the KJV doesn’t have a copyright. There’s a lot more, but I really don’t have the time to explain further, but it’s really up to you, whatever suits you best. Blessings.

@theworldtomorrow3960 Месяц назад

@@Mike_W78: Friend, older manuscript doesn’t mean better or more accurate. Just about all of the older manuscripts are Alexandrian which are corrupted, passages are either changed or a phrase is omitted. The reason older manuscripts are still in existence is because early on those who did their homework and research found that these older manuscripts are not reliable and hardly anyone who knew the truth used them, and when you don’t keep on using something then that object lasts much much longer, so that’s why these older manuscripts are still in existence. Blessings.

@raysherrod9322 22 дня назад

You sound like the KJV only bible thumpers. There are many good things about each translations you been talking about. Any Pastor such not put down but try and get people to read the Bible. Myself I am still looking for that translation that said you have to pay tithes today.

@sam_burke 22 дня назад

My only real critique in this video is of the ESV translation. I have a whole list of reasons for that. This video only scratches the surface of it. I use several English translations including the NASB 95 that I talked about in this video… and am currently doing a deep dive into the CSB that I talked about in this video as well. I have another video where I talk about a lot of translations and then which ones I prefer to use… so, no, I am not like the KJV only crowd. I am more like the ESV never crowd. And ya… no mention of tithing in the NT… the NT Jewish Christians would have likely still brought their tithes to the temple, and were very generous with their possessions with one another… and the NT gentile Christians were encouraged just to be generous with their possessions.